This is a discussion on New Indian Air Force Fighter competition within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by ADMk2
I wasn't comparing Dassault's bid with Eurofighter's bid, rather Dassault's MMRCA bid with other unsuccessful Dassault ...
I wasn't comparing Dassault's bid with Eurofighter's bid, rather Dassault's MMRCA bid with other unsuccessful Dassault Rafale bids.
Well that was not clear from your post, but anyway I don't understand why you bring that up in this context since we are talking about the MMRCA which had only 2 fighters on the short list; the Typhoon and the Rafale. It does not really matter then that Rafale is expensive compared to eg the SH or F-16 since neither of them made it to the short list.
Quote:
There are a ton. Rafale wasn't bid on it's current spec, but rather with a still developing AESA radar (I know it's cleared for production, but there's still plenty of on-going work needed for it), an upgraded Damocles targetting pod still in development, upgraded engines which are still in development, upgraded OSF still in development, varying weapons integration and development projects including Meteor and semi-active laser and 125kg variants of AASM and so on.
Also the SH was offered to India in a config that does not fly yet. Anyway all fighters are undergoing continous development; if not they are dead in the water.
Could you elaborate on the upgraded engines that are still in development?
Quote:
In any case, I still believe the Indians passed up the best multi-role aircraft in the world currently, in the Super Hornet when they passed on it.
What you are I believe is not really important in this context; the IAF had their list of requirements and the SH did not meet those requirements, so it was dropped.
Quote:
Let's see the Rafale or the Typhoon's Growler equivalent or buddy tankers. Let's see either of their anti-radar missiles now or planned...
I don't know about the Typhoon but AFAIK the Rafale can do buddy-buddy tanking. I don't think India asked for anything like Growler so again, it's irrelevant for the current discussion. As for anti-radar missiles; again that cannot have been a requirement however if India wants it integrated on Rafale in the future then I'm sure it will be.
What has been holding up the development of both Rafale and Typhoon has mainly been budget allocations (or rather, lack thereof). For Rafale that will now change.
I am very confident that the Rafales delivered to the IAF will meet or exceed their requirements and expectations. I will not use terms like "the best multirole fighter in the world" (I find them rather meaningless) however I also believe the Indian Rafales will compare very well to any other 4. gen fighter available at that time point.
What you are I believe is not really important in this context; the IAF had their list of requirements and the SH did not meet those requirements, so it was dropped.
I'm sure there are many reasons why the Rafale was selected, but obviously combat radars, weapons and systems wasn't high on the list
the Air Chief said: “In all fairness, all the six aircraft in the competition were good, and more or less close to one another in performance. But some of them had to be out, and some had to be in, and that’s it. Let’s say that the two European finalists were the most-compliant in the 600-plus parameters that the IAF selection team had set.”
The Air Chief observed that admittedly, the US had the best of the combat radars, weapons and systems But then, each of the six contenders had given in writing that they would match the IAF requirements, including those for systems to be sourced from the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi
I guess we should call you a SuperHornite then?
What has been holding up the development of both Rafale and Typhoon has mainly been budget allocations (or rather, lack thereof). For Rafale that will now change.
I am very confident that the Rafales delivered to the IAF will meet or exceed their requirements and expectations. I will not use terms like "the best multirole fighter in the world" (I find them rather meaningless) however I also believe the Indian Rafales will compare very well to any other 4. gen fighter available at that time point.
I couldn't agree more, I feel up to now the Rafale was a waste of a good plane with the lack of upgrading needed to fulfill its potential, lets hope the French and Indians have a successful partnership
The Air Chief observed that admittedly, the US had the best of the combat radars, weapons and systems But then, each of the six contenders had given in writing that they would match the IAF requirements, including those for systems to be sourced from the US.
This point has always stuck out to me.India has stated the US had better weapons,better Radar and systems.Sorry but isnt this what you want ,to have a advantage compared to your adversary.So the EF and Rafale will be upgraded over time.Looks to me as if the EF and Rafale are playing catch up to the American offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack412
I couldn't agree more, I feel up to now the Rafale was a waste of a good plane with the lack of upgrading needed to fulfill its potential, lets hope the French and Indians have a successful partnership
Agreed.I think this is the Point that AD was making,if France and India have to upgrade the Rafale,with ASEA, new weapons ect,to bring it up to the same Tech as the US offerings,but it takes 5-10 years to happen,wouldnt you agree that the US will be putting a more advanced system in their Aircraft in future (5-10) years?
Im with you tho,hope all the works carried out on the Rafale will be a smooth integration of systems and weapons.
Last edited by the road runner; February 5th, 2012 at 09:44 PM.
Or it could be as simple as India wants an indigenous aero industry and the French were desperate enough for the sale to give away their 1980's tech, the French fast plane future was looking very dark.
one can assume their R&D has moved forward a lot from the 80's and it's not a risk to their national security
This point has always stuck out to me.India has stated the US had better weapons,better Radar and systems.Sorry but isnt this what you want ,to have a advantage compared to your adversary.So the EF and Rafale will be upgraded over time.Looks to me as if the EF and Rafale are playing catch up to the American offerings.
It is rumoured that SH and viper didn't do well in summer trials at Leh AFB, which was perhaps the toughest trial for all the contenders, but all 6 aircrafts managed to clear 95% of the 643 evaluation parameters. This meant that the competition was cut throat and poor performance in a couple of evaluation parameters put any of the aircraft at the risk of being knocked out.
Besides if you look at the number of upgrades planned for flankers after a decade of service, it seems that IAF believes that the avionics can be jacked up but the airframe can't. Perhaps the same thing went in favour of Rafale and EF, whose current radars are already rated very highly and were able to demonstrate a development path for their aesa versions.
It's said the Leh was simply adjusting fuel management, the Gripen passed with a hornet engine, but I accept your point about the airframe and avionics, computer system, a major change may require a rewire, rebalancing the planes CoG and basic flight testing again .
As far as I have read, the EF and Rafale AESA was included in the eval that the US radars exceeded
Aren't the F-16 and F-18SH pretty much sunset platforms? I don't think it helped their case any when the USAF and USN have commited to the F-35. Neither service is likely to commit limited funds to any further major development of the 2 legacy platforms. Neither LM or Boeing will fund such enhancements so it's going to be for the account of the customer making them a less attractive proposition.
It's said the Leh was simply adjusting fuel management, the Gripen passed with a hornet engine, but I accept your point about the airframe and avionics, computer system, a major change may require a rewire, rebalancing the planes CoG and basic flight testing again .
As far as I have read, the EF and Rafale AESA was included in the eval that the US radars exceeded
It was reported that 4 contenders had failed to meet the criteria in Leh (excluding Gripen NG which hadn't been tried out at Leh at that point). It is rumoured that the tests at Leh involved restrictions on usage of after-burner and/or simulation of engine damage (for twin engine fighters) with a specified combat load.
I think the Gripen passed when it went to Leh at a later date.
This was what I was referring to with the fuel The Hindu : News : Gripens head for AFS Jaisalmer
While one of the Gripens will undertake hot weather trials in and around the AFS Jaisalmer and later take off to perform a dummy run and bomb drop at the Pokhran test range, the other fighter, as part of the cold weather trials, will land in Leh, switch off, refuel and then take off again.
The officials confided that four of the five aircraft in the MMRCA competition faced problems starting up in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh, and the IAF had to ask the manufacturers to undertake modifications in the aircraft's fuel systems.
