Know Your 'Rafale'

[p2prada]

Refer to Brazilian figues on defesanet maybe?

Turns out the unit price of the Rafale was $85.5 Million while that of Typhoon was $124 Million in 2012.

 

[Zebra]

[HR][/HR]

Wouldn't have been shortlisted if it couldn't.

Watch this.....I can't see BR Forum, I am a member there, but still I don't know why I can't see it on my screen.

Bharat Rakshak "¢ View topic - MRCA News and Discussion
forums.bharat-rakshak.com "º ... "º Military Issues & History Forum
Jun 20, 2010 - 40 posts - "Ž19 authors
If the decision is confirmed, Saab is in trouble because the Gripen NG is the .... AFAIK rafale dint pass te high altitude trials in leh where gripen passed .... The chairman and chief executive of Dassult said, "We know the Indian .

On top of it, only Gripen and Typhoon passed it.

Livefist: Four MMRCA Contenders Fail Leh Trials!

Remaining all brain fart...!

All of the jets in IAF service are capable of passing Leh trial.

Of course SH B3 is fictional. It is not even on the drawing board, it is a concept plane. You can say LCA Mk2 is more real than the Hyped Hornet.

Rafale is as real as can be.

If it is so, then let us consider Block 2. We are already late for MRCA, if we buy today then they can get upgrade Block 2 to Block 3 later on also.

Just order aircrafts Block 3 'ready'.

Any given day Boeing can supply F/A-18 earlier then the French. It will be always before time. Not like Scorpène drama.

Still it is dam cheaper. I posted its price here already. Arms will be cheap too.

 

[Zebra]

Refer to Brazilian figues on defesanet maybe?

What I am looking there..!

How French squeeze Indians. I wonder.

 

[p2prada]

Watch this.....I can't see BR Forum, I am a member there, but still I don't know why I can't see it on my screen.

Brain damage?

On top of it, only Gripen and Typhoon passed it.

Livefist: Four MMRCA Contenders Fail Leh Trials!

Remaining all brain fart...!

You don't have to clear it the first time. LCA also failed the first time. So, yeah, it's all brain fart.

LCA Tejas To Be Modified Further After Engine Failure

"Recently we went for high-altitude trials. The engine (of LCA) did not work at that altitude because it is a different cup of tea. Even the Su-30, when it was taken to Leh, it had to be modified. So, the LCA will have to be modified. It has to do the retrials," he was quoted as saying.

Both LCA and MKI failed the first time. After modifications, both passed. No different from Rafale.

If it is so, then let us consider Block 2. We are already late for MRCA, if we buy today then they can get upgrade Block 2 to Block 3 later on also.

Block 2 is much more obsolete in comparison. It was configured just after MKI was. Block 2 cannot simply be upgraded to Block 3.

Any given day Boeing can supply F/A-18 earlier then the French. It will be always before time. Not like Scorpène drama.

Buying obsolete equipment will be faster. That won't give Boeing additional points. Super Hornets are not as survivable against Chinese Flankers.

Still it is dam cheaper. I posted its price here already. Arms will be cheap too.

We can buy American arms for Rafale too. We are already doing that for Jaguar.

I suppose Indian lives are cheap too?

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

As a layman and tax payer I have few small doubts.

What is the total lifetime cost of Rafale per unit; including maintenance and future MLUs?

Since almost all big projects, including imports get delayed, what is the guarantee that there will not be few years delay in delivering completely made in India Rafale? The submarines to be supplied by the same country are long delayed. And MLUs of the fighters supplied by the same France are extremely costly.
And if they are delayed by even a small time frame of 5-6 years, they will be obsolete, since we want them only as a stopgap measure till FGFA, AMCA et al start flying.

So I have a suggestion- If the armed forces think we face serious threat of war in next ten years, and desperately need Rafales, Let us order 40 rafales first, and let them set up assembly line in India. By that time IAF can start using them and see if it satisfies its needs, and whether TOT is complete and Rafales are completely manufactured in India, and meanwhile also we will get some idea about the real cost, and most such doubts will be clear.
After that IAF and GOI should evaluate how many more rafales are needed and let them order as many as they want and can afford.

 

[Zebra]

Brain damage?

Could be. Even without even log in can't see it and on even public computers also, I tried it. Anyway again someone got brain damaged.

You don't have to clear it the first time. LCA also failed the first time. So, yeah, it's all brain fart.
LCA Tejas To Be Modified Further After Engine Failure

Hide all the negative points of Rafale, isn't it? Now that is because of brain damage, brain fart or even both, I wonder.

Gripen and Typhoon passed it in first time straight away. Are there any special "considerations" for Rafale...!....?

Both LCA and MKI failed the first time. After modifications, both passed. No different from Rafale.

I never heard that Rafale don't need to clear Leh trails at the first time. May be brain damaged zombies come up with their all new brain fart, as usual.

Block 2 is much more obsolete in comparison. It was configured just after MKI was. Block 2 cannot simply be upgraded to Block 3.
Buying obsolete equipment will be faster. That won't give Boeing additional points. Super Hornets are not as survivable against Chinese Flankers.
We can buy American arms for Rafale too. We are already doing that for Jaguar.
I suppose Indian lives are cheap too?

Every thing is obsolete for you other than the French supplied stuff. Nothing new here.

If we have to buy it from the Russians then every thing become obsolete other than that Russian product, even the French become obsolete at that part of time, bcz we have to buy it from Russians. That is how you go.

There is only one thing which can't go to Block 3, all other things can. Few things are already fitted on last batch supplied.

Whatever left they will come in new built aircrafts, we can see few more when the latest ordered aircrafts get rolled out.

Don't worry about any Flankers, F/A-18 G are electronic warfare fighters, they are designed to destroy enemy air defense radars.

The last batch gone were F/A-18 G Block 2 and now they are going for F/A-18 G Bloc-3.

I know that you know all these much better than me. But the "special considerations" towards French and Russians only is the trouble here.

 

[Zebra]

^^

Originally Posted by p2prada
Block 2 cannot simply be upgraded to Block 3.

Boeing Pitches 'Advanced Super Hornet' For Future Threats | Aviation International News

Dubai Air Show » 2013
November 15, 2013, 6:30 AM

..........Some or all of the upgrades could be retrofitted or included as forward fit options on the Super Hornet. Mike Gibbons, Boeing's F/A-18 and EA-18G program vice president, said the cost of developing the entire set, including an upgraded GE Aviation F414-GE-400 engine, would be "less than a billion dollars" and could be done by 2020. He estimated that the package would add 10 percent to $50 million flyaway cost of a Super Hornet.

***********************

Buddy, now if I say one more time........"some brain damaged zombie's brain fart" then you will get upset.

 

[sgarg]

The problem is that accurate costs for India for Rafale program are estimates at this point and only be known after contract signing.

The contract has not been signed yet.

There is inordinate delay in signing the contract. I predicted immediately after IAF declared Rafale as the final choice that Rafale will never arrive in India. Even if a contract is signed, it will not arrive. Not a single Rafale will ever join IAF.

Those who doubt this prediction should remember it and wait couple of years.

I believe that France is intentionally delaying the sub program, and the situation may not be too good with Mirage 2000 upgrade.

Indians forget that there is deep geo-politics in defence contracts. France is a Muslim friendly country. It has built a certain positioning for itself.

 

[Zebra]

^^

If it is true, than Jai Ho for India.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

lets scrap the Rafale MMRCA

Buy super su30MKI + Tejas Mk1 + Tejas Mk2 combo

 

[p2prada]

I never heard that Rafale don't need to clear Leh trails at the first time. May be brain damaged zombies come up with their all new brain fart, as usual.

You were either born retarded or acquired it by your long years of banging your head on your keyboard.

Leh trials are not difficult to clear. It is hyped up by the media. Every single aircraft in IAF inventory has failed Leh trials the first time. It is not a major benchmark for immediate clearance. Fuel pipes freeze overnight, so they are just modified for the second set of trials.

The point of Leh trials are not just for clearing the cold tests but to be table to take off from our highest airfield with a meaningful payload. Rafale's power and payload are plenty for that. Much more so than Gripen and Typhoon.

Every thing is obsolete for you other than the French supplied stuff. Nothing new here.

The French stuff is far better than what was offered by anybody else.

This is from Danish evaluations.

Only F-35 beats it and only by 2%.

Swiss evaluations.

Rafale beats both Typhoon and Gripen by a huge margin. And these are real evaluations of professional air forces, not the work of some analyst.

Don't worry about any Flankers, F/A-18 G are electronic warfare fighters, they are designed to destroy enemy air defense radars.

We don't have access to Growler. And Growler is obsolete. The USN has moved on to new generation systems.

Raytheon Company: Next Generation Jammer

Even this is not available to us.

And no, the Block 3 is supposed to be a new airframe like LCA Mk2. It is to become more advanced than the basic Block 2. Technically, I can put most of the electronics upgrades of FGFA on MKI also, that won't turn the MKI into FGFA. Just like how LCA Mk1 will never be equal to a LCA Mk2. Such simple things you need a functioning brain to understand.

 

[p2prada]

The problem is that accurate costs for India for Rafale program are estimates at this point and only be known after contract signing.

The unit price is known to be $85 Million. The actual contract cost will be higher.

But the rest of your post is... meh.

 

[Punya Pratap]

The inordinate deays with the MMRCA signing is partly due to the "Antony effect" and partly due to the MoD having to do something it has never done :

In the United Kingdom system, in the MoD, the acquisition wing has got educated cost engineers who are primarily aeronautical engineers from various disciplines in aeronautics. And they do a separate three-year study of costing. When they buy or induct a system, these guys are launched into various industries and they spend nearly a year, year and a half. Each item is costed, they give what will be the profit margin, how much is the technology – now technology has got a value which Matsy's (Matheswaran) saying. And we don't seem to include that. But an attempt has been made in the offset which Air Marshal Bhatia mentioned, that 50 percent offset is higher than what is given in the DPP.

The reason was that we wanted more of technology to come. But nobody's going to give you technology for the value of peanuts. So what has been done in the provision of offset is that there are multipliers.

In the sense that let us say that I want to make this coffee mug. He says sorry, I'll only give you this part of the technology, but I will not give you the technology of the handle. Because it is something new. If it is new then you ask him 'How much is it going to cost?' He'll say it'll actually cost you so much, which is, let's say, more than three times the cost of mug.

So you have to give him the value in the offset which is called a multiplier. And that, what Matsy was saying initially, that we want to have a team of aeronautical experts, scientists users"¦we have suggested that we should have a defense evaluation committee of all independent scientists and users so that they evaluate as to what should be the multiplier value for that level of technology. So if the committee feels that we can give him probably twice the cost of the whole cup, so that he can transfer all the technology right in the beginning.

So give him that value in the offset itself. Fine, I know the cost is only Rs. 10 but I will consider that you've done an offset of Rs. 30. That is the way to get the technology, that attempt has been made. But regrettably even the first contract where there's offset and multiplier, has not yet materialized. So intention of the Air Force and everybody else was to make it 50% so that instead of the 30% limit which is there in the DPP, one should be able to get more technology and use it laterally subsequently into aviation industry but neither has this committee been formed nor any provision exists in the offset. The largest number of people employed in the acquisition wing of the United Kingdom MoD are the cost engineers. When they give a valuation, it includes everything and then they ask for a quote. And these are the guys who give their confidential report, then the comparison is made in the L-1 or sometimes L-2.

They are civilians, it is a mix of both and this is the largest number of manpower. They reduced this total acquisition manpower from 18,000 to 15,000 three years back but the number of cost engineers has gone up from 400 to 600, this is after cutting down all the costs. The second thing is, that you will never get the money that you require to build the capability. There is a long term integrated perspective plan which takes onboard all three services and there's a bit of beating and churning, to see if you can find a match. So that exercise has taken a very long time but it is an approved project. Now the trouble is that this is only a capability building plan, it does not include the cost. The service headquarters are given an environment scan – as Mr. Misra said, environment scan is given by intelligence agencies, think tanks and other agencies, on what is the environment likely to be in the next fifteen years – and they are told what capability would you like to have to prevent those threats from becoming an actual war situation.

General Mehta and ACM Tyagi also said, you should be able to prevent war but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have capability to fight a war. So that decision is given to be made by the experts at the service headquarters. Now once they come, it is the duty of another organization to match it and see whether the country is going to afford it or not. But the costing part is not there in the LTIPP which is a fifteen year plan.

The second issue is that it is broken into three five-year plans. This five-year plan actually takes into consideration, the costing, which includes both capital and revenue expenditure. So this is when the crunching starts but you'll find when it is broken down into roll-on two year plan what is called the AAP, you put it to government, government is not able to commit the funds. You get to know only after the budget has been passed. So you have to go back and in a two-year period, what all do you prioritize. And that is why all these numbers go for a toss, because the government is not able to year mark the funds. And that is where everybody has been saying that you say it'll be 2% or 2.5% of the GDP"¦the calculation has also been done by one organization, that if the growth rate remains 6%, 8%, 10% or 12%, what should be the budget.

A very conservative figure that DG acquisitions and our organization did, what will happen at 6% and what will happen at 8% and those figures are the bottom and top of the budgeting. However the government is not even able to give that because it come to roughly 2.5 of the GDP, and slowly getting it up to 3% when the economy does well, this is the assumption we have made. But even that assumption you are not getting 2.5%, so all this plan etc., the number crunching goes for a toss, service headquarters have a very tough time. They have already calculated what capability and every two years do a review.

And therefore what we have been suggesting is that you don't match tank to tank, ship to ship, aircraft to aircraft. Please identify the vulnerability of China and create capability to puncture that vulnerability. But if you say that numbers have to be same then, because the technology is also improving, it is quite possible that where you required a 16 or 18 aircraft squadron or four ships of one type and ten ships of one type, maybe you can do that with lesser numbers, because technology costs more. Can you do something? But that will happen only if the government commits money, if I know what is going to be my budget for the next five years. So there is a gap between the perspective plan and the five year plan because perspective plan is only a capability build up.

We had to get this approved because otherwise there would have been a lot of financial restrictions because they would have said, sorry this country can't afford it. But then we turned around and said, you have said that you ought to have this kind of ability to fight or dissuade"¦you should be able to deter or fight. There's no mention"¦as somebody said that in China you have to occupy land and then you have to speak from a position of strength. That is not the government's intention as far as I know of the documents. Government only wants dissuasive deterrence and all this capability build up is being done or planned on that basis.

So it's not that there is no basis, there is a basis, the service headquarters are technically qualified, they are professionals to tell you that for meeting this requirement of the directive, what capability requires to be made in fifteen years.

Now whether the government gives it to you or not, that is another issue but it is an important issue. If I know that it is going to be 2% of the GDP, then I can cut my cloth right in the beginning and not plan something that is not achievable. The fault lies there, that we are not able to identify what should be the percentage of the GDP. And subsequently a time will come, as Air Marshal Tyagi was mentioning that revenue expenditure is not able to meet the allocation. I would very seriously think that once this capability building is committed, look at this allocation of capital versus revenue and reverse it, rather than 60-40, once you have got the fifteen year capability in line, then change this to make 60% in revenue and 40% in capital. Because now you have know over fifteen years, what is going to develop, or whatever you have got, the maintenance will cost more as the time passes.

So if I have to maintain let's say 10 MMRCA or one squadron, it's going to be much more than what you required for maintaining probably four squadrons of MiG 21 Bison because of the value of money etc., because technology costs. If you want to transfer technology in the beginning, the chap who is giving it to you, will charge you the development cost. But if you take it after five years then technology is not current, it might cost you less than what it is costing you today. But if you want it, it'll cost you.

Therefore this multiplier thing is included in the offset but regrettably it has not seen the daylight. It's all there, it has been factored because these things have come from service headquarters, defense finance DG acquisitions, one has worked on this for four to five years continuously to get this approved but the government can't commit the budget. If that happens, then we can stop making wish lists and just steer at the numbers and see how much should be the revenue expenditure for lifecycle cost.

Nobody is an expert in our lifecycle costing. You go to any other country, they have costing engineers, they are engineers primarily and they have been taught costing. We have submitted this to the government a long time ago, it's not a very big report and we could nearly get it approved but people change, there's no continuity. – Vice Admiral (retd.) Shekhar Sinha

I have highlighted the interesting bits from a very senior ex Service man who knows how the system works/does nt work!!

 

[Punya Pratap]

Government should buy Indian military hardware: Former Army chief Gen Shankar Roychowdhury
PTI Sep 12, 2014, 08.14PM IST


Tags:
transfer of technology|Indian military hardware|Indian Army|Gen Shankar Roychowdhury|Army Chief

(Former Army chief Gen Shankar"¦)
NEW DELHI: Former Army chief Gen Shankar Roychowdhury today emphasised on the need for developing indigenous technologies for achieving self reliance in the defence sector and urged the government to procure military hardware from Indian sources only.

"There should be a change in the attitude. The technologies should be developed and they would not come to us just like that. We have to work hard to get them," he said at the launch of his book "Decoding India's Defence Procurement".

"The blackbox will open, but what will come out remains the question...We have to be Indian and buy Indian," he added.

The editor of the book, General NC Vij emphasised on the need for development of technologies and weapons with the resources that were available with the country.

"Both the public and the private sector should work hand in hand for the upgradation of technologies in India. The budget has increased 15 per cent from the last government but the additional cost of the defence sector stretches up to USD 150 billion. However, the money provided for the budget is only USD 13 billion according to our study," he said.

I believe that a regulatory body should be set up to ensure a genuine 'Transfer of Technology' (TOT), he added.

The highlighted bit is interesting since it speaks about the lack of a genuine monitoring for ToT's and our available resources!

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

The problem is that accurate costs for India for Rafale program are estimates at this point and only be known after contract signing.

The contract has not been signed yet.

There is inordinate delay in signing the contract. I predicted immediately after IAF declared Rafale as the final choice that Rafale will never arrive in India. Even if a contract is signed, it will not arrive. Not a single Rafale will ever join IAF.

Those who doubt this prediction should remember it and wait couple of years.

I believe that France is intentionally delaying the sub program, and the situation may not be too good with Mirage 2000 upgrade.

Indians forget that there is deep geo-politics in defence contracts. France is a Muslim friendly country. It has built a certain positioning for itself.

Muslim friendly country? Thats your arguement?
Which country has banned burqa and headgears ?

France is one of the only true friends India actually has. They were the only western country that had no objections to India possessing Nuclear weapons.
Next time , get your facts right.

 

[Punya Pratap]

@ Casper @ Lordoftheunderworlds @ sgarg,

The fundamentals as illustrated by senior service men as mentioned in my previous posts clearly suggests the following :

A) We are all at sea when it comes to fixing the entire costs per unit including ToT & more importantly Life Cycle Costs since we dont have a system / organisation in place for doing this technical number crunching and only coz of MMRCA have we started undertaking it more out of necessity !

B) When it comes to ToT we dont have a system/organisation to monitor and ensure genuine ToT

C) Provision for Offsets should not be considered ToT of Critical Techs and they never are

D) The Black Box mentioned by Gen Shankar Roy Chowdhury is the MMRCA deal and Gen. NC Vij who heads the V.I.F think tank was also unable to fix a price for the entire Rafale AC life cycle AND the amount of Critical Technologies we will get through the ToT with France.

E) In depth ToT will also include the development cost to the OEM for the said Technologies and you will have to pay a bomb for it to a foreign nation so it is less for domestic R&D and more funds for Foreign R&D

F) Also and more importantly it highlights the defense budget allocation - how much you are left with Capital Acquisitions and what will it take to afford MMRCA

 

[Zebra]

You were either born retarded or acquired it by your long years of banging your head on your keyboard.

Leh trials are not difficult to clear. It is hyped up by the media. Every single aircraft in IAF inventory has failed Leh trials the first time. It is not a major benchmark for immediate clearance. Fuel pipes freeze overnight, so they are just modified for the second set of trials.

The point of Leh trials are not just for clearing the cold tests but to be table to take off from our highest airfield with a meaningful payload. Rafale's power and payload are plenty for that. Much more so than Gripen and Typhoon.

As I said earlier, hide all negative points of Rafale bcz of special considerations by some zombies.

Again and again, don't say anything against Rafale, typical attitude of you guys. It sucks.

If another aircraft failed it, then it will be big news, but super duper Rafale failed it, then that test is not so important. What a sick mind.

If it is not that major benchmark then why they kept in MRCA trails.

One of the CEO phoned to his company's people in India, on that same date when IAF took trial of his company's aircraft, just to confirm his product passed Leh trial or not. This tells us how important Leh trials are for IAF. All these news are already there on MRCA thread.

The French stuff is far better than what was offered by anybody else.
This is from Danish evaluations.
Only F-35 beats it and only by 2%.
Swiss evaluations.
Rafale beats both Typhoon and Gripen by a huge margin. And these are real evaluations of professional air forces, not the work of some analyst.

To hell with your other countrie's competitions and their evaluations.

If IAF or people like you have that balls then make it available for public the Indian MRCA evaluations. We all will see it. Then we can talk more.

Does you guys have that guts to do it.....! Prove your self first and make it public.

OR

Still special consideration's theory.

We don't have access to Growler. And Growler is obsolete. The USN has moved on to new generation systems.
Raytheon Company: Next Generation Jammer
Even this is not available to us.

Go through MRCA thread again, you will get that you are wrong here also. It was Boeing who offered design your own F/A-18 to India.
That was way before Rafale was announced as L1.

They are making a hybrid variant of Super Hornet. For that mater the Super Hornet itself will get equipped with new electronic signal detection capabilities, hence all new NG stuff are coming, I guess.

And no, the Block 3 is supposed to be a new airframe like LCA Mk2. It is to become more advanced than the basic Block 2. Technically, I can put most of the electronics upgrades of FGFA on MKI also, that won't turn the MKI into FGFA. Just like how LCA Mk1 will never be equal to a LCA Mk2. Such simple things you need a functioning brain to understand.

You call others but better you check your own functioning brain first, it looks it is dead now.

And read this.....Boeing Pushing Airframe Envelope | Defense News | defensenews.com

It doesn't say anything about "new airframe".

Still you think "new airframe" brain fart is fact then prove it. It will be news for me.

 

[p2prada]

As I said earlier, hide all negative points of Rafale bcz of special considerations by some zombies.

The only negative point of Rafale is the smaller radar, but not really a major drawback. Failing Leh trials is not a drawback.

Again and again, don't say anything against Rafale, typical attitude of you guys. It sucks.

You are looking for flaws which don't exist. Rafale's design considerations are only with respect to the other MRCA contenders. If you compare Rafale with SH, F-16, Typhoon, Gripen and Mig-35 then Rafale is flawless.

If you compare Rafale with Mig-31, FGFA, MKI, F-22, F-15 etc, then there are design limitations on Rafale that do not allow a fair comparison.

These are simple things understood by even simple people when they read it the first time. If all of this is going over your head, then I suggest a quick therapy consultation.

If another aircraft failed it, then it will be big news, but super duper Rafale failed it, then that test is not so important. What a sick mind.

I had said before also, Leh trials isn't a benchmark. It doesn't matter if it is LCA or Rafale. If something fails a trial you just ask them to repeat it.

If it is not that major benchmark then why they kept in MRCA trails.

Nobody is going to reject an aircraft just because it failed Leh trials.

One of the CEO phoned to his company's people in India, on that same date when IAF took trial of his company's aircraft, just to confirm his product passed Leh trial or not. This tells us how important Leh trials are for IAF. All these news are already there on MRCA thread.

LCA failed Leh trials too.

To hell with your other countrie's competitions and their evaluations.

You don't like facts.

If IAF or people like you have that balls then make it available for public the Indian MRCA evaluations. We all will see it. Then we can talk more.

Does you guys have that guts to do it.....! Prove your self first and make it public.

You may talk with your balls, but the IAF is a professional force. I don't see why they have to make MRCA evaluations public.

They are making a hybrid variant of Super Hornet. For that mater the Super Hornet itself will get equipped with new electronic signal detection capabilities, hence all new NG stuff are coming, I guess.

Blah blah blah. Don't talk about things you don't understand. The F-35 is a $40+ Billion R&D program. The Advanced Super Hornet is barely even worth a Billion dollars. The Rafale is quite equivalent to the F-35 program in comparison. Boeing has to invest as much as others have invested in F-35 or Rafale just to be equal.

That's why the Su-35, mig-35, F-15SE, SH B3, F-16IN etc are not such impressive programs compared to F-35 or Rafale.

Boeing simply plans to spend little money, modify parts of the aircraft, add some new avionics and sell it cheap. It is in no way an equivalent to Rafale.

You call others but better you check your own functioning brain first, it looks it is dead now.

And read this.....Boeing Pushing Airframe Envelope | Defense News | defensenews.com

It doesn't say anything about "new airframe".

Still you think "new airframe" brain fart is fact then prove it. It will be news for me.

You are still getting into things you don't understand. This is typical gutter mentality. You have an opinion on something you don't understand at all, instead of just reading and getting to understand simple concepts.

LCA Mk2, Gripen E, SH B2, F-16B60, Su-35, such aircraft are all treated an new airframes because old aircraft cannot be modified to make it equal to the new.

That's the reason why the Swedish govt has authorized a new build for Gripen E. They were convinced that old Gripen C cannot be modified to Gripen E.

In the same way LCA Mk1 cannot become LCA Mk2. F-16 B15 cannot become F-16B30. F-15C cannot become F-15E. Su-27 cannot become Su-35. You can't simply upgrade like that, hence they are new.

 

[ersakthivel]

Smaller radar in rafale doesn't matter much to IAF ??

News to me!!!!!

Then why did they give such a big radome dia for tejas?

 

[Pulkit]

LCA failed Leh trials too.

I won't say if Rafale failed or not
but i knoe Tejas can operate in leh

2013 Leh Winter Trials - Tejas - India's Light Combat Aircraft


@ersakthivel
Why and how can sm1 spread false news without thinking???? or am I wrong?