Know Your 'Rafale'

[kr9]

They flew all the planes, So whats new? Most new might be in Mig-35..
Rafale also has nothing new than what was tested, most Rafale capabilities are in FUTURE and are being worked on. During the testing F/A-18 and F-16 had operational radar and rafale had a prototype, what changed?
One thing you do miss actually, During the testing IAF pilots were really impressed by the avionics package of F/A-18 and they went as clear as saying that F/A-18 had the best avionics package of all the competitors.
So as of now, as per IAF pilots who tested the planes. F/A-18 had better avionics package than even Rafale.,
So till the time the F3R upgrades are not fully integrated, till then at least F/A-18 has superior avionics package than Rafale and that is the IAF pilots saying so.

I do not support the expensive Rafale and I am biased and quite ignorant regarding the Hornet, but for the sake of argument about the F-18 avionics:--

Context is as important as user reviews.
Avionics won't be much help for the role that the IAF wants the F-18 to perform.

If it is intended to fill the Medium Multi-role gap, then F-18 is seriously lacking in thrust to weight, speed, rate of climb or maneuverability. With the new SAMs and radars that are coming into play, the Hornet won't survive long enough without the above characteristics to provide air cover over enemy territory for our MKIs or to use their multi-role capabilities.

Most new might be in Mig-35..

Like you said (and I understand you might not be against the Mig):--

The Mig-35 now has AESA and OLS (which can provide emission-less detection of up to 90 km for aerial objects including stealth aircraft and incoming missiles). In the IAF, it will also have R-77, R-27 ER, Derby, Astra and Astra 2 (by the time it is inducted). The Mig also boasts superiority in the capabilities mentioned in the above paragraph. It is also cheaper and has a slightly lower RCS than the Hornet.

So won't the hornet be a bad option, even against an F-16 or in the 4+ generation category. (in the IAF's context)???

I am making my case based on:--
http://www.aviatia.net/rafale-vs-f-18/
http://www.aviatia.net/dassault-rafale-vs-mig-35/

I would like to know your views on the comparison provided in these links.

PS: I also do not think that the Mig 35 was flown during the various flight testing (not sure on this).
PPS: I am a huge Mig supporter (should be apparent).

 

[Punya Pratap]

Udd

Dassault never involved in M88 dev. It's SNECMA job.

And where is Kaveri now? Probably with our help from a derivative of the M88 core, you may have a nice engine today.
Now Kaveri will be at least a turbo engine for ships and maybe for electrical generation powerplants.

Buddy, it was as a consortium that dassault was bidding for MMRCA and as a Whole this deal was a French circus from the very beginning. French were never going to part with engine tech and don't blame a company called Snecma coz the core was to be made in India not CKU or imported from France! The core of any jet engine is the single most complicated and critical tech hence if we were just going to borrow it from Snecma than it was as good as buying an engine off the shelf itself.
Thank God that NAK brown is out of the picture otherwise between him and the UPA govt Rafale was a done deal. Only reason present Indian govt approved negotiations for the 36 fly away jets is not to sour the strategic equation with French since some EU members are becoming hostile to India including that Congi waitress's country. Incidentally it's due to that country alone that Indian govt wasn't keen on Eurofighter!

 

[smestarz]

You Cannot rely on anyone, There is no guarantee that US would keep their words,
I don't know why people are hype about F16 and F18 which are started to phase out from every Air force

If we want some thing then we should work hard for it to achieve,
Instead of buying scrap planes like F16 and F18 better invest on AMCA

Based on what you said the first thing that needs to be done is stop the bickering of IAF and stop them from giving any stupid interviews. It is IAF itself which is hurting the efforts like saying
"We cannot fight two fronts with the planes we have "
I really would love to say... in that case why not leave the air force and we shall find worthy feet and butts to fill the very planes that India can afford its pilots

The second being "... there is no plan B ... " The way we see there are Plans B to Z...." but its IAF which is making job difficult

AMCA is in design phase, and by most sources, it will have its first flight in 2025,

India has less nos of Squadrons yes, but then we have made up these less nos by force multipliers like MiG-29 UPG, Su-30 MKI and also addition of planes like Phalcons which helps to ensure optimum use of air force assets.

That said, MiG-21 and MiG-27 are reaching the end of their lives, and need to be replaced and this can be best done by LCA the plane in production.

Thus rather than put all hope on AMCA, it would be best to focus hope on LCA and its future upgrades. as that aong with Su-30 MKI would be the backbone of IAF and the capability of LCA and HMRCA should cover all bases.

 

[smestarz]

I do not support the expensive Rafale and I am biased and quite ignorant regarding the Hornet, but for the sake of argument about the F-18 avionics:--

Context is as important as user reviews.
Avionics won't be much help for the role that the IAF wants the F-18 to perform.

If it is intended to fill the Medium Multi-role gap, then F-18 is seriously lacking in thrust to weight, speed, rate of climb or maneuverability. With the new SAMs and radars that are coming into play, the Hornet won't survive long enough without the above characteristics to provide air cover over enemy territory for our MKIs or to use their multi-role capabilities.

I keep a very open mind about it except few points and these are my firm beliefs
a) Rafale is not a need its want of IAF
b) we already employ more than 100 MMRCA like MiG-29 and Mirage 2000
c) If a plane is going to cost multiple times of Su-30 MKI then its not worth the price.
d) Future for IAF nos is LCA and not MMRCA or Rafake.

YES, F/A-18 E/F does not really come close to Rafale in terms of rate of turn, climb etc etc. But then are these components enough to make a plane survivable? Specially against new missiles?
No matter what the French say about their excellent tech, they will as long as possible will not try to go against Russian tech and this was apparent in Syria, the momemt the Russian air defence crusier was docked in Syria after the Su-24 was shot down, all the "allied " air force has kept well away from the Russian planes. It was a good chance for planes like Rafale to showcase their system "SPECTRA" but then its Russia, and the Russians are there with new tech Would France risk losing Rafale and hence the orders from Middle East? No.

Actually avionics will help a plane to be more survivable than perhaps the speed and maneuverability. With its better avionics it can detect a plane earlier and it can jam the enemy systems and blind them and hence only not increase its own chances of survival but also ensure that it can take down the enemy as required.
Did you not noticing that the French are not talking of rate of climb etc etc, all they talk is their new RBE2AA radar and SPECTRA..

If IAF does insist on a plane, I would support say Su-35, or more Su-30 MKI or then MiG-35 if its for "medium"
And if its in for "western" plane than Rafale and Eurofighter are equally expensive, and F/A-18 might end up being way cheaper as the Americans are now focused on 5th Gen planes.
One of the advantage of F/A-18 is that its a carrier plane, and if we use the same model (carrier plane) then we can not only use it for future carriers, but we can actually fly to the carrier based in sea, and use it as a mobile air base, and thus the carrier might not in a way be limited to just 20-40 planes it can carry, but be a based for more than 100 planes that arrive, Refuel, arm and go about the mission.

Like you said (and I understand you might not be against the Mig):--

The Mig-35 now has AESA and OLS (which can provide emission-less detection of up to 90 km for aerial objects including stealth aircraft and incoming missiles). In the IAF, it will also have R-77, R-27 ER, Derby, Astra and Astra 2 (by the time it is inducted). The Mig also boasts superiority in the capabilities mentioned in the above paragraph. It is also cheaper and has a slightly lower RCS than the Hornet.

So won't the hornet be a bad option, even against an F-16 or in the 4+ generation category. (in the IAF's context)???

I am making my case based on:--
http://www.aviatia.net/rafale-vs-f-18/
http://www.aviatia.net/dassault-rafale-vs-mig-35/

I would like to know your views on the comparison provided in these links.

PS: I also do not think that the Mig 35 was flown during the various flight testing (not sure on this).
PPS: I am a huge Mig supporter (should be apparent).

MIG-35 is one of the most maneuverable plane, and IAF does not like it at all, ITs a clean plane and can do a lot, and if we come up with an excellent avionics package, it will surely give any western plane run for its money. IT is cheap to buy, easier to use and maintain. What it lacks is ORDERS.
As I said if India really wants to go for MEDIUM MRCA, it should be MiG-35 purely because it can bring the numbers in short time. If it wants a western plane then F/A-18, but if it wants to buy any excellent plane for IAF my choice would be Su--35 or Su-30 MKI

 

[smestarz]

As per the terms of RFP for MMRCA. ToT was to be part of the deal.and even the French were apparently agreeing to it, but then as the discussions came on, Dassault started to have all sort of objections. And thats understood, Rafale is its bread and butter. If they gave away its ToT, they have really not much to give. They are going to flog the proverbial Rafake horse till they use it to the fullest and nothing wrong about that.

In terms of F/A-18 and F-16, there are not really orders forth coming for these planes,, Rather USA is putting all its reources behind F-35, and as far as the Teens go, it is technology of past for them, and the future is F-35
And if the USA feels that it can not only stand to make money why not?
With potential ToT of F/A-18 what USA can gain is
a) Big order book for a plane that is no longer making sales
b) Spares for its fleet and also that of Australia
c) Someone to counter the Chinese threat in Indian ocean
D) AN IMPORTANT ALLY AND BUSINESS PARTER FOR THE FUTURE OF USA in ASIA.
and considering all this it makes perfect business sense. Unfortunately the french are too greedy to see all this.

Anyway by the comment you used, Seems you believe that the French have exclusive rights to promise something (and then not deliver), i guess we maybe want someone else to promise us something and see how that does.

And yes about the family.. you really need to dream on that hahaha

US ready for full ToT ? dream !
One france family.... if it is Dassault family, Yes they are the only one in france buiding warplane. if it is the "right" politic family, just wait 13months.... in may 2017 they will be back.

 

[garg_bharat]

Saurav Jha is back today , and he is madder at CISMOA and LSA than ever !

The government will not sign any agreement if it is deemed detrimental to country's security.

There is no need to worry on this front.

NATO specific equipment may not be installed on these planes, and will be replaced with Indian made equipment (like radios).

 

[kr9]

One of the advantage of F/A-18 is that its a carrier plane, and if we use the same model (carrier plane) then we can not only use it for future carriers, but we can actually fly to the carrier based in sea, and use it as a mobile air base, and thus the carrier might not in a way be limited to just 20-40 planes it can carry, but be a based for more than 100 planes that arrive, Refuel, arm and go about the mission.

Ok.....valid point there.

Just an "if" scenario I thought of:--
Note: I understand that in the below case, we won't get any help in technology for the AMCA engines. But foregoing that....

What do you think are the chances of putting 2 engines in the LCA, increasing its size and creating a new ad-hoc indigenous platform that can serve as a medium multi-role fighter; until we get the AMCA?

Since it will have Uttam AESA, advanced EW suites (same as used in Su-30MKI or better) and the potential ability to be used from carriers (thanks to Naval LCA trials); do you think such a platform could serve better than a HORNET and more importantly, is it technically possible?

I would also appreciate thoughts from @Immanuel , @garg_bharat and @Bornubus as well on the above mentioned scenario.........thank you.

 

[Zebra]

The government will not sign any agreement if it is deemed detrimental to country's security.

There is no need to worry on this front.

NATO specific equipment may not be installed on these planes, and will be replaced with Indian made equipment (like radios).

Even UPA-2 was ready to sign those agreements.

 

[garg_bharat]

@kr9, the LCA engine (either F404 or F414) can be installed in AMCA.

However this engine is imported today. We have no knowledge gain by installing this engine. This engine does not give us independence from sanctions. In fact putting this engine in LCA makes LCA practically a foreign product.

One option is we get TOT of F414 engine. This way our fighter programs will gain a good level of technology independence; as we have local BVR missile and laser guided bomb. We will soon get a GPS guided glide bomb. We are also likely to succeed in AESA airborne radar.

Other option is we follow through on Kaveri program and make it successful.

I feel that Kaveri can be fixed by local R&D. It needs more focus and investment.

I strongly feel that HAL is the millstone that is hindering development of local fighter. HAL does not have the culture needed for such a cutting edge field. The government will have to think of alternatives soon.

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian Air Force : Rafale out, F18 in

 

[WolfPack86]

Will India and the United States Coproduce Fighter Aircraft?
India and the United States may sign an agreement for the coproduction of Lockheed Martin F-16V and Boeing F/A-18 fighter aircraft, according to Indian and U.S. defense officials. The deal is likely to involve technological transfers and the local production of U.S. fighter jets in India to meet Indian Prime Minister’s Narendra Modi’s so-called Make in India Initiative.

“Members of my team, and industry, are right now, as we are here in New York, in India looking at the potential coproduction of fighter aircraft,” U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said during a speech at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations prior to departing on a three-day visit to India. “I have no doubt that in the coming years, the United States and India will embark on a landmark co-production agreement that will bring our two countries closer together and make our militaries stronger, “Carter added.

Senior Indian defense officials have confirmed that the Indian government could approve the establishment of joint-production facilities during Carter’s visit to the country this week:

Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar will once again strike a tough bargain for India (…) a bargain that will see the country benefiting on both the economic and strategic front besides gaining immensely on the technical front…. setting up of a manufacturing line in India for either F-16 aircrafts or F/A18 super hornet jet fighters may be announced.

Defense News reports that both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have confirmed the ongoing negotiations. “Lockheed Martin is in discussions with the U.S. Government, the Government of India, and our Indian industry partners about potential new production F-16 aircraft to address India’s fighter recapitalization requirements,” revealed a Lockheed Martin spokesperson.
As my colleague Ankit Panda reported previously, talks between Boeing and the Indian government over the procurement of F-18s have been going on at least since the beginning of the year. One of the major stumbling blocks ahead in the negotiations will be what technological know-how the U.S. government will permit to be transferred to India—indeed the entire deal may hinge on the precise details of that part of the agreement.

“We are not discussing buying the fighter (aircraft). We want to make it in India through transfer of technology for our requirement,” said Indian Defense Minister Parrikar, according to an April 9 Indian media report. “nless the American government gives permission to transfer a particular technology, the American companies, even if they want to do it, cannot.”

U.S. defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, along with their F-16 and F-18 aircraft, were outbid in 2011 under the now-scrapped $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project by French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation, with India opting for Dassault Aviation’s Rafale fighter instead in January 2012. However, the MMRCA project was cancelled after years of difficult negotiations in July 2015.

In its place, New Delhi decided that it will only purchase 36 off-the-shelf Rafale aircraft in a government-to-government deal. Yet, to this date no final contract between India and France for the procurement of the fighter jets has been signed and a deadlock persists. (One major obstacle remains the offset clause which stipulates that France will have to invest 50 percent of the contract value as offsets in India.)

Should the Rafale deal be signed, it is unlikely that India will acquire F-16 or F-18 fighter jets given, among other things, the extra cost that setting up a separate logistical base for the U.S. aircraft would entail. Maintaining a fleet of French, Russian, and U.S. fourth-generation aircraft would be both impractical and wasteful for the Indian Air Force.
And while the Rafale deal is currently deadlocked, it still has a higher chance of being concluded than a possible U.S.-Indian fighter aircraft deal, given the months of detailed negotiations that have already taken place between India and France that have addressed the majority of outstanding issues.

When it comes to Indian defense deals (or any defense deals for that matter), it is the details that have often proved to be the undoing of foreign defense contractors, including offset clauses, Indian demands for technical modifications and reconfigurations, as well as the signing of detailed cost-sharing agreements. Historically, it is during this detailed negotiation phase that talks have the biggest chance of breaking down.

As a consequence, even if a preliminary agreement between Carter and Parrikar will be concluded this week, it is unlikely that a final contract will be signed in the immediate aftermath (or at all). India’s interest in U.S. aircraft may indeed just be just a move to strengthen New Delhi’s negotiating position vis-a-vis Paris and to obtain additional concessions before finally signing the inter-governmental agreement for the Rafale fighter jets.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/will-india-and-the-united-states-coproduce-fighter-aircraft/

 

[WolfPack86]

Co-production of US fighter jets in India on the table
A proposal to manufacture US fighter jets on Indian soil is on the agenda of bilateral talks between US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar.
“Members of my team and industry are looking at the potential co-production of fighter aircraft,” Carter said at a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, giving a clear hint prior to his departure.

His public comments come days after US aviation majors Boeing and Lockheed Martin gave a presentation to the Defence Ministry top brass about their proposal on producing fighter jets in India under the Make in India programme, though several officials in the defence ministry and Indian Air Force remained sceptical about the US move.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/539959/co-production-us-fighter-jets.html

 

[Superdefender]

It's why english top brass don't want to train against Rafale ?

One of the last exercise, in Corsica : 7 wins for Rafale and 1 for english EF. And the one for EF was because the Rafale pilot flew under the combat floor.

I don't know about that exercise, but Typhoon will beat Rafale in most cases.

 

[Superdefender]

France will ordered at least 225 Rafale.
Add the 48 already sold.

Those figures are of 2009, not of today.

 

[garg_bharat]

In this case the guys who firmed the deal are..... idiot?

Yes. Otherwise Antony would have awarded the contract.

We understand that there are too many obvious mistakes in tender finalization paperwork.

 

[Superdefender]

Indians pilots flew F16. And PAK continue to buy it...

West flew Mig29. And it's always a nice fighter, even against west planes.

You just agreed with me! Pak fighters will eventually get their hands on Rafale from their West supporting countries. What will be our advantage then? IAF fighters flew F-16, thus negating Pak fighters ability.

 

[smestarz]

Ok.....valid point there.

Just an "if" scenario I thought of:--
Note: I understand that in the below case, we won't get any help in technology for the AMCA engines. But foregoing that....

What do you think are the chances of putting 2 engines in the LCA, increasing its size and creating a new ad-hoc indigenous platform that can serve as a medium multi-role fighter; until we get the AMCA?

Since it will have Uttam AESA, advanced EW suites (same as used in Su-30MKI or better) and the potential ability to be used from carriers (thanks to Naval LCA trials); do you think such a platform could serve better than a HORNET and more importantly, is it technically possible?

I would also appreciate thoughts from @Immanuel , @garg_bharat and @Bornubus as well on the above mentioned scenario.........thank you.

We are all here to discuss and share knowledge so asking and sharing is good

the most important thing India needs is ENGINES, And when we master that technology, we are almost there.
I do understand your idea of modifying LCA to use two engines, but then unfortunately its not as simple as that anymore. Lets say we take LCA and then we want to put two engines, that will change many things
A) Airframe shape
B) Weight of the plane
C) Centre of Gravity,
These are just to name a few, and all these and many more parameters have to be tested again, and that itself would take at least 5 years (designing, testing and validating) So adding 5 years to now that is 2021.
Remeber this is what ytou suggested as temporary solution, The investment and time spent will only be justified if we order big nos. Would you really want to buy a stop-gap solution in big nos?
If we order LRP then the cost of each plane will end up being as expensive as Rafale, Though some of the tech can be used in AMCA, the cost of this project alone will be very high.

It would be more easier to say take LCA and then change some avionics, but adding an engine changes a lot of things and that would need a lot of time and money

 

[garg_bharat]

Indians pilots flew F16. And PAK continue to buy it...

West flew Mig29. And it's always a nice fighter, even against west planes.

I think mmrca should have selected f16 as it was the best suited to iaf's needs.

I believe rafale was a political decision, but the contract hit a dead end due to bad paperwork.

This happens when instructions come from the top and so bureaucracy becomes sloppy.

 

[WolfPack86]

India's Rafale deal in trouble over offsets and cost
Alongside enduring price differences between India and France over the deal for 36 Dassault Rafale fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF), announced exactly 12 months ago, sharp differences have once again resurfaced over offsets.

Official sources said senior Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials are believed to have recently rejected Thales' offer of discharging a 'substantial' portion of the mandatory 50% offset requirement of the overall Rafale contract price by helping India develop three 'smart cities'.

Thales provides equipment and systems - including avionics - that account for around a third of each Rafale's total value.

In response to Thales' offer, the MoD maintained that such an indirect offset provision was not part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2013, under which the twin-engine Rafales were being acquired via an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).
http://www.janes.com/article/59420/india-s-rafale-deal-in-trouble-over-offsets-and-cost

 

[Superdefender]

If manuevrability was key, then the only plane with thrust vectoring and the most superiest manuevrable among all mmrca is MIG 35. If life cycle cost, ruggedisation and operating costs were the key, then Gripen was king. Should one have taken systems maturity as a sign of electronic superioty, then the F-18 had no equal, with the Eurofighter a very close second. In terms of range, power, survivability and transfer of technology, the Typhoon was well ahead of the pack. The only thing the Rafale excelled at was its 9 ton weapons load, its good air-ground platform and navalisation, being nowhere near a runner up in any of the other catagories. Tellingly reports in 2009 indicated that Rafale was the first plane to be eliminated from the contest.