Rafale - Myth or fiction

[Emu]

posturing is a shaky criteria in politics. south korea in comparison seemed a lot more "confident" in the k-x rafale bid, but it ended up being a feint to get a better deal on the slam eagle.

 

ferfer's earlier post regarding the terms gives some insight into each party's interests and offers some pieces of the puzzle as to what is driving india's (in)actions.

Don't think that's accurate. Korea's whole bid was a feint to get a better price on the F-35, then the issue of ToT came up and they backed out. They selected the Slam Eagle via the bid, then said, "nah we want the f-35 really," and then they find out they weren't getting ToT and reluctantly moved back to the Slam Eagle, which may itself be a feint to try get ToT.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Emu

[Eddie]

Yep, physical RCS reduction measures will always be more effective than ECM techniques when it comes to pure detection. Although the latter may allow for other advantages (cost, simplicity of maintenance, etc.).

[NeilWillis]

Information, disinformation, measure, countermeasure.

 

In theory, signal cancelling is feasible, but of course all that is emitted can be detected. We can speculate forever, but without any empirical data, the whole exercise is futile.

 

However, it would be worth pointing out that there are more ways than one to skin a cat. Just because huge resources are poured into something, it doesn't mean it is infallible, or the only way to achieve something.

 

The US defence budget has been wasted on other schemes that amounted to nothing. Star Wars - the missile defence system for one.

 

Why is it so impossible for a highly effective, passive countermeasure to exist? As was said though, the facts probably won't be known before any such systems are obsolete, so facts will be entirely absent until long from now.

[Fer_Fer]

Well here's the catch, the Indians swear blind that they are paying cash and don't take loans for military purchases. And if they were taking a loan, then the terms of the payments affect the amount paid. The IAF indicated a desperate immediate need for 84 to replace an ageing fleet and the government turned round and agreed to 36. Seems like an emergency patch and negotiations have definitely frustrated the French and the reduced volume has increased cost.

 

If they're already aiming for the PAK-FA as their main fighter post 2020, every year that passes makes a larger Rafale purchase uneconomical and unneeded. Production is another problem. Time to set up production lines, then training. By the time the Rafale hits Indian service it'll be defunct.

 

 

I don't really buy that though. I've been following it from the start. I've seen the number slowly reduce, I've seen the French frustration in negotiations, I've seen issues emerge when the problem of increased unit price for a reduced number came about.

 

First up, the myth of paying Cash. No government pays in cash they have hanging around. Sure, there might be a post in the budget that says "MMRCA tender, 9BN, but the chances of that money sitting anywhere on a bank account are close to nil, due to the way government finance works, which covers day to day expenses with short term bonds, which in turn get paid off when tax income comes in. So India is technically correct by stating they are buying out of the pocket. the price has been put into their budgets, and payment is planned beforehand, thus meaning there will not be a a seperate loan as is the case with Egypt. It simply means that the money needed will by raised by issuing bonds.

Likewise, i don't think the problems are with India raising the cash, but rather with but that they are stuck on the details of payment rather then the cash itself.

The Indian Rupee isn't exactly a stable currency, which means that given the sum of money, any change in the exchange rate can lead to sudden, unexpected cost increases. The French will seek to get a payment in Euro's or USD, with the Indians paying any increase as the result of fluctuating currency changes. etc etc etc.

likwise, do not underestimate the legal framework, which in this kind of case will be considerably longer then the agreement itself. i have seen deals where the Deal itself was a single page, but the legal stuff took in excess of 400 pages. And that, mind you, was for a simple deal on civilian stuff, for Defence stuff i'd reckon that its a whole lot more and considerably more detailed.

 

On the subject of the PAKFA, things aren't running as smoothly either, with the Russians having significantly scaled back their order (58 to 12), continued problems with cooperation, and expected delays means that the IAF isn't really happy the way things are going right now. Likewise, recent experience with Russian equipment is less then stellar when you realize that about 2/3rds of the MKi fleet is grounded at any given time.

 

As for the timetable, under the current agreement, all frames would be delivered in the next 2 years. Given that the avionics and the pilots are used to flying French Mirages, Training will be relatively short and painless.

the PAKFA isn't slated to be fully in service until 2025 IIRC

Edited January 29, 2016 by Fer_Fer

[Emu]

First up, the myth of paying Cash. No government pays in cash they have hanging around. Sure, there might be a post in the budget that says "MMRCA tender, 9BN, but the chances of that money sitting anywhere on a bank account are close to nil, due to the way government finance works, which covers day to day expenses with short term bonds, which in turn get paid off when tax income comes in. So India is technically correct by stating they are buying out of the pocket. the price has been put into their budgets, and payment is planned beforehand, thus meaning there will not be a a seperate loan as is the case with Egypt. It simply means that the money needed will by raised by issuing bonds.

Likewise, i don't think the problems are with India raising the cash, but rather with but that they are stuck on the details of payment rather then the cash itself.

The Indian Rupee isn't exactly a stable currency, which means that given the sum of money, any change in the exchange rate can lead to sudden, unexpected cost increases. The French will seek to get a payment in Euro's or USD, with the Indians paying any increase as the result of fluctuating currency changes. etc etc etc.

likwise, do not underestimate the legal framework, which in this kind of case will be considerably longer then the agreement itself. i have seen deals where the Deal itself was a single page, but the legal stuff took in excess of 400 pages. And that, mind you, was for a simple deal on civilian stuff, for Defence stuff i'd reckon that its a whole lot more and considerably more detailed.

 

On the subject of the PAKFA, things aren't running as smoothly either, with the Russians having significantly scaled back their order (58 to 12), continued problems with cooperation, and expected delays means that the IAF isn't really happy the way things are going right now. Likewise, recent experience with Russian equipment is less then stellar when you realize that about 2/3rds of the MKi fleet is grounded at any given time.

 

As for the timetable, under the current agreement, all frames would be delivered in the next 2 years. Given that the avionics and the pilots are used to flying French Mirages, Training will be relatively short and painless.

the PAKFA isn't slated to be fully in service until 2025 IIRC

Well I've seen a lot of contradictory information on several of the points above, from PAK-FA ISD, to payment method, to MKI reliability and all I'll say at this stage is that it's impossible to separate the manure from the shit.

[Emu]

Information, disinformation, measure, countermeasure.

 

In theory, signal cancelling is feasible, but of course all that is emitted can be detected. We can speculate forever, but without any empirical data, the whole exercise is futile.

 

However, it would be worth pointing out that there are more ways than one to skin a cat. Just because huge resources are poured into something, it doesn't mean it is infallible, or the only way to achieve something.

 

The US defence budget has been wasted on other schemes that amounted to nothing. Star Wars - the missile defence system for one.

 

Why is it so impossible for a highly effective, passive countermeasure to exist? As was said though, the facts probably won't be known before any such systems are obsolete, so facts will be entirely absent until long from now.

Well technically it isn't passive, and there's the problem. You've got an active system that requires power and suffers the realities of lag. Due to this, you've got a window on every AESA frequency shift where the threat radar is receiving a response as normal and a window where the jammer is emitting out of sync and giving position information away to the threat EW system. Then you have the problem of a separate Tx and Rx, where the EW system detects the Tx and jams it instead of the reflection going back to the Rx. And ultimately you run into power requirement and simultaneity problems when up against many threat radars in a wave attack. There are also other nasty problems, like secondary reflections off external stores and parts of the aircraft where you don't have jammers. You can't cancel the reflection at the aircraft surface, so do you guess what phase angle it'll be at when it gets back to the Rx?

 

And as mentioned the ability isn't as special it would seem and is normal for DRFM. It's good but not full proof, or unique (as it's been marketed).

 

Well not all the Star Wars money was wasted. It was renamed several times and the some of the technology developed, like DACT, was the forerunner for systems like SM-3, THAAD, PAC-3, GBI etc. The space-based laser fell flat on its face and Project Excalibur is basically prohibited under the Outer Space Treaty, but the development is still going and being used, and even becoming more important in the case of the DF-21D. The laser research is also still firmly on the cards for the next 10 years and looks likely to produce in service systems.