[peterjim13]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dassault Rafale, MMRCA, with the Indian Air Force

Attachment 2038139

Yet another piece of Art. Narayan

I always wanted to get the perspective from you on this - and I wanted to wait till Rafale lands on Indian soil.
Must say the jet is pure muscle - especially on the jai hind pic.

So let me try to get some questions answered by you - out of pure curiosity btw:

Sure that Dassault has been a reliable partner and IAF has some credible history of association with the French. In fact, I read somewhere that we planned of giving additional orders for Mirage-2000 after the Kargil war - which eventually led to MMRCA program. But how did we miss Mirage-5? There were quite a lot of users for this fighter plane including the IAI derivative in Israel.

I am sure that this particular fighter would have been a great bridge between Mirage 2000 and the previous-gen Dassault.

[Laxman9192]

During his time in the IAF my father had worked as an 'Air Frame Fitter' on Dassault's Mirage 2000s inducted in the 1980s. He would really love to read this thread!

[Shome]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I see that you are a knee-jerk "current" technology affecionado. Your favorite word is "current". I suggest you look to the future instead of dwelling in the obsolete. India is capable of going to Mars. It is capable of building its own superior Air Force in house.

Would have really appreciated if you would have answered the questions I asked.

The future needs a solid foundation, not only for the Air Force but for all arms of the defense forces. In India's case, the foundations are the Tejas, Dhruv, Rudra, LCH, LUH, Arihant class, Vikrant, ATAGs, TEDBF to name a few. While some are already in or entering service, the remaining platforms need to mature, making the "pilotless stealth fighter" a thing of the future, a fairly distant future in India's case.

However, that doesn't mean that you compromise on the present because the "current" tech is not available in-house and we do not maintain the necessary force levels to manage a 2-front threat. Rafale addresses that to a certain extent, although I think we need 2 more sqdns in the near future.

But let's not derail the thread, don't want any infractions now, do we

Your intentions for a self reliant India for the future are on point, but I wouldn't go so far as to question the IAFs choice in a fighter by calling it obsolete (Rafale and Typhoon were the only 2 which met the relaxed ASQR parameters in the MMRCA competition).

Peace

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I see that you are a knee-jerk "current" technology affecionado. Your favorite word is "current". .

I find your posts in particular poor taste. Here we have a thread with a lot of detailled discussion and information around the Rafale. Several members chipping in with their thoughts, offering insight into various aspects of this plane.

It is of course anybodies privilege to disagree with whatever aspect of the Rafale, choice, technology, whatever.

However, your post are just simple one liners. You are dismissive with one liners with no details, no insights as to why you have different opinion. Some very specific questions were raised and again you are dismissive with just cheap one liners, with no substance.

To me that is not very constructive at all. I for one, have no time for people with opinions without content. Because they don’t contribute to anything. I do not learn anything from people spewing just one liners opinions. Offering no content, no substance at all.

You do not add anything of any value to this thread.

With such strong finite opinion one would expect a huge wealth of experience, insights and knowledge on the topic at hand. But apparently it is all hollow phrases with no substance.

If you can share your insights, respond with proper answers, showing some detail, substance, expertise and how that relates to the topic at hand and your thoughts that would be great.

If not, I would I would at least suggest to all other members simply not to respond.

Jeroen

[thehighwayman]

This is a competent aircraft no doubt and India should be proud to have it in its arsenal.

What is sad however are the sheer inadequacies of our own defense research and manufacturing organizations.It took two decades to produce an indigenously developed aircraft and yet its core component - the engine is still outsourced. The fifth generation fighter is still on the drawing board and might be a similar or longer wait before it sees the light of the day. What the government needs to do is to really enrich and empower these organizations (perhaps by taking a cue from ISRO). These should be run as private firms where the non performers are trimmed on a regular basis and the real talent is rewarded .The allocated budget needs to be increased too and revised as and when the situation demands.

Till such time, we would always be reliant on other countries for 'cutting edge' military equipment.

[pranavtengshe]

So is rafale the crysta equivalent of mirage for IAF then and tejas is the swift equivalent to zen( mig21 Bisons)!
I am looking forward to Rustom series combat drones.
Air defence is a costly affair. More modern the forces get less is the probability of war given the symmetry.

Theres missile defence, air superiority, interceptors, bomber, aewacs, fuel carriers, ground support (helicopters, combat helicopter), electronic warfare.
I thank god I am not the IAF procurement guy.

After reading a lot about IAF I am proud to see that they are using the hardware in a very cost effective way.

Modern air wars will soon get elevated to space wars with nations killing each other's satellites.

[Jessierider]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

From a historical standpoint, I wonder why India never really went for Mirage 3/ Mirage F1 planes from the 60s thru the early 80s. Obviously, we continued to engage with Europe by acquiring the Jaguar.

One reason for engaging with Russia or the erstwhile USSR was due to the political support we got from them. This support was handy in our wars with Pakistan as the Soviets kept the Americans and Chinese at bay. The classic example was the 1971 episode of the Soviet submarine tailing the mighty American aircraft carrier fleet.

Another aspect that I see is the philosophy of Soviet miltary equipment manufacturing of making things rugged and resistant to abuse. This I am sure would have entized the Indian buying party.

The third aspect is the relative cost of Soviet equipments against their western counterparts. The fulkrums were almost 50% cheaper than the LM F16.

The last aspect in my opinion might be that, we are a peaceful nation with a policy of using force to defend the sovereignty of our country. Hence our adversaries are restricted to our neighbours, our Soviet equipments in the 70s up until recent past were better than the airforces of Pakistan and China.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by DirtyDan

I see that you are a knee-jerk "current" technology affecionado. Your favorite word is "current". I suggest you look to the future instead of dwelling in the obsolete. India is capable of going to Mars. It is capable of building its own superior Air Force in house.

I know Jeroen's voiced his opinion and I have to concur but let's try and give you the benefit of the doubt.

For someone who seems to decry the pitfall of buzzwords you seem to have fallen prey to them plenty yourself. But I said we'll examine this critically.

You say that the air power realm is moving entirely towards stealth and unmanned. In a manner of speaking that's true, but as is the case with all things, there's nuance to it. Once you start factoring in fiscal, engineering and developmental realities you'll start to find there's plenty of lag time between the conceptualisation stage and the final implementation. If it weren't the case laser weapons would've been common place by now yet still they're either a punchline for Reagan era outlandish defence plans or entirely experimental units. Even with aircraft ultimately you're beholden to the physics and that's going to limit you to what your airframe can look like for the most part, so I'd hold the barbs directed the Rafale's way in that regard (if you're really after exotic aero then go take a deep dive at whatever old Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites is flying around in). Coming back to the lead times, by that metric the F-35, which is arguably the most current fighter in service today is already a design that was first planned at least two decades ago. If you wanted truly cutting edge, stick to F1. You'd find that when there's the possibility that some young soldier drafted out of high school is going to be put behind something with a price tag costing the tax payer a mint, you either play it safe or you go gung ho (depending on how expendable you consider said shmuck).

As things stand, the way air force leadership is structured, however much the engineers and the futurists might see that unmanned is the way to go, ego will delay the time when there isn't a manned platform that represents the tip of the spear. Instead what you're seeing is the compromise solution of low observable (LO) UAVs that act as buddies to your manned platforms. It's an elegant solution in that it has the most upside for the least risk - doing so let's you test sensor fusion, LO sculpting and treatments, and more on a UAV that's going to be Far Far cheaper than a manned equivalent. And sticking to the money theme, especially when procurement budgets face such pressure, it allows you to maximise the use of older airframes in a modern battle field context (eg Australia's LO UAV buddy programme for their F-18's; or Russia planning to pair their giant UAV with not just the Su-57 but their Su-35's; or even the LO UAV tanker the USN is pursuing to get around the tanker weak spot). If you've noticed on other threads there are plenty of us who Do see the low hanging fruit that a domestic LO UAV programme presents to India and I for one do argue in favour of it. The only issue is that for better or worse, unless we can get over the tribulations with the Tejas and they are many (frustratingly.. oh so frustratingly), we just won't make much progress in those future programmes. We just Have to clear the gremlins with the Tejas and more than that leadership at ADA, HAL or even in Delhi have to be self aware enough to know when to say no to projects that are a step too far.

Anyway I've rambled in getting riled by your pithy non comment.

For those of you still having genuine questions, don't feel shy - it might feel like a stupid question but everyone starts somewhere. Those of us who normally yammer away on the defence threads aren't a prickly bunch. It's important folks pore through these threads, they might sometimes repeat issues (won't happen the more thoroughly you read all of the thread!)but they're still often a better resource than the junk you tend to find in the media. If I'd have to give a good rule of thumb, pick a V.Narayan post and go from there.

[fhdowntheline]

For all this talk of pilotless stealth and ASAT weaponry, let us not forget that we are still combatting humans. And it takes a human to effectively combat another. We still have to effectively demonstrate the efficacy of UCAVs in defensive mode - engaging and overcoming manned fighter planes. Currently UCAVs are being deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan where there is zero resistance ie near total air superiority. You cant expect UCAVs to execute a Balakot, and also anticipate and counter any retaliation.

[Kuldeep31]

Originally Posted by DiMaGo

I, however, have few questions:
a.) Is this a better buy than EuroFighter Typhoon?

To add my two cent on this: IAF pilots were not impressed with the Eurofighter after the Indradhanush Ex. 2015 where the score was 12-0. The Typhoons, flown by RAF, were literally whitewashed by the Su-30s.
Even though the Rafale was selected in 2012 by the IAF, this contract was scrapped later and a decision to acquire 36 aircrafts in fly-away condition was inked in 2016. IAF's experience with the Typhoons was probably the final nail on the coffin for the Eurofighters.

P.S: Indin Pilots and their testing skills are analysed closely by many airforces all over the world before these countries order any contract. For the MMRCA the different parameters totalled 600 points and the cutoff was 590!!
In this context France, till 2012, did not even get one single order. However, after the IAF gave the go-ahead, orders started trickling in for Rafale.
So when the IAF chooses a product it is probably the best in that class.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ads11

Coming back to the lead times, by that metric the F-35, which is arguably the most current fighter in service today is already a design that was first planned at least two decades ago. .

Somewhat off topic perhaps, but I have often wondered why lead times of the various (military) planes are now measured in decades? Scroll back to the 50/60/70 and Kelly Johnson and the infamous Skunkworks were cranking out cutting edge technology planes in a matter of years. Look at the development lead times of say F104, but also A12/SR71, U2

Even on the F117 the time between decision to produce and first flight was 31 months! I am sure there was further development done, but still.

Of course, these days, planes are even more complex. But then again, the way we design planes have been much approved too.
Essentially when a completely new plane took to the skies in the 50 it was never entirely sure if it would fly at all. The number of accidents in initial test flights was staggering. These days with very advanced computer modelling and windtunnel practices, design can be perfected and fine-tuned, even before a plane is physically build.

New advanced materials? Well, we have seen plenty of that. Nobody really knew how to machine large piece titanium as was used on the A12/SR71. Materials and production technique had to be invented from scratch in those days too. Applying stealth technology, all the way into production techniques on the F117 is a similar story. It was done at breath taking pace!

With these two decades lead times, also comes a staggering cost of these planes too. In most industries lead times and cost are closely correlated.

Jeroen

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

...I do hope the IAF put a clause in their contract that all documentation and manuals need full 1:1 English translation.

I have burned myself badly once on this aspect of dealing with a high tech French company!

Jeroen

I can second you on that. But from my interactions (was a sheer coincidence) with the pilots and an engineer from IAF who are going to deal with this bird (from the first batch) are pretty fluent in French, to that extent, one guys has a degree in Linguistics and the language was French. They are anyways getting English documentation only. How much of "google translated" english it will be, only the people handling it can determine. They have a process of approving/legally authorizing the translations, as it involves maintenance manuals and repair instructions that need to be very concise and accurately convey the information across. Just like every other aviation related manual, this needs to go through quite a lot of processing too before being released to the user.

Also, Jeroen sir, with the advancement in satellite technologies, the need for airborne reconnaissance platforms has significantly reduced. Off-late the warfare has shifted theaters from being fought 1vs1 (air, water, land) to now digital platforms. Nobody really wants any direct war. Every nation is playing diplomatic and proxy war where only a very little of their assets are involved and boots on the ground can be kept to a minimum.

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

...
However, we should not allow our Su-30MKI upgrade go on the backburner, as we have 272 of them, and having them functioning with old avionics would be a strategic blunder. They form the heavy weight category of our fleet, and they are our premier heavyweight air dominance fighter, and hence they very well deserve a deep upgrade. They along with the Tejas and Rafale would be a deadly trio.

If you heard the recent interview of Air Vice Marshall B. Suresh in Tarmak Talking, he quitely touched upon this topic. The Sukhois will be upgraded to Super Sukhoi standards and very soon the process will be started.

[V.Narayan]

Dear Brothers,

Thank you for going through the photo essay and offering your kind compliments which I graciously accept.

My thanks to a few members who have answered some of the questions raised in the past two days while I was out of circulation = Jeroen, ads11, fhdowntheline, Shome, Redliner, Foxbat, Shwet, CaptBrijesh, dragracer567 and dhanushmenon.

A few generic themes emerge from the discussion and I will try, to the best of my ability to write briefly on them, including where needed a short background/history to put matters in context. The themes I spotted are:-

Beyond Visual Range Missiles & the whole dialogue around their usefulness. also for those readers who are not aviation buffs or pilots a little precise on what is a BVR missile and why is Meteor on top and who else is.

Why did we not go for the Mirage 5 and Mirage F.1

Why has no one else bought the Rafale

How does the Rafale compare to the Eurofighter & other competitors

How good are the aircraft of the PLAAF {Chinese Air Force} and where do they stack up.

Starting over the weekend I'll write on a separate post on each. I hope you find them useful. I write for the joy of sharing. And love to read your posts and learn from them. Do bear with me if it takes a few days. I like to leaf through my old & new books and magazines and pick out just the sentence needed and not write long tomes full of technical jargon which frankly is easier to write or simple cut paste!!

Wikipedia is a wonderful source to read on the biology of an organism; not quite balanced or complete on topics of history and often unbalanced on topics of weapons, aircrafts, missiles etc. The data isn't fudged but the context of the parameter isn't stated. Range and warhead size are the two most fudged data points on W. And these have in all probability been written in by company executives or their consultants onto W. Also when we read about comparable aircraft in the general news it is God awfully childish written as it is by journalists typing off a colour brochure.

As Jeroen so delightfully put it we'll stay with facts and analysis and balanced perspectives and not reduce our aviation threads to the mud slinging highly & opinionated caustic tones we see in other parts of social media.

[AZT]

Originally Posted by Jessierider

One reason for engaging with Russia or the erstwhile USSR was due to the political support we got from them. This support was handy in our wars with Pakistan as the Soviets kept the Americans and Chinese at bay.

Underrated comment. Global arms purchases are heavily linked to diplomacy and drumming up support / not speaking up. The US is the worlds largest arms exporter and ironically second largest for both India and Pakistan, Russia is first for India and China for Pakistan. With the France Rafale deal we have 4 out of the 5 UNSC veto members having a direct stake in regional instability and an increasing defense budget. I haven't dug deep for the UK but I have a feeling even they get a slice of the pie here with talks of them building us a naval super carrier.

[vamsi.kona]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Somewhat off topic perhaps, but I have often wondered why lead times of the various (military) planes are now measured in decades? Scroll back to the 50/60/70 and Kelly Johnson and the infamous Skunkworks were cranking out cutting edge technology planes in a matter of years. Look at the development lead times of say F104, but also A12/SR71, U2

Even on the F117 the time between decision to produce and first flight was 31 months! I am sure there was further development done, but still.


Jeroen

I have zero knowledge of the technological aspects, but I think that the Cold war between the the two major powers might have contributed to the fast realisation of products from design stage to actual product. The intense rivalry, and the need to be ahead of the other, might have played a major role in the fast lead times. Also, I think the governments themselves were heavily involved in the overall process, thus commercial factors would have been put aside to ensure that the goals are achieved. We saw the same thing in the space exploration field.