Know Your 'Rafale'

[methos]

Gripen's true performance:

http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

This whole stuff is dubios and being discussed in nearly every aviation forum (and other). E.g. the Swiss never tested the Gripen NG (a two seater), but only older versions (one seaters). Still this article, curiosly written in English, claims otherwise mentioning the MS21 (i.e. the NG version).
Furthermore the new aircrafts shoudl replace the F-5s not the F-18s. But this article compares the aircrafts sometimes with the F-18 and also contains ratings of tasks which should be assigned to the F-18, even if the Swiss would operate the Gripen/EF/Rafale as secondary aircraft.

 

[arundo]

This whole stuff is dubios and being discussed in nearly every aviation forum (and other). E.g. the Swiss never tested the Gripen NG (a two seater), but only older versions (one seaters). Still this article, curiosly written in English, claims otherwise mentioning the MS21 (i.e. the NG version).
Furthermore the new aircrafts shoudl replace the F-5s not the F-18s. But this article compares the aircrafts sometimes with the F-18 and also contains ratings of tasks which should be assigned to the F-18, even if the Swiss would operate the Gripen/EF/Rafale as secondary aircraft.

I do not think that we might assume that this is fake.
We will see what Mr. Uelli Maurer is going to say. If the report proves to be authentic, this is likely to be embarrassing for Armasuisse. Needless to say, that overall performance of Typhoon is far behind Rafale's according to that report and that Gripen does not meet the technical requirements. Could be a big disillusion for the supporters of the one and the other. Well, it still remains to be hoped for them, that it is a fake.

Looks pretty authentic to me and could have been written in English, since a copy was probably given to each of the 3 contenders.

 

[Armand2REP]

The Gripen does not meet the minimum requirements of air policing. This is the conclusion reached by two confidential reports Swiss Air Force which we publish extensive excerpts on our website. They contradict the statements of the Defence Minister Ueli Maurer which ensures that the aircraft Swedish "Helvetic meets military requirements." On November 30, at the press conference presenting the choice of the Federal Council, Maurer had even repeated six times.

His whole argument was based on the idea that the Gripen, but not a Ferrari, was at least a good VW Golf which would greatly needs of Switzerland. But this is not true. For judgment in the Air Force documents obtained by "The Sunday Morning" is clear: the Gripen, even with the 98 elements that will be improved (engine, radar, tank, etc..), "Remains unable to achieve minimum capabilities for all types of missions examined. "

These assessment reports are dated November 2009. The first is based on flight test, the second gives notes from the improvements announced by the manufacturers. Both are signed by the Chief of the Air Force and Markus Gygax were written in English ("The only way to be certain that Romands, Alemanni and Ticino to understand," says a senior.). Their authenticity is not disputed by the Swiss Air Force.


Unfit for air policing

Gaps they highlight are particularly serious with regard to air policing. Serious because if Switzerland can give up to have a jet capable of going to drop a big bomb on a target distance of 5000 km, it has to be able to ensure the sovereignty of its airspace. This is the only mission that the Air Force are certain of having to take the next few years, for example to ensure the no-fly zone during the Davos Forum.

Against all odds, it is precisely for this air policing mission of the score of MS21 Gripen is the worst. The MS21 is the technical name of the Gripen E / F that the Federal Council intends to buy, as confirmed by the spokesman for the Air Force Jürg Nussbaum. It was only 5.33 points out of 10, well below the minimum limit of 6.0 determined at the beginning of the evaluation process. The Eurofighter and Rafale reached 6.48 6.98. Note the Gripen is mainly due to a reaction time for takeoff emergency too slow ("Quick Reaction Alert ': score 4.7), the flight performance inadequacy (5.5) and endurance largely insufficient ( 3.8).

For all these areas, the minimum score of 6.0 was set based on the capabilities of the F/A-18 Helvetic currently operated. In short: the new aircraft which intends to equip Switzerland from 2016 to 3.1 billion francs, and which must remain in service until at least 2035, will be less efficient than the F/A-18, which came service in 1997 and regularly updated.

In the documents in our possession, the Swiss Air Force explained that if the Gripen MS21 still had to be chosen, "it should at least make his flight evaluation in Switzerland [before deciding to buy it], to test its effectiveness real in this important mission. " Because during tests from Emmen in 2008, only the old model of the aircraft had been tested under real conditions. And the latter (the Gripen C / D) had a less powerful engine and much less equipment.

Capabilities of future Gripen in terms of offensive air defense missions, exclusion of airspace or direct attack are also considered "average" by the Air Force (5.62). Including the range, the survivability or detection, which remain "weak". "The estimated effectiveness of MS21 Gripen remains insufficient [to accomplish these missions] with a good probability of success," the report said. The Eurofighter was rated 6.54 and 7.41 Rafale.

For missions of defense against aircraft (DCA) as well as ground attack, the capabilities of the Gripen chosen by the Federal Council have again been deemed inadequate, with scores of 5.68 and 5.62. "The probability that the Gripen MS21 is unable to carry out missions DCA is significant, say the Swiss Air Force evaluators. And overall effectiveness of the Gripen MS21 is insufficient to win air superiority in the future threats, beyond 2015. "

Lying by omission?

In November, snippets of the report we cite were revealed by the Basler Zeitung, which had failed, however, to publish documents. Maurer was then scanned these reproaches the back of his hand, explaining that it was the other reports that had, for example those having evaluated other areas such as industrial holdings or military cooperation. "We circulated reports, added the minister of defense, but it's not really the prime cuts."

Maurer has simply failed to mention that these reports evaluating the air quality, and we produce today, alone account for 60% of the total score of the evaluation, as confirmed by the spokesman of the Department defense, Silvia Steidle. Maurer also forgot to say that for most other assessment modules, the other two manufacturers competing were deemed equivalent or superior to Saab Gripen, as confirmed by several sources who had access to the final report.

To top it off, the risk related to financial and technical modernization of the aircraft is described as "high" by the Air Force. Again, this assessment contradicts the statements of the DDPS, who remains confident that this risk was "manageable."

Feeling sick at the base

At Armasuisse and assessment teams Air Force, there is a feeling of disgust following the choice of the Federal Council, based on financial criteria alone. Some even expect letters of resignation. And expect to be invited by parliamentarians to give explanations "If they ask me questions, I will answer them obviously very precisely," promises one of those people who wish to remain anonymous. How the Gripen was drafted for, ultimately, the stamp "meets the requirements of the company" and the overall score of 6.0 is still a mystery. "At the time of its delivery to the defense minister, the score of the military part of Gripen was insufficient, an official confirmed the assessment, also on condition of anonymity. Only the financial part allowed the Gripen to achieve the minimum score. "He too is eager to explain himself to MPs.

Christian Democrat Jean-Rene Fournier is shocked to read these documents: "This is serious. If there are no new elements, I do not see how one could buy the Gripen. "The Valais propose to the Committee on Security Policy of the Council of States, with which he sits tomorrow at 10 am at the parade of Bure, to join the subcommittee of the National to investigate how the assessment was conducted.

Environmentalist Vaud Luc Recordon is tougher still reading reports of the Air Force: "It feels like Ueli Maurer sent us on a wild goose chase. He offers to buy a Lada at the price of a Porsche. "In that case, he concludes, as many stick to F/A-18.

Faced with these criticisms, the DDPS refuses to comment on the findings of the evaluation. "Federal Councillor, he says in a written reply, informed on the results of the evaluation 30 November 2011, including notes and costs." He maintains that "the Gripen meets the military requirements .

Avion de combat: Ce qu'Ueli Maurer a caché - Suisse: Standard - lematin.ch

 

[Neil]

India has made powerful enemies by selecting Dassault

india is not likely to bow to Anglo-American pressure to revisit the MMRCA decision in favour of Dassault-Rafale. By deciding on the basis of technical parameters alone, India satisfied its own needs, but quite ignored the diplomatic fall out .Price negotiation is what remains of the crucial MMRCA deal. It's a complicated process. Nevertheless, it appears unlikely that the decision to buy the Rafale itself will be revisited. Given how drawn-out and difficult the choice was, the government is unlikely to add further controversy by admitting it made a mistake, which will be the consequence if the MMRCA competition is reopened. The selection apparently involved testing the platforms on around 600 odd technical parameters. This is the key argument made by proponents of the deal: that the deal was so carefully and technically handled that it should not be questioned.

But the premise that technical factors are all that matters is not defensible especially for such a large and politically important deal. While the technical qualifications are an important set of elements that should go into while making a decision, this has also brought to the fore how strategic factors were underplayed in this critical deal.

A decision made purely on technical parameters seems like the decision makers in India were opting for an easy, risk free option. This is understandable in the domestic political context. The single most important political concern today is about corruption in administrative decisions. Given the importance of this issue in public perception, and particularly given the many corruption scandals that have come out over the last year, it is not surprising that the government wants to play it safe. And the easiest way to play it safe is to leave political discretion out by letting the IAF make a purely technical decision.

Indian military services are known for their thoroughness in assessing weapons systems. Clearly the IAF did a good job of picking what was the best fighter from its perspective. But while the Rafale might have been the best from a

technical standpoint, it is not clear that it was diplomatically and strategically a good choice.

A strategic perspective should have looked at which of the countries fighting for the contract was most useful to India. This is not just about who wants good relations with India or who is a well-wisher because all of the competitors were good friends of India and were India's well-wishers.

Where they were different was in terms of which could do more for India. This should have been a purely cold, hard assessment. Such an assessment would have put the US and Russia as the top choices. While the European consortium and Sweden would probably have brought up in the back of this list, France would have been somewhere in the middle. It definitely has greater global weight than Sweden and probably a better bet than a consortium of several countries, but it would have been no match for the US or Russia.

Of course, this should not have been the only consideration. Strategic and diplomatic reasons alone should not decide which fighter jet was picked. India's decision-makers should have also looked at the different technical capabilities of the various competing planes. In fact, the final choice should have been a combination of the technical merits and the political and strategic requirements. And this is the key criticism if the manner in which India has chosen to make the deal — using only technical parameters to make a choice and ignoring diplomatic and strategic factors.

Considering how big this contract was, India could have received significant political benefits, which it stands to lose by making a technical decision. Even France could very well make the argument that there is no political quid pro quo for India choosing the Rafale because India itself claims that this was not a political choice. There is little reason why France has to give any political support for a decision that was purely technical in nature.

This leaves India in the politically the worst position possible — both the US and Russia, politically far more significant than France on global issues, are unhappy with India, but India is unlikely to get much benefit from France despite picking the French plane. And unlike Britain, which is also unhappy about the Indian decision, the US and Russia matter quite a lot in the global arena. So, India has effectively annoyed more important friends for nothing.

There are other factors in addition to the strategic factor that also needs closer examination. The cost factor itself is a serious issue. The unit cost of the plane is only one factor. The cost — acquisition, lifecycle and maintenance cost — should have been an important determinant in this decision. As against hundred odd Rafale, India could have procured many more Russian or US fighter jets for the same value. The Rafale option has cost India dearly both on the acquisition as well as the cost of spare parts.

Thus, though there may have been good reasons for picking the Rafale from a technical point of view, or even from a domestic political perspective, this is not enough. The choice should have at least considered the strategic implications in such a big contract.

That might still have led to the Rafale being picked, but it would have been a more defensible decision.

Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan was a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation Secretariat from 2003 to 2007.




India has made powerful enemies by selecting Dassault | idrw.org

 

[Cola]

Gripen performed worse than the legacy Hornets... how embarrassing. Of course Rafale dominates everything.

Of course, the Rafale dominates.
It's just difficult to see, where.
(really embarrassing thing is Rafale took same time to take off like Gripen D)

Armand I must give you, you got excellent (Louis de Funès) sense of humor, but I'm not sure if Indians will share the sentiment, once sh1t hits the fan.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Why is the video not embedding?

Anyway this interview is worth watching!

[video]http://www.defensenewstv.com/video.php?bctid=1445566330001[/video]

Mods please try to embed this video.

 

[p2prada]

This whole stuff is dubios and being discussed in nearly every aviation forum (and other). E.g. the Swiss never tested the Gripen NG (a two seater), but only older versions (one seaters). Still this article, curiosly written in English, claims otherwise mentioning the MS21 (i.e. the NG version).
Furthermore the new aircrafts shoudl replace the F-5s not the F-18s. But this article compares the aircrafts sometimes with the F-18 and also contains ratings of tasks which should be assigned to the F-18, even if the Swiss would operate the Gripen/EF/Rafale as secondary aircraft.

I have to agree here. But there are certain doubts to the validity of the claim that the NG cannot match up. Also, we don't know what was scored in order for the aircraft to be given the below points.

The red bar looks like they are talking about a more advanced configuration than the current ones. The same for Rafale and EF. So, we can assume they are talking about the NG.

But we know very little to jump to any conclusion. We know for sure Gripen was picked. We also know for sure that the Swiss air force isn't happy about the decision. However we can say that the Swiss govt will not over turn it's decision unless there is some scam in the making. This is clearly a Swedish victory.

We cannot forget even the Dutch valued the Rafale to be better than the Eurofighter. Supposedly only 2% less capable than F-35. I guess this was a paper evaluation.

 

[p2prada]

(really embarrassing thing is Rafale took same time to take off like Gripen D)

EFs take off is very impressive. All that raw power released at once is a sight to behold.

 

[nitesh]

This whole stuff is dubios and being discussed in nearly every aviation forum (and other). E.g. the Swiss never tested the Gripen NG (a two seater), but only older versions (one seaters). Still this article, curiosly written in English, claims otherwise mentioning the MS21 (i.e. the NG version).
Furthermore the new aircrafts shoudl replace the F-5s not the F-18s. But this article compares the aircrafts sometimes with the F-18 and also contains ratings of tasks which should be assigned to the F-18, even if the Swiss would operate the Gripen/EF/Rafale as secondary aircraft.

They didn't tested because NG claims are mostly on brochures, it may not see the light. Even in our trials the NG didn't came. Well, but the myth of Rafale not scoring well in A2A role is not true after all.

 

[vanadium]

Avion de combat: Ce qu'Ueli Maurer a caché - Suisse: Standard - lematin.ch

Who has leaked the document? French secret service?

It is gonna be hot tomorrow morning in Bern...

One thing is certain: the Swiss handling of the fighter evaluation has been abysmal and probably one of the worst I have ever seen. A true scandal! I am absolutely appalled.

 

[methos]

I have to agree here. But there are certain doubts to the validity of the claim that the NG cannot match up. Also, we don't know what was scored in order for the aircraft to be given the below points.

The red bar looks like they are talking about a more advanced configuration than the current ones. The same for Rafale and EF. So, we can assume they are talking about the NG.

But we know very little to jump to any conclusion. We know for sure Gripen was picked. We also know for sure that the Swiss air force isn't happy about the decision. However we can say that the Swiss govt will not over turn it's decision unless there is some scam in the making. This is clearly a Swedish victory.

We cannot forget even the Dutch valued the Rafale to be better than the Eurofighter. Supposedly only 2% less capable than F-35. I guess this was a paper evaluation.

Actually the green bars denote early flight evaluation in 2008 - then the evalutation was stopped for some time and the whole stuff was debatted again. After some time another evaluation was done a second time (red bars). At both times the Gripen wasn't tested in NG configuration, whereas the configuration and tests of EF and Rafale also remain unclear. I'm pretty sure that Tranche 1 EF (as operated by Austria) are less capable than late-tranch Rafale in nearly every aspect (and that early tranche Rafales are inferior in nearly every aspect too late tranche EF). What I am not sure is that late EF should be inferior to late Rafale or that late Gripen are inferior in most aspects than late EF/Rafale.. but the late Gripen was not tested.

F-35 is a stealh fighter, but that's it's only advantage over Rafale or EF. There are rumors that some British EF were capable of finding F-22s with their radars in a dogfight (due to the different angles of approaching) and locking their missiles on them. But that's just rumors.

Regarding the Dutch values: It all depends on the countries doctrine. France was once part of the joint-venture which ended up producing the EF. France left the group of countries which later produced the EF, because of their different needs. France didn't have up-to-date ground-attack crafts and therefore wanted an omnirole fighter. The other countries all had some pretty new ground-attack planes (in most countries the Tornado) and therefore wanted a proper air-superiority fighter, with ground-attack and recce missions being only a secondary feature.
Austria decided to adopt the EF (even if only second-hand ones from Germany), because Austria only needs aircrafts for the controll of the Austrian airspace. Therefore I jugde the decission to adopt the EF as a good one, even though I would prefer some top notch ones.
India didn't want an air-superiority fighter, but rather an omnirole aircraft. This is a point where the Rafale can score a lot, as other aircrafts (like the EF) are not suited fully for this role ATM (among others weapons and software integration will require some time).
The Swiss want a replacement for their F-5, which are light fighters. They are not designed for extensive recce or A2G missions. Curiosly the hosted "ratings", which are claimed to be official, include notes for A2G missions and recce. This is not what the Swiss F-5 are doing. The Gripen is very similar in performance in the categories where the Tigers were used when compared to the Rafale or EF - it would be worse, but not much. The Gripen NG would be better than the evaluated Gripen versions and it would be a two-seater like the Swiss F-5F (contrary to the evaluated Gripens).
The Dutch values might include a lot of different tasks where the Rafale can score and the EF can't ATM, like air-to-ground missions, recce etc. The F-35 would also be then top in strike missions, because of the ability to ignore enemy SAMs in most scenarios. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency once made a study about aircraft effectiveness against SU-35 eq. enemies. In this study the Rafale was rated below the F-15E, which was below the EF.
India decided to adopt the Rafale for various reasons. First of all they wanted capabilities the EF does not fully offer ATM, then France has a long-time partnership with India in case of aircrafts, the ToT is easier with just one country, Rafales will be delievered/can be assembled in case of war (the EF wouldn't/couldn't) and the Rafale could be used in combination with nukes as nuclear strike aircraft, which Germany wouldn't allow for the EF.
Like France also Germany once wanted to back out of the EF-programme, but for differnt reasons, Germany had to spend a trillion and some billions as costs of the reunification and therefore wanted a cheaper aircraft and the Soviet Union, the only theoretical threat for peace in (Middle) Europe, was dissovled. At this time Germany also thought about buying the Rafale or the Gripen, but both aircraft would loose their advantage of being cheaper than the EF, because Germany did pay a lot for developing the EF (wasted money if they would have chosen the Gripen or the Rafale). Germany stayed with the EF.

 

[methos]

They didn't tested because NG claims are mostly on brochures, it may not see the light. Even in our trials the NG didn't came. Well, but the myth of Rafale not scoring well in A2A role is not true after all.

Well, Gripen NG demonstrator (one-seater) was allegdly tested in India and Brazil... what does Indian sources say about this?
I am not saying that the Rafale is bad in A2A, but it is for sure not significantly better than the other contenders (e.g. the EF has better avionics and more A2A weapons integrated), which can not be said about the A2G role. As the F-5 was never significantly better in A2A than other aircraft of the same era, nothing speaks against replacing the F-5 with Gripens (both being "lighter" fighters than Rafale/EF).

 

[Armand2REP]

Rough week ahead for Swiss Gripen

This ends Gripen's hopes for a Suisse victory. Either Rafale wins or tender is cancelled. Better no one wins than Gripen. This spells the end of Eurocanard competition with Rafale being the victor. :thumb:

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Actually the green bars denote early flight evaluation in 2008 - then the evalutation was stopped for some time and the whole stuff was debatted again. After some time another evaluation was done a second time (red bars). At both times the Gripen wasn't tested in NG configuration, whereas the configuration and tests of EF and Rafale also remain unclear. I'm pretty sure that Tranche 1 EF (as operated by Austria) are less capable than late-tranch Rafale in nearly every aspect (and that early tranche Rafales are inferior in nearly every aspect too late tranche EF). What I am not sure is that late EF should be inferior to late Rafale or that late Gripen are inferior in most aspects than late EF/Rafale.. but the late Gripen was not tested.

I think the qualification for L1 tender in IAF means that the graph is right and the results with IAF may have been the same more or less. The Rafale(DF) did come out on top in most technical evaluations not to mention the Red-Flag exercise in Nellis AFB. The french made it a point to come there and face the heat, where F/A-18, F-16, Su-30MKI, Rafael and EF-2000 all of which went head to head. Lots of sore egos to i guess.

F-35 is a stealh fighter, but that's it's only advantage over Rafale or EF. There are rumors that some British EF were capable of finding F-22s with their radars in a dogfight (due to the different angles of approaching) and locking their missiles on them. But that's just rumors.

F-22 is a generation ahead cant compare 4th gen with 5gen. Even with avionics and Radar the F-22 got its AESA way ahead of EF or DF.

Regarding the Dutch values: It all depends on the countries doctrine. France was once part of the joint-venture which ended up producing the EF. France left the group of countries which later produced the EF, because of their different needs. France didn't have up-to-date ground-attack crafts and therefore wanted an omnirole fighter. The other countries all had some pretty new ground-attack planes (in most countries the Tornado) and therefore wanted a proper air-superiority fighter, with ground-attack and recce missions being only a secondary feature.
Austria decided to adopt the EF (even if only second-hand ones from Germany), because Austria only needs aircrafts for the controll of the Austrian airspace. Therefore I jugde the decission to adopt the EF as a good one, even though I would prefer some top notch ones.
India didn't want an air-superiority fighter, but rather an omnirole aircraft. This is a point where the Rafale can score a lot, as other aircrafts (like the EF) are not suited fully for this role ATM (among others weapons and software integration will require some time).
The Swiss want a replacement for their F-5, which are light fighters. They are not designed for extensive recce or A2G missions. Curiosly the hosted "ratings", which are claimed to be official, include notes for A2G missions and recce. This is not what the Swiss F-5 are doing. The Gripen is very similar in performance in the categories where the Tigers were used when compared to the Rafale or EF - it would be worse, but not much. The Gripen NG would be better than the evaluated Gripen versions and it would be a two-seater like the Swiss F-5F (contrary to the evaluated Gripens).
The Dutch values might include a lot of different tasks where the Rafale can score and the EF can't ATM, like air-to-ground missions, recce etc. The F-35 would also be then top in strike missions, because of the ability to ignore enemy SAMs in most scenarios. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency once made a study about aircraft effectiveness against SU-35 eq. enemies. In this study the Rafale was rated below the F-15E, which was below the EF.
India decided to adopt the Rafale for various reasons. First of all they wanted capabilities the EF does not fully offer ATM, then France has a long-time partnership with India in case of aircrafts, the ToT is easier with just one country, Rafales will be delievered/can be assembled in case of war (the EF wouldn't/couldn't) and the Rafale could be used in combination with nukes as nuclear strike aircraft, which Germany wouldn't allow for the EF.
Like France also Germany once wanted to back out of the EF-programme, but for differnt reasons, Germany had to spend a trillion and some billions as costs of the reunification and therefore wanted a cheaper aircraft and the Soviet Union, the only theoretical threat for peace in (Middle) Europe, was dissovled. At this time Germany also thought about buying the Rafale or the Gripen, but both aircraft would loose their advantage of being cheaper than the EF, because Germany did pay a lot for developing the EF (wasted money if they would have chosen the Gripen or the Rafale). Germany stayed with the EF.

[/QUOTE]

I think there where more reasons than just getting what the French AF wanted. Yes they did want a ground attack based multi-roll fighter but also because French wanted the M-88 engine to power the EF but when EF went their own way for the engine to it was some what the final nail in the coffin as far as French participation was concerned.

This doctrine of primary ground attack aircraft with multi-roll feature suits the IAF as well because we have the Su-30MKI and Mig-29UPG for air superiority. The aircraft that are retiring are the Mig-24 and 27 ground attack aircraft's which will be replaced. Guess going in with the DF must be the right choice as far as full filling the ground attack roll. The DF in that sense suits the IAFs needs perfectly in filling all the holes in its armor.

May i know which country are you from in the EU?

 

[methos]

That a generation ahead cant compare 4th gen with 5gen. Even with Radar the F-22 got its AESA way ahead of EF or Raf.

Aircraft generations are sometimes a joke. Early generations were pretty clear, as they were defined after these aircraft were already existing. But F-22 and F-35 were labelled to be 5th generation before they were finished. What if no other stealth fighter will be made in the next decade and new technology then available makes them a "6th generation fighter"... then F-22 and F-35 would be the only 5th generation aircrafts ever made.

May i know which country are you from in the EU?

I just changed from Austria to EU 5 mins ago...

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Aircraft generations are sometimes a joke. Early generations were pretty clear, as they were defined after these aircraft were already existing. But F-22 and F-35 were labelled to be 5th generation before they were finished. What if no other stealth fighter will be made in the next decade and new technology then available makes them a "6th generation fighter"... then F-22 and F-35 would be the only 5th generation aircrafts ever made.

I think the f-22 is definitely a generational leap. We can only classify based on features available on aircrafts, in that way the 3rd to 4th gen shift was even more dubious because the 3rd gen aircrafts can definitely become 4th gen if they had newer avionics but the 4th gen aircrafts can never become a 5th gen aircraft unless massive restructuring is done.

As for the f-22 and JSF being the only 5th gen aircraft is some what contested because the Pak-Fa and even the AMCA will be a reality and i think the AMCA will be a joint venture with France. Not to mention the j-20 in hushed tones..ssshhhhhh..

However i agree 6th gen is some what still undefined from the roll of an UAV.

I just changed from Austria to EU 5 mins ago...

lol..stick with Austria, it is a nice country and i like Arnold Schwarzenegger!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Will Brazil follow India's Rafale bet?

In a country where defence policy has traditionally not been a key aspect of overall foreign policy, seeing a former powerful Foreign Minister assume the Ministry of Defence is certain to raise some eyebrows. And so it happened when, in August 2011, President Dilma Rousseff chose Celso Amorim, the architect of Brazil's foreign policy under the Lula administration, to replace Nelson Jobim after the latter had openly questioned the capacity of several of his fellow cabinet members.

While Jobim was generally respected by the generals, several leading members of the armed forces voiced their concern about Amorim, who conservatives often accuse of being an anti-American ideologue. Yet no matter how one thinks about Amorim, there is a good possibility that the appointment of such a visible personality (and today's Foreign Minister's former boss) will boost the role of defence in Brazil's foreign policy.

Open tender experience

This may partly explain why Amorim's recent trip to India six weeks prior to the BRICS Summit in New Delhi has gained more media attention in both Brazil and India than Jobim's India trip a year earlier. Military ties between India and Brazil are growing, and India uses Brazilian Embraer aircraft for indigenous airborne early warning and control systems. Yet, for several other reasons, the timing made the trip special: only days before, India had announced that it would buy 126 French-made Rafale combat aircraft in a $11-billion deal.

In a somewhat unusual move, India agreed during Amorim's trip to share with Brazil some of its experiences of carrying out the open tender evaluation to select the best aircraft. This matters greatly to Brazil, as it is currently involved in a similar selection process. Brazil would like to buy 36 fighter jets, and the Rafale, F-18 and Gripen-NG are still in the race. Just as in India, the process was mired in controversy given its large size and the significant political implications. After President Lula seemed to favour the Rafale in 2009, the Dilma administration put the deal on hold in an effort to reduce public spending.

The big question now is how the decision to have Brazil study documents about India's selection process will affect the tender process in Brazil. India's purchase certainly makes the Rafale seem less risky. A decision to follow India's would not only boost ties between Brazil and France, but it would make India and Brazil the only two countries other than France to boast the Rafale jet, thus creating further potential for stronger ties in the area of military technology.

(Oliver Stuenkel is Professor of International Relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, in São Paulo, Brazil.)

The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Will Brazil follow India's Rafale bet?

 

[Armand2REP]

Rack up:

India = 200-300
Brasil = 100-120
ME = 120
Malaysia = 24
Suisse = 18

Its good times... lets see what future opportunities exist as F-35 continues bungling and other Eurocandards end up cancelled.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Rack up:

India = 200-300
Brasil = 100-120
ME = 120
Malaysia = 24
Suisse = 18

Its good times... lets see what future opportunities exist as F-35 continues bungling and other Eurocandards end up cancelled.

Huh? India 300, How so? Also Brazil 120? What is ME?

 

[Armand2REP]

Huh? India 300, How so? Also Brazil 120? What is ME?

India 200 MMRCA + 40 nuclear strike and 60 Navy, ME = UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Brasil orders expected to go up to 120.