MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[Rahul Singh]

Sorry, the Indian Navy is very unlikely to purchase a Catapult Capable Mig-29K. As if it was interested in such a type. Why place a RFI on a New Naval Fighter. Hell the Indian Air Force doesn't even want the Mig-35 for the MMRCA. So, you thing the Indian Navy will take more Mig-29K's. Good luck with that one.

There are many reasons why Defence Ministry issued RFI for new carrier born fighters on behalf Navy. Following are few.

1. Multi vendor tender rules our chances of kickbacks and infuses transparency.

2. Option for follow on orders have already been used, ordering any more Mig-29Ks will mean single vendor tender which since 2006-7 is out of practice.

3. Navy wants to study capabilities of the options available world wide and hence RFI have been sent to all most all including EF(errrr. which as of now have no plans for naval EF). But sending RFI doesn't mean most capable will be bought rather it is the most suitable which will be selected and it can very be Mig-29Ks if it fulfils new requirements(if any).

4. RFI means only 'information' and it can be asked just for studying what is available, what is contemporary and what is advanced. For example, IAF had sent RFIs to multiple vendors worldwide seeking information on their UCAVs but made it clear right in the beginning that any UCAV they will buy will be indigenous.

Hell the Indian Air Force doesn't even want the Mig-35 for the MMRCA. So, you thing the Indian Navy will take more Mig-29K's. Good luck with that one.

It can still be rumour, no? BTW i also think Mig-35 is out because with M-MRCAs IAF wants a superior strike fighter and unfortunately Mig-35 is an improvised version of basic air superiority airframe. One more thing that works negatively for Mig-35s possibilities is presence of large volume of MKIs in IAF and one thing that nails the slightest of the possibility is possible purchase of FGFA in numbers in future. Just, even for the sake of diversification Mig-35 can be dropped out of the list. Unfortunately, unlike other contenders there are lot of non-technical odds in favour of Mig-35.

But that is the story related to IAF and its requirements. The whole world changes when it comes to Navy. Unlike Airforce, Navy is not searching for a superior air to ground aircraft rather she is looking for best suitable which will enable her carrier to provide air cover to rest of surface fleet. In addition to air cover Navy requires her fighters to double up as maritime strikers and Naval Mig-29Ks are fully equipped for the purpose. Do keep in mind that our Navy don't asks her fighter jets to fly deep into enemy's airspace and bomb all over, that is very much the job of airforce. And if in future Navy requires her fighters to go deep overland into enemy airspace it will and always be a joint airforce and Navy operation. No wonder why Navy always says "protecting IOR is their only concern".

As for the N-LCA its hardly going to be a capable Naval Fighter. As its way to small and has a very limted Payload vs Range. Yet, as I have over and over. It will be very valuable to the Indian Navy. As an Advance Trainer. Which, it is ideally suited in my opinion.

Not a capable fighter, why? Just because it doesn't have range and payload comparable to USN F/A-18E/F. Do you know there exists a word called 'Doctrine' which stipulates QSRs and according to which equipments are procured? Can you say for sure that carrier related doctrine of our Navy is exactly same to that of USN? Said earlier and saying again, Navy requested for the development of naval LCA because it wants a small, agile fighter for providing air defence against incoming threat to the fleet. The N-LCA with 3500ton combat load and 60-70 minutes of endurance(on internal fuel) is most suitable hence navy is interested. And yes N-LCA T will be very suitable for training as it will be twin seater.

 

[Patriot]

Is There An MMRCA Warning Bell In How The Americans Screwed The Gripen For Norway?

If you wanted a chunky glimpse of the cold political stuff that everyone knows goes down in a fighter competition in which the Americans have a horse, a clutch of the recent Wikileaks cables provide just that. It's simple (if you missed it): according to these cables (between the US Embassy in Oslo and the State Dept), the Americans denied the release of a US-built AESA radar for the Gripen-NG being pitched for a Norwegian requirement two years ago, while simultaneously bringing to bear political pressure ("high-level Washington advocacy") on the Norwegian government to choose the F-35 instead.

The cables provide the starkest view of how the threat of future political/diplomatic relations are very unsubtly yoked to weapon contracts. It's common knowledge that this is the way it happens, but here it is, in black and white. One cable ends, a touch frazzled, with, "Other advocacy efforts would contribute to helping [Norway] recognize the seriousness of their decision and resist the temptation of making a short-term expedient choice, but damaging long-term interests."

This is two years ago. Shortly after, Saab decided to call off all discussions with the Americans, French and Israelis (IAI was reportedly pressured by Washington to pull out of talks) and go in for the Selex Galileo RAVEN AESA, currently under development testing, and part of the configuration on offer to the Indian Air Force in the MMRCA competition.

You can pretty much bet that Tim Roemer has cables going out asking for the same sort of thing (including high level visits to impress the point) ahead of an Indian decision on the $12-billion contract next year, but there is at least one very serious question: Do the Americans still have leverage over the Gripen NG/IN, considering that the airplane's engine (F414G), avionics suite, head-up/down displays, environmental control system, air data computer, life support system, pressure regulator, shutoff valves and radar altimeter are American built? Worth thinking about, notwithstanding the fact that Saab (like the other five contenders where applicable) was made to submit a government-endorsed guarantee that all subsystems on the aircraft were export-cleared if not from the country of the principal integrator's origin.





http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-there-mmrca-warning-bell-in-how.html

 

[death.by.chocolate]

So here your are saying that these G limit, roll limit and AoA limit are not imposed on F/A-18 by its FCS when flying with asymmetrical load?

As written there Typhoon is still to get the Final Operational Clearance and hopefully by the time it acquires that FOC the FCS will have solution to level the aircraft automatically as Pilot 'pickle' for bomb release bringing jet into uneven weight configuration.

The FCS of the EuroFighter Typhoon is mature, it benefited immensely from the joint US/German X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability program.

The Typhoon is a capable air superiority fighter, arguably the best among the fighters on offer to India. Its strike capability is however severely constrained by the design choice of delta canard. Tail first designs are known to be CG sensitive, due to the location of the CG further aft vis-à-vis traditional horizontal stabilizer.Due to this tail first canard aircrafts experience lateral instability when carrying asymmetric loads or when heavy munitions are released – this can't be fixed by the FCS.

We know how to build delta canards, we know delta canard designs allow the pilots to exploit regions in a flight envelop not possible with conventional designs. Yet, we and the Russians have resisted the urge to produce a canard design. There are several reasons but primarily we consider canard design, close coupled or otherwise to be expensive, high risk aeromechanical technology.

One of the lessons we learnt from past wars, especially long campaigns like WWII is the critical importance of maintaining or rapidly increasing force strengths, the ability to quickly replace pilots and aircrafts lost in war is the difference between winning and losing. The Super Hornet is designed to be easy to manufacture, easy to fix and fly. The OPEVAL scores achieved by the F/A 18 E/F in early 2000 are yet to be beaten, in 10 hours of flying time, first time F/A 18 E/F pilots are able to use full stick, full rudder inputs at any airspeed and AoA without the fear of departure. Contrast that with a first time Rafale pilot needing a 100 hours just to become competent at operating the Rafale's MMI. Not to mention the addition flight hours required to perform advanced maneuverers safely, maneuverers that pilots of the departure resistant Super Hornet take for granted.

In the heat of battle, pilots truly appreciate the carefree flying characteristics regardless of what is hanging off the wing, the ability to carry asymmetric loads of 8000 ft-lb with no FCS imposed limits and up to 26,000 ft-lb with minor AoA restriction. Isn't it astonishing, with the AoA restriction imposed by FCS under max asymmetry the Super Hornet is still permitted more AoA than a clean Rafale or F-16.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

DBC I must admit, I am almost sold that F18 is best fighter for MRCA, credit goes to you. Nice to see you here. The problem now is not capability but those agreements that USA want's us to sign.

 

[Crusader53]

There are many reasons why Defence Ministry issued RFI for new carrier born fighters on behalf Navy. Following are few.

1. Multi vendor tender rules our chances of kickbacks and infuses transparency.

2. Option for follow on orders have already been used, ordering any more Mig-29Ks will mean single vendor tender which since 2006-7 is out of practice.

3. Navy wants to study capabilities of the options available world wide and hence RFI have been sent to all most all including EF(errrr. which as of now have no plans for naval EF). But sending RFI doesn't mean most capable will be bought rather it is the most suitable which will be selected and it can very be Mig-29Ks if it fulfils new requirements(if any).

4. RFI means only 'information' and it can be asked just for studying what is available, what is contemporary and what is advanced. For example, IAF had sent RFIs to multiple vendors worldwide seeking information on their UCAVs but made it clear right in the beginning that any UCAV they will buy will be indigenous.

It can still be rumour, no? BTW i also think Mig-35 is out because with M-MRCAs IAF wants a superior strike fighter and unfortunately Mig-35 is an improvised version of basic air superiority airframe. One more thing that works negatively for Mig-35s possibilities is presence of large volume of MKIs in IAF and one thing that nails the slightest of the possibility is possible purchase of FGFA in numbers in future. Just, even for the sake of diversification Mig-35 can be dropped out of the list. Unfortunately, unlike other contenders there are lot of non-technical odds in favour of Mig-35.

But that is the story related to IAF and its requirements. The whole world changes when it comes to Navy. Unlike Airforce, Navy is not searching for a superior air to ground aircraft rather she is looking for best suitable which will enable her carrier to provide air cover to rest of surface fleet. In addition to air cover Navy requires her fighters to double up as maritime strikers and Naval Mig-29Ks are fully equipped for the purpose. Do keep in mind that our Navy don't asks her fighter jets to fly deep into enemy's airspace and bomb all over, that is very much the job of airforce. And if in future Navy requires her fighters to go deep overland into enemy airspace it will and always be a joint airforce and Navy operation. No wonder why Navy always says "protecting IOR is their only concern".

Not a capable fighter, why? Just because it doesn't have range and payload comparable to USN F/A-18E/F. Do you know there exists a word called 'Doctrine' which stipulates QSRs and according to which equipments are procured? Can you say for sure that carrier related doctrine of our Navy is exactly same to that of USN? Said earlier and saying again, Navy requested for the development of naval LCA because it wants a small, agile fighter for providing air defence against incoming threat to the fleet. The N-LCA with 3500ton combat load and 60-70 minutes of endurance(on internal fuel) is most suitable hence navy is interested. And yes N-LCA T will be very suitable for training as it will be twin seater.

Well, I hardly see a reason for two Strike Fighters on Indian Carriers. So, what is the requirement for the N-LCA and Mig-29K? Plus, wouldn't you agree that the Mig-29K is much more capable???

 

[Rahul Singh]

Well, I hardly see a reason for two Strike Fighters on Indian Carriers. So, what is the requirement for the N-LCA and Mig-29K? Plus, wouldn't you agree that the Mig-29K is much more capable???

You don't believe in reading, do you? Why in the world i had written these lines in my earlier post?

Navy requested for the development of naval LCA because it wants a small, agile fighter for providing air defence against incoming threat to the fleet. The N-LCA with 3500ton combat load and 60-70 minutes of endurance(on internal fuel) is most suitable hence navy is interested.

 

[p2prada]

Its strike capability is however severely constrained by the design choice of delta canard. Tail first designs are known to be CG sensitive

Not a disadvantage in the environment the fighter is required in India. Delta Canards have not been tested, but Delta wing is a proven design over the Himalayas.

DBC I must admit, I am almost sold that F18 is best fighter for MRCA, credit goes to you. Nice to see you here. The problem now is not capability but those agreements that USA want's us to sign.

Majority of the Indian Gurus place Super Hornet below the EF-2000 and Rafale in overall aspects for our requirements even if the only advantage SH has is range and radar.

 

[icecoolben]

is the indian air force so insecure that it needs the best of all the world's aircraft to stand against pakistan jf-17 bandar and j-10 aircrafts

 

[p2prada]

is the indian air force so insecure that it needs the best of all the world's aircraft to stand against pakistan jf-17 bandar and j-10 aircrafts

We don't want accidental deaths in the air force. We want overkill.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Not a disadvantage in the environment the fighter is required in India. Delta Canards have not been tested, but Delta wing is a proven design over the Himalayas.

The Mirage 2000 or delta planform does not have a unique advantage in delivery of high altitude precision strikes, at the time(Kargil) it was the only platform(Thomson-CSF Laser Designator Pod) that had the capability to deliver Paveway IIs. Urgent refit was necessitated by poor performance of Russian laser guided munitions in Kargil.

 

[icecoolben]

We don't want accidental deaths in the air force. We want overkill.

Isn't the Su-30 mki overkill for JF-17 and J-10.
from the looks of people bowing to the import lobby, we are preparing for a contingency than war.

 

[saptarishi]

we want the best for india,even if that is an overkill,,jus imagine,,MKI,PAK-FA,TEJAS,EUROFIGHTER,AMCA,,,no one wil dare look at indian air force,

 

[p2prada]

The Mirage 2000 or delta planform does not have a unique advantage in delivery of high altitude precision strikes, at the time(Kargil) it was the only platform(Thomson-CSF Laser Designator Pod) that had the capability to deliver Paveway IIs. Urgent refit was necessitated by poor performance of Russian laser guided munitions in Kargil.

Thin Air >> Delta High Drag >> Plane climb well after bombing.

Thin Air >> Other Wings Low Drag >> Plane need more power to climb.

1999 >> IAF sucked >> 2009 >> Not any more.

High altitude bombing at high altitude targets isn't easy with other wing designs because the Delta can push more air into the intakes. Other Wing forms cannot beat the Delta over the Himalayas in a dog fight. Wing loading is very low on Deltas.

Isn't it universally accepted that Deltas perform best in high altitudes?

LGBs during Kargil wasn't a game changer. It was just a milestone for us and to show off that we were better than the Pakistanis. Precision strikes isn't even a point because we dropped only 9 LGBs compared to hundreds of Dumb bombs. The Air war in Kargil was won by a combination of dumb bombs and Mirage-2000. Out of the 9 LGBs dropped in Kargil, 8 were by Mirage-2000s and one by a Jaguar. So, M-2000 wasn't our only LGB delivery platform.

Also, the Mirage-2000 wasn't praised in Kargil because of PGMs. But, it was praised only because of its munitions delivering capability which does not compare to other wing forms.

The best we can get from the news today is that SH failed the Leh Trials. No matter how good the aircraft is, it's useless if you can't fly it where it is supposed to fly.

Isn't the Su-30 mki overkill for JF-17 and J-10.
from the looks of people bowing to the import lobby, we are preparing for a contingency than war.

The MKI is expensive. MRCA is because we cannot afford to fly only MKIs. We like Western technology too. The MRCA deal was supposed to have had only Mirage-2000s and signed in early 2000 for full delivery by now. Politics and requirements have changed with time after the Nuke tests. So, the MRCA has all the other contenders. The Airforce may choose Gripens in the end, but who knows?

The MKI and MRCA are parallel programs and both were thought of at the same time. It is just that the MKI did not have any political hurdles because Russia was involved.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

50 % of the MRCA contenders are delta winged and it is these that are being touted as the potential winners. Rafale has now taken a back seat due to mirage upgradtaion at a ludicurous cost, ET is expensive and that leaves the SAAB. are we seeing a potential low key winner here in the guise of NG with AESA? most likely!!!!!

 

[Patriot]

Wikileaks Cablegate : Indian air force had decided to drop French Rafale from MMRCA comptetions

Wikileaks Cablegate document show that India had decided to drop French fighter aircraft Rafale from its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition. Indian Air Force is evaluating American, Swedish and Russian aircraft's for the bid. A classified cable titled "BRAZIL'S FIGHTER PURCHASE: ENDGAME STRATEGY," mentions "Investigate India,s decision to drop the Rafale from its fighter competition to see if there is a reason that would make the aircraft less attractive to Brazil."

We would bring to your notice our 2009 editorial (Dassault Aviation's Rafale push got a bug ). It was denied by Dassault that Rafale has been struck out of the Indian Air Force Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract.

One of the reasons that was attributed was

Insiders say the Ministry was also not very happy with the replies it received on technical queries sent after the French company submitted its technical bid."

As the French President is in India today, he is advertised to be pushing Rafale to Indian Air Force. The cable talks about the difference in the approaches in Brazilian aircraft tender.

With the French sale effort being managed directly from President Sarkozy,s cabinet and ongoing Swedish engagement on the Ministerial level, the USG is perceived by most Brazilians as lukewarm at best in its support for the FX2 sale.

The above explains the lethargy when it comes to Dassault to answer a question in a civil manner.

Another interesting part is Rafale is described as inferior.

It may well be that the Brazilians want to keep tech transfer doubts alive in order to have a ready-made excuse for buying an inferior plane, should political leaders decide to do so. Repeated concerns about unreleasable source code could have a similar basis.

Other interesting factor is that Brazilian concern is same as Indian, the "sanctions" or other similar approach from US Congress.

Finally, we have heard that there are concerns on Capitol Hill about the possibility of a South American arms race. Should these reach Brazilian ears, there will be additional worries that Congress will intervene to block the sale.







http://frontierindia.net/wikileaks-cablegate-indian-air-force-had-decided-to-drop-french-rafale-from-mmrca-comptetions

 

[Rahul Singh]

Defective Fuel Readings Led Pilot To Ditch Rafale F3 strike Fighter Jet

By PIERRE TRAN
Published: 2 Dec 2010 13:01

PARIS - The Rafale F3 strike fighter that was ditched into the sea Nov. 28 off the Pakistan coast suffered from defective fuel information, the spokesman for the French Ministry of Defense said Dec. 2.

An initial debriefing of the pilot who ejected from the Rafale established that the defect created inaccurate fuel-level readings, spokesman Laurent Teisseire told journalists. A team from the accident inquiry board is on its way to the Charles de Gaulle carrier, from which the Navy Fleet Air Arm Rafale was operating.

"An inquiry is underway," Teisseire said, adding that it is too early to say what were the technical causes behind the incident.

The Rafale was armed for a close air support mission and headed for the Afghan theater in a patrol with Super Etendard Moderrnisé aircraft.

The Rafale pilot was returning to the carrier to change aircraft when he was forced to eject and ditch the aircraft at 8 a.m. Paris time on Nov. 28. A helicopter picked up the pilot within 10 minutes of hitting the water. The pilot was unharmed.

The Super Etendard and Rafale between them have flown about 110 hours, just over half by Rafales, since the Charles de Gaulle arrived on station Nov. 25 to support ground troops in Afghanistan, said Army Col. Thierry Burkhard, the spokesman for the chief of the Defense Staff.

This is the first loss of a Rafale in operational deployment, and the fourth overall. The other three Rafales were lost under different circumstances while flown in training. The first accident, in December 2007, led to the death of the pilot. In the second accident, December 2009, two Rafales collided in midair. The accident enquiry reports have not yet been published.

President Nicolas Sarkozy is due to arrive in India on Dec. 4 for a two-day visit, accompanied by Defense Minister Alain Juppé. The visit is expected to promote the Rafale as a candidate in India's international competition for 126 medium multirole combat aircraft.

The Dassault Rafale is up against the Boeing F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16 and RAC MiG-35.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

High altitude bombing at high altitude targets isn't easy with other wing designs because the Delta can push more air into the intakes. Other Wing forms cannot beat the Delta over the Himalayas in a dog fight. Wing loading is very low on Deltas.

Take a good look at this picture of the Mirage 2000, notice the wing begins well behind the air intake, now please explain how the delta wing of the Mirage can influence the amount of air pushed into the air intake?

Thin Air >> Delta High Drag >> Plane climb well after bombing.

Thin Air >> Other Wings Low Drag >> Plane need more power to climb.

1999 >> IAF sucked >> 2009 >> Not any more.

Isn't it universally accepted that Deltas perform best in high altitudes?

Thin air? Delta High Drag?? Drag is a drag, it has a detrimental effect on aerodynamic performance.

Using the concept of the delta wing interceptor seen on the Dassault Mirage III, Dassault built a new fighter jet design. This configuration is not ideal with regard to maneuverability, low-altitude flight, and distance required for take-off and landing, but has advantages in high-speed flight characteristics, simplicity of construction, low radar signature and internal volume.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/dassault_mirage_2000.pl

Its clear that you have some misconceptions about delta designs, delta designs are preferred for superior supersonic performance made possible by higher wing sweep.

LGBs during Kargil wasn't a game changer. It was just a milestone for us and to show off that we were better than the Pakistanis. Precision strikes isn't even a point because we dropped only 9 LGBs compared to hundreds of Dumb bombs. The Air war in Kargil was won by a combination of dumb bombs and Mirage-2000. Out of the 9 LGBs dropped in Kargil, 8 were by Mirage-2000s and one by a Jaguar. So, M-2000 wasn't our only LGB delivery platform.

Also, the Mirage-2000 wasn't praised in Kargil because of PGMs. But, it was praised only because of its munitions delivering capability which does not compare to other wing forms.

You should read a bit before you make such assertions, you claim the Mirage 2000 was praised due to its munition delivery capability. Until Kargil, the Mirage 2000's were employed by the IAF as air defense fighters, IAF considered the Mirage to have limited ground attack capability.

They thought about committing the Mirage 2000 to the conflict to augment the other jet fighters. This aircraft could operate at this altitude with no problem, but it had no high altitude attack capability.....

The Mirage 2000 aircraft itself had always been regarded as an air defence fighter with a limited ground attack capability. Consequently it lacked certain resources such as bombs, hardpoint pylons, tooling, testers and ground crew experience in such matters. A big push was instigated at Gwalior to get the platform prepared. By the 12th June, the IAF Personnel had ironed out most of the faults.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html

You make claims in your post but don't support it with any evidence, it is universally acknowledged that delta designs are more suited to interception and air defense roles.

The best we can get from the news today is that SH failed the Leh Trials. No matter how good the aircraft is, it's useless if you can't fly it where it is supposed to fly.

where did you read the Hornet failed the Leh Trials?iamhullucinating.com :emot15: ?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/France_prepared_to_give_Brazil_fighter_jets_hi-tech_cables_999.html

France prepared to give Brazil fighter jet's hi-tech: cables

France is prepared to give Brazil vital hi-tech codes for its Rafale fighter jets if the South American nation buys them, leaked US diplomatic cables published by Le Monde newspaper on Sunday.

By selling the Rafale, which has yet to clinch a single overseas buyer, France "hopes to distance the Americans' F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Swedes' Gripen," according to Le Monde's translation of the WikiLeaks cable dated November 2009.

"The French have since the beginning guaranteed the Brazilians that they would deliver the Rafale's computer codes which are the digital heart of the plane, a gesture that other competitors have been reluctant to match," the daily said.

"When (Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva) Lula complained to (French President Nicolas) Sarkozy about the 'absurd price' of the Rafales, at 80 million dollars each, the French President sent him, according to foreign ministry sources, a personal letter stressing that France was prepared to offer a 'transfer without restrictions' of technological information," it said.

The deal for 36 fighter planes is estimated to be worth between four and seven billion dollars, depending on details of armaments, maintenance and peripheral industrial involvement.

"If the Rafale sale goes through, (manufacturer) Dassault might have to ask the United States for export control licences for the parts of the plane that are built with American technology," the cable said.

In November, Dassault's head in Brazil, Jean-Marc Merialdo, told AFP that all the Rafale's technology belonged to France.

This is not the case for Saab's Gripen, or for the F-18, both of which need the US Senate's green-light, Merialdo said.

The leaked US cable cited military sources in Brasilia as saying that Brazil "wants not only to buy the Rafale but to build the plane on its own territory and eventually sell it throughout Latin America towards 2030."

France has repeatedly expressed optimism that it is about to clinch the deal, but Brazil has yet to decide on which company will update its air force.

 

[vishal_lionheart]

VZCZCXRO8264

RR RUEHRG

DE RUEHBR #0634/01 1391639

ZNY SSSSS ZZH

R 191639Z MAY 09

FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4328

RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC

RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

INFO RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0490

RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0075

RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 9551

RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 7753

RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 4071

RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC

RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC

RHMFISS/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL

S E C R E T

SECTION 01 OF 03 BRASILIA 000634

NOFORN

SIPDIS

STATE FOR WHA AND PM

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2019

TAGS: PREL MASS ETTC BR

SUBJECT: BRAZIL'S FIGHTER PURCHASE: ENDGAME STRATEGY

REF: A. BRASILIA 216

¶B. BRASILIA 41

Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Lisa Kubiske. Reason: 1.4(d)

¶1. (S/NF) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST. With two months

remaining before the Government of Brazil decides on a next

generation fighter aircraft, the U.S. competitor, Boeing's

F18 Super Hornet is still perceived by many Brazilians in and

outside the GOB as a likely second or even third-place

finisher, despite having the best aircraft and best offset

package. Most Brazilian contacts tell us that they do not

believe the USG is supporting the sale strongly, raising

doubts in their minds about our long term reliability as a

partner. Between now and July, there will be several

opportunities to assure the Brazilians at senior levels that

the USG will be behind the sale. Paragraphs 3-7 below

contain proposed steps to address key Brazilian concerns and

maximize chances for selection of the U.S. competitor. Among

these steps, high level contacts, especially by the President

and Secretary will be critical to overcome the perception of

a lack of U.S. support. We also need to underscore our

assurances that technology transfer has been approved and

highlight the superiority of Boeing's proposal to that of its

French competitor. As noted reftels, Embassy believes State

will play a critical role in roviding assurances that will be

essential to a winning bid. END SUMMARY.

¶2. (S/NF) As the FX2 competition moves into its final

stages, the U.S. has a strong offer from Boeing for the F18

Super Hornet that comes with a huge package of industrial

cooperation and a competitive overall cost. While we can be

confident that the Super Hornet would be Brazil,s choice

based on its superior capabilities and attractive offset

package, it still has no better than a fifty/fifty chance of

success because of political support for the French

competitor and a lingering belief among some Brazilian

leaders that a close relationship with the U.S. may not be to

Brazil,s advantage. Winning the FX2 endgame, therefore,

will depend on an effective strategy to overcome our

political disadvantages and allow the Super Hornet,s

superiority be the deciding factor. Such a strategy must

address several key issues:

Perception of a lack of USG support

———————————–

¶3. (S/NF) With the French sale effort being managed directly

from President Sarkozy,s cabinet and ongoing Swedish

engagement on the Ministerial level, the USG is perceived by

most Brazilians as lukewarm at best in its support for the

FX2 sale. This is a critical disadvantage in a Brazilian

society that depends on personal relationships as a

foundation for business. The difficulty is exacerbated by

the separation between government and industry in the United

States. We cannot, for example, offer government financing

to support a state owned company as can our competitors. To

address this problem, high level contacts will be essential,

particularly from the Department of State which is assumed by

the Brazilian Air Force to be restrictive of mil-mil

ooperation. In such contacts, U.S. officials will need to

highlight expanding U.S.-Brazil partnership and how

cooperation with the United States as Brazil modernizes its

obsolescent military will not only provide the best

operational capabilities, but will enhance our overall

cooperation. This is why we have been forward leaning in

approving transfers of technology in support of this sale.

In addition to taking advantage of the near-term

opportunities for high level contacts presented by MOD

Jobim,s May 20 visit to Washington And Secretary Clinton,s

possible visit to Brazil in late May, Embassy believes that

phone calls between Presidents Obama and Lula, between NSA

Jones and Presidential Foreign Affairs Advisor Marco Aurelio

Garcia, and between SecDef Gates and MOD Jobim, would boost

our case significantly.

Tech Transfer

————-

¶4. (S/NF) Although the major decisions to approve the

BRASILIA 00000634 002 OF 003

transfer of technology for the FX2 sale have been made,

Brazilian leaders continue to doubt U.S. ability to follow

through. While the problem has been mitigated by an

effective public affairs strategy, we still hear that, absent

specific high level State Department assurances, the

Brazilians cannot be sure. It may well be that the

Brazilians want to keep tech transfer doubts alive in order

to have a ready-made excuse for buying an inferior plane,

should political leaders decide to do so. Repeated concerns

about unreleasable source code could have a similar basis.

Finally, we have heard that there are concerns on Capitol

Hill about the possibility of a South American arms race.

Should these reach Brazilian ears, there will be additional

worries that Congress will intervene to block the sale.

Embassy recommends the following as next steps to strengthen

our case on tech transfer:

– An advocacy letter from President Obama to President Lula

– A letter from Secretary Clinton to MOD Jobim stating that

the USG has approved the transfer of all appropriate

technology.

– Interagency guidance on source code (cleared for April

Revista Forca Area article) should be disseminated for use.

– All high-level contacts, including by Secretaries of

State and Defense and POTUS should include reassurance that

tech transfer has been approved.

– Washington agencies should begin consultations with

appropriate Hill staff as early as possible to overcome

misperceptions that arms sales to Brazil could be

destabilizing.

Financing

———

¶5. (S/NF) U.S. inability to offer government financing or

guarantees puts the Super Hornet at a significant

disadvantage to its competitors. EXIM is prohibited from

engaging in sales of defense articles, leaving Brazil to

depend on commercial financing at higher rates. According to

Washington agencies, it would be possible to seek

Congressional relief for EXIM to support the sale. This has

been done in the past on rare occasions. The Brazilian Air

Force finance office has told us that even a statement that

we are willing to seek such legislative action would be

considered a positive sign. Embassy recommends that

Washington explore the possibility of legislative action to

allow EXIM Financing and respond by the May 29 deadline to

the GOB request to provide information on government

financing options.

Making the Case

—————

¶6. (S/NF) We have been successful in getting across the

points that the Super Hornet is a highly capable aircraft,

and now need to focus on the broader picture — how

partnership on the fighter sale will yield benefits for both

sides both in military terms and in economic benefits. As

the world,s largest aerospace company, Boeing is able to

offer a much greater scope of opportunities for Brazilian

industry, including some outside of the FX2 offset program.

The early June visit of Brazilian legislators to Washington

will be an opportunity to get the message to political

leaders. By focusing on key Senators, we have the

opportunity to bring on board individuals who can influence

the decision makers and ensure that the people who will have

to approve spending Brazilian government money understand

that the F18 offers them the best value. Embassy will

continue to highlight tech transfer and Expand our message

to include economic benefits to Brazil of the Boeing

proposal. We also recommend the following:

– Make an expert on the aerospace industry available for

interview to highlight economic health of Boeing compared to

its competitors.

– Use visit of Brazilian Congress to drive home message

that partnership with the U.S. entails benefits to both sides

that go well beyond offset program. Ensure that Brazilian

Senators understand significantly lower life

cycle costs of the Super Hornet.

BRASILIA 00000634 003 OF 003

– Arrange for an interview of the SecDef, or other senior

Administration representative, with a prominent Brazilian

journalist to underline importance of U.S.-Brazilian

partnership and how the FX2 sale will help.

Attack the French Bid

———————

¶7. (S/NF) Although the French offer a less capable fighter

at a higher cost, the Rafale has been the presumptive winner

since the inception of the FX2 competition. While the

technical evaluations of the aircraft should result in a

significant advantage for the Super Hornet, we need to take

steps to erode the French political edge. While a major

element of this will be highlighting Boeing,s lower cost,

there are several other measures that can make a case against

the French. The first step will be to remind the Brazilians

that their interest in the Rafale was driven by an assumption

that the United States would not release technology. Since

we have approved release of the relevant technology, we

should ask if Brazil still needs the French as a safety.

Over the last few months, the French sales effort has been

based on a misleading, if not fraudulent, claim that their

plane involves only French content (rendering it free of

meddlesome U.S. export controls). This is not the case. A

DTSA analysis found a high level of U.S. content, including

targeting systems, radar components and safety systems that

will require U.S. licenses. Next steps:

– Although it does not appear that the tech data provided

with the French bid violated ITAR regs, PM/DDTC and DTSA

should continue to monitor French marketing to ensure

Dassault does not skirt ITAR restrictions.

– Investigate India,s decision to drop the Rafale from its

fighter competition to see if there is a reason that would

make the aircraft less attractive to Brazil.

– Ensure the Brazilians are aware that we expect to be

issuing retransfer licenses for U.S.-origin components on the

French plane and have already approved transfer of some

technical data.

KUBISKE

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=102379&page=6

ref : ASPIS

 

[vishal_lionheart]

We should have to give preference for smart ammunition and off set policy