Sure. But they have to compete and give us the cheapest price. Anyway, once MRFA is built, the line can build more Falcons.
Our aviation market is gonna be crazy in the future. The US market is 4000 jets a year for example.
So Dassault is a perpetual money-making machine for the govt. Forget Rafale exports, the Falcon line will provide so much financial benefit that the Rafale's cost will be more than makd up in just a decade.
The Falcon line can (and does) exist independently of MRFA. Like I said, it's a different value proposition that isn't connected to Rafale. Falcon can be produced here because it makes sense to produce it here. We have the 3rd highest number of billionaires in the world after US & China.
They would want private jets regardless of what happens in MRFA. And producing locally makes Falcon more competitive for that market. One has nothing to do with the other.
CATS is a HAL hobby project. Whether the IAF buys it or not is up to them. IUSAV is an IAF project, they want it in vast numbers.
IAF needs CCAs and CATS will be compatible across the whole air force unlike foreign offers which may only work for one type of fighter, you won't be able to use Western CCAs with MKIs and vice versa. Foreign offer would only be considered if CATS fails.
But there's nothing saying we shouldn't buy French drones, it would mean a second advanced drone producer for India.
Then we'd remain an import air force for perpetuity. That isn't how you create redundancy.
CATS is being pursued by HAL/NewSpace. If you want an alternative, get ADE to pursue one as well. Like how NewSpace and CSIR-NAL are pursuing competing HAPS drone programs.
It's 2 months, maybe shorter. Then a montht o write and submit a report. It's expected well before March 2025.
Sounds optimistic, but great if it turns up that quickly. We can get the +36 buy to go through that much quicker.
ISE is a perpetual need. We are a large and important air force. This is the case for all jets we operate. That's also why the Israeis have their own ISE'd F-35; the I here standing for Israel.
Why spend so much on modifying an obsolete foreign platform to make it somewhat less obsolete when we could spend that money on our own platform tailor-made for our requirements?
It's literally the same airframe, with 2 plugs.
The Mk-2 is capable of displacing offers like F-16V/Gripen E completely, while being able to do a lot of the jobs that could otherwise only be done by likes of Rafale or MKI. That's why Mk-2 could kill the SEF tender while Mk-1/1A couldn't.
So in IAF & ADA's eyes, the Mk2 fights in a higher weight class than the Mk-1/1A. It's as simple as that.
Lol, your brochure says "Tejas Mk2."
And it says "Medium Weight Fighter" before that. You just see what you want to see don't you?
MWF was a project code for LCA Mk2, that's all. Like AURA was to the IUSAV.
Why would they call the project a Medium weight fighter unless it is one?
The LCA name reinforces the idea that this is a program that everyone is already invested into, thus making opposition to it difficult to justify. That's why they continue with it. But it's clear they didn't just start calling it an MWF for no reason.
They quite literally replaced the Mig-21s entire function with the MKI.
That's like replacing an F-16 with an F-22. Sure the Raptor can do everything F16 can & more. Does that mean it's a F16 replacement?
What we did with MKI was a temporary measure brought on by drastic situations.
Who cares if they are trying to hide or not, the physics is the same.
If you don't care whether ACT works to hide Rafale or ends up making the Rafale look even bigger on enemy radar, then sure it's the same.
Cuz the latter is what happens if ACT misses its mark...which it will, if it tries to spoof large AESAs.
Anyway, how you are reading into it and how you think all that works are not the same. All those 36 targets tracked are using just 1 beam. It's a function of your computer, not the radar. And the Rafale too is exposed to only one of those tigher beams.
No, that's how older radars (slotted arrays, MSAs) used to track multiple objects. AESAs don't do that cuz they don't need to. They use narrow, individual beams to track each designated target. Otherwise you are negating the LPI advantage that AESA affords you.
Each of those beams can have different properties in terms of frequency, amplitude or phase. And there'll be variance in those properties for every pulse, or even within the same pulse. The pattern of the variance is not predictable by conventional computing unless someone leaked the algorithm to your intel agencies.
This is why a proper AESA-FCR is a nightmare to deal with. This is why everybody is dead-set on the necessity of shaping & internal weapons for future aircraft. Deflection is the only reliable way to maintain stealth in a world filled with AESAs. Even absorption through RAM/RAS will get less effective over time as IRSTs get more advanced. And then you're going to have airborne long-wavelength radars (like what Su-57 already implements, but only for IFF) which require your shaping to develop even further, with fewer & fewer discontinuities & structural aberrations (fins & tailplanes being omitted on a lot of future designs).
Back when France was experimenting with ACT (on FTBs like the one below), AESAs were extremely rare outside the West. Airborne AESA-FCRs were non-existent outside the West. So there was quite some room for Rafale to play with ACT. As far as Russia is concerned, ACT still has room to play cuz Moscow seems to be struggling to roll out AESAs like China can.
Against China, I'd say ACT is already pretty ineffective in frontline duties. By the 2030s, it'll be useless.
If France was offering a SCAF airframe, even with no next-gen engine & avionics, that would still be worth it to indigenize. As a back-up to AMCA if nothing else. But investing into the Rafale platform at this point makes no sense. It'd be wasted money.
You need both. Like even J-20 is getting its own Neuron. So is NGAD.
Such an irrelevant point.
The question is why not use ACT to hide the drone instead of making it a flying wing with IWBs, which hinders aerodynamics & payload?
Then why are both Dassault and the IAF on my side?
They aren't.
Dassault is simply pursuing OEM self-interest, they're well within their rights to do that.
IAF is investing into AMCA & IUSAV. And they even broke off AMCA into Mk-1 & Mk-2, cuz they're even willing to take the jet to FOC with a 4th gen engine if it means getting the airframe in hand sooner. Cuz it's the airframe they want - it's the airframe that gives AMCA even a semblance of survivability in the future battlefield against China.
IAF isn't even pressing GOI for follow-on Rafales even though we're approaching the decade mark since the first deal and the tenders aren't getting anywhere. For comparison, the MKI ToT deal was signed a mere <4 years after the first off-the-shelf buy. That showed that IAF was ready to be invested into the platform.
But for Rafale, the timeline is saying something else.
A time when according to you, ACT will be more effective than it is now and shaping will be less effective than it is now.
But would still like to buy 114 Rafales. So even if you don't agree with ACT, the IAF still wants MRFA.
Like I said, they aren't allowed to say they don't unless the order is given. What the leadership believes internally, we don't know.
All we can see is their actions. AMCA funds have been greenlit, Mk-1A is ordered, follow-on Mk-1A is also close to order, Mk-2 is going ahead, just waiting on the engine. IUSAV is funded & in testing (SWiFT).
But for over 8 years, there's not a peep about additional Rafales.
And any question as to why there's not a peep has been deflected by saying "we want it through the tender". So the MRFA is like a carrot tied to the stick that's perpetually in front no matter how much the donkey walks. And it's very useful for IAF in that role.
Because as long as the MRFA carrot is present, nobody can question either IAF or MoD if at all Rafale capabilities (or the attached strings) didn't turn out the way they expected. After this many years, you have to consider the possibility that this may indeed be the case.
If we follow the MKI pattern of procurement, the deal for Rafale through the 114-jet RFI (issued in 2018) should have gone through by 2020 as we came out of the election cycle, but there was COVID so I'll give you a 1 or 2 year moratorium, so by 2022. But here we are entering 2025 and procurement hasn't moved an inch. Still no AoN, so officially MRFA didn't even start yet.
If you ask me, something happened in 2022 that changed IAF's entire internal calculus as to what kind of platform they actually need. The emergence of J-20B that year might well be one of the factors. F-35 showing up at AeroIndia the following year might've been another.
But until AMCA Mk-1 prototype emerges (should happen by 2027-28), IAF will continue to need the MRFA carrot to deflect unnecessary criticism. Unfortunately, it also means a +36 off the shelf buy becomes hard to justify due to the corner they've painted themselves into.
The review might just give them the relief they need so they can go through with the buy. After that, MRFA can be slowly put to rest as focus shifts to AMCA and Tejas Mk2 begins production.
No. It was all developed and introduced long after AESA radars were introduced.
They were very limited back then. The vast majority of systems they were up against were still pre-AESA. Even today that's still the case with Russia so the French may have thought they can ride this out. Against China we can't.
Chinese even have AESA low-level mobile gapfiller radars these days. So even flying low is not a guarantee that you won't be seen.
The IAF still wants it. Considering your lack of knowledge on this subject, that's all you need to know. User preference should be your first choice as they are the professionals, not you.
Meh, answered above.
www.thehindu.com
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
).
