India India to buy 26 more Rafale jets, 3 Scorpene submarines from France: Report

[Nilgiri]

India to buy 26 more Rafale jets, 3 Scorpene submarines from France: Report

Prime Minister Modi, who is the guest of honour at the Bastille Day Parade this year, will visit France on July 13 and 14.

www.businesstoday.in

India is planning to buy 26 more Rafale fighter jets and three Scorpene class conventional submarines from France, the news agency ANI reported on Monday. The proposals by the defence forces have been placed before the Defence Ministry and are likely to be announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to France this week, the agency said citing sources.

PM Modi, who is the guest of honour at the Bastille Day Parade this year, will visit France on July 13 and 14.

As per the proposals, the Indian Navy will get 22 single-seated Rafale Marine aircraft along with four trainer aircraft, the report said, adding that the Navy had been pressing for acquiring these aircraft and submarines as they have been facing shortages in view of the security challenges around the country.

The aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and Vikrant have been operating the MiG-29s and need the Rafales for operations on both carriers.

The three Scorpene class submarines would be acquired under the repeat clause by the Navy as part of Project 75 where they would be built in the Mazagon Dockyards Limited in Mumbai, the agency said.

The deals are estimated to be worth over Rs 90,000 crore (~11 bn USD) but the final cost would be clear only after the contract negotiations are completed which will be held after the deal is announced, the report said.

The proposals are likely to be placed before the defence acquisition council in the next few days and are expected to be accorded approval by the government before the announcement in France.

India has already got the delivery of 36 Rafales, for which it signed the deal in 2016. In 2016, India and France signed a Rs 59,000 crore deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets, equipped with the latest missiles and weapon systems besides multiple India-specific modifications.

In December last year, the 36th jet arrived in India. In a tweet, the Indian Air Force said: "'The Pack is Complete'. The last of the 36 IAF Rafales landed in India after a quick enroute sip from a UAE Air Force tanker."

 

[Afif]

Rafale is an excellent aircraft. Only issue is its small FCR cannot take full advantage of Meteor Against smaller RCS targets at long ranges.

 

[Lordimperator]

Rafale is an excellent aircraft. Only issue is its small FCR cannot take full advantage of Meteor Against smaller RCS targets at long ranges.

It has SPECTRA too, excellent Electronic Warfare, proven by passing Syrian AD.

 

[Afif]

It has SPECTRA too, excellent Electronic Warfare, proven by passing Syrian AD.

I know, it is quite good for 4.5 gen aircrafts. But another Euro-canard Gripen E has a better one.

 

[Gary]

I know, it is quite good for 4.5 gen aircrafts. But another Euro-canard Gripen E has a better one.

arexis ?

 

[Gessler]

I'm able to think of 4 main reasons why the Rafale was chosen over the F/A-18 for Navy:

1) Commonality with IAF. With things like Joint Logistics Nodes (JLNs) taking shape, plus Performance-Based Logistics contracts in place, maintenance of a very high availability & sortie rate will become possible. Expenditures will also be more streamlined & cheaper.

2) Survivability. For all its features, the F/A-18 Block-III still lacks some basic stuff like Missile Warning Sensors. The Rafale's advanced DDM-NG should make it more survivable against a variety of threats - regardless of how they are guided.

3) Enhanced weapons integration options. It would be much easier to get approvals for integrating Indian/third-party weapon systems onto the Rafale. Which in turn would improve logistics situation further. Things like Astra, NGARM, SAAW & even BrahMos-NG can all find application on the Rafale.

Last but not least...

4) Nuclear delivery. It's very unclear as to whether the Naval Air Arm will ever be tasked with the nuclear delivery role, it wasn't in the past. However, if and when the requirement arises, Rafale will be relatively straightforward to adapt, considering IAF ones will already be nuclear-ready by then.

As per the proposals, the Indian Navy will get 22 single-seated Rafale Marine aircraft along with four trainer aircraft, the report said,

That's interesting. The Rafale-M has no two seat version. Are we to assume the Navy will maintain Air Force-spec OCTs on shore bases? Or are we financing the development of a special version of M not used in France?

Either way, I'm assuming our Ms will be F4-spec.

The aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and Vikrant have been operating the MiG-29s and need the Rafales for operations on both carriers.

I'm pretty sure we aren't gonna bother with Vikramaditya anymore. That was the plan back when we wanted 57 MRCBF, but with only 26 coming they're just enough for the Vikrant. I think we've determined, correctly, that it isn't worth the trouble to put a brand new air wing on the Vikramaditya.

Only issue is its small FCR cannot take full advantage of Meteor Against smaller RCS targets at long ranges.

That's not how that works.

Your ability to detect, track or engage low RCS targets depends primarily on the signal transmission strength of your TRMs (in turn determined by power output & substrate material) & on your signal-processing capabilities (back-end electronics & software). There are more than enough TRMs to provide the mainlobe with all the performance that any other AESA-FCR of this generation can realistically deliver. Plus, the French have a nearly 10-year lead over the other European companies when it comes to operationalizing the AESA - so I would trust Thales' solutions wrt signal processing over Selex/Leonardo which is a fairly new-comer to the field.

Where a smaller array will hurt you however, is with regard to 1) weaker sidelobe performance, 2) lower active Field of View & 3) lower number of interleaved operations that can be performed simultaneously.

The first two disadvantages do not really manifest much in BVR engagements, rather in WVR situations. Because in BVR, Rafale relies on a vast array of passive/offboard inputs to cue the radar. This was more of an issue back when AESAs were sitting on early 4th gen jets that did not have sensor fusion. It's still an issue, though less severe, on Rafale - which is why they plan on implementing conformal tile radars around the airframe in future blocks, which should make it a considerably superior solution to having a single larger array in the nose.

The last disadvantage can indeed manifest in BVR...but given that the RBE can actively track more targets than any other FCR on a non-5th gen jet (40 targets simultaneously), it's evident that Thales has found a back-end solution that can work with the smaller front-end (active array).

 

[Lordimperator]

I know, it is quite good for 4.5 gen aircrafts. But another Euro-canard Gripen E has a better one.

Not yet to be proven, and there is no gripen marine ver.

 

[Afif]

That's not how that works.

Your ability to detect, track or engage low RCS targets depends primarily on the signal transmission strength of your TRMs (in turn determined by power output & substrate material) & on your signal-processing capabilities (back-end electronics & software).

There is no doubt, ability to detect track and engage low RCS targets depend on signal transmission strength of TRM and on signal processing capabilities.

However, the way I understood the principle of AESA operation is that, if two radar posses similarly advanced signal processing capabilities and similarly advanced TRM, then if one has considerably more numbers of TRM then the other one, it is ought to deliver longer range and greater accuracy.

There are more than enough TRMs to provide the mainlobe with all the performance that any other AESA-FCR of this generation can realistically deliver.

How so? Then what's the point of the huge APG-82 AESA on the nose of F-15ex? Or for example, isn't Indian upgraded Sukhoi supposed to have 1800 TRM Uttam?

arexis ?

,

 

[Bürküt]

3) Enhanced weapons integration options. It would be much easier to get approvals for integrating Indian/third-party weapon systems onto the Rafale. Which in turn would improve logistics situation further. Things like Astra, NGARM, SAAW & even BrahMos-NG can all find application on the Rafale.

Do Frenchs open the Rafale's mission computer to you , according to the purchase amount can India demand such a thing ?

 

[Gessler]

There is no doubt, ability to detect track and engage low RCS targets depend on signal transmission strength of TRM and on signal processing capabilities.

However, the way I understood the principle of AESA operation is that, if two radar posses similarly advanced signal processing capabilities and similarly advanced TRM, then if one has considerably more numbers of TRM then the other one, it is ought to deliver longer range and greater accuracy.

If the TRM tech, power output & back-end components/software are the same, the mainlobe detection range will be the same. Like I said, the downside you will experience will happen wrt the sidelobe performance, FoV & interleaved operations capability. As in, if you have 100 TRMs you can dedicate 50 of them to Track-while-scan in look-up mode (air targets) and 25 will be left to scan in look-down, and 25 for Electronic Attack.

If you have 150 TRMs, you can dedicate 50 TRMs each for look-down & EA while still maintaining 50 for look-up TWS. Or, you can keep look-down & EA at same 25 TRM, but put 100 toward look-up TWS which should help you scan a much wider field of view, or track more targets within that FoV.

Trying to register a low RCS target by throwing more TRMs at it is a game of diminishing returns, especially as most LO/VLO are optimized against X-band. As long as sufficient number of TRMs are available to form a main lobe, adding some more isn't really gonna give a return that scales accordingly - because the power emitted by each TRM is not going to stack. What they CAN do is to increase the size of the main lobe, which like I said, helps to increase FoV.

The Gripen E AESA is however superior to the Rafale's current radar - but not because it has a slightly bigger array, but because they seem to be testing a GaN substrate for their TRMs. Which means each TRM should at least theoretically*** be able to transmit more power than current RBE-2AA's GaAs modules (GaN version is still work in progress at Thales).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'accuracy' - if you mean the resolution, that depends on the frequency used i.e. X-band will have much better accuracy/resolution than L-band.

*** I say theoretically because even though the GaN substrate may be able to transmit up to 5x times more power, in reality the amount of power you can transmit is determined by how much your APUs & engines can generate, and how much heat the radar's cooling system can remove efficiently. So supposing that you put the same GaN TRMs on both Gripen & Rafale, the latter with 2 x engines can always have more electrical power on tap at any given time than a single-engine jet. So even with the same radar, Rafale might be able to transmit more power and/or carry out intensive TWS for much longer periods than a Gripen.

How so? Then what's the point of the huge APG-82 AESA on the nose of F-15ex? Or for example, isn't Indian upgraded Sukhoi supposed to have 1800 TRM Uttam?

The size of the array is determined by size of the nosecone, which in turn is informed by aerodynamics & other mission needs.

Obviously if you have an airframe with a large nosecone on hand, you're going to make the most of it. Adding more TRMs doesn't hurt, like I said it helps you do a lot more jobs simultaneously and/or achieve bigger FoVs which is important for air superiority - it just doesn't mean that a larger TRM count in of itself gives you a farther search/tracking range. It doesn't.

Bottom line being, Rafale can take just as much advantage of the Meteor's range as Gripen E can.

Does France open the Rafale's mission computer to you , according to the purchase amount can India demand such a thing ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583082553598103552

 

[rai456]

I'm able to think of 4 main reasons why the Rafale was chosen over the F/A-18 for Navy:

1) Commonality with IAF. With things like Joint Logistics Nodes (JLNs) taking shape, plus Performance-Based Logistics contracts in place, maintenance of a very high availability & sortie rate will become possible. Expenditures will also be more streamlined & cheaper.

2) Survivability. For all its features, the F/A-18 Block-III still lacks some basic stuff like Missile Warning Sensors. The Rafale's advanced DDM-NG should make it more survivable against a variety of threats - regardless of how they are guided.

3) Enhanced weapons integration options. It would be much easier to get approvals for integrating Indian/third-party weapon systems onto the Rafale. Which in turn would improve logistics situation further. Things like Astra, NGARM, SAAW & even BrahMos-NG can all find application on the Rafale.

Last but not least...

4) Nuclear delivery. It's very unclear as to whether the Naval Air Arm will ever be tasked with the nuclear delivery role, it wasn't in the past. However, if and when the requirement arises, Rafale will be relatively straightforward to adapt, considering IAF ones will already be nuclear-ready by then.



That's interesting. The Rafale-M has no two seat version. Are we to assume the Navy will maintain Air Force-spec OCTs on shore bases? Or are we financing the development of a special version of M not used in France?

Either way, I'm assuming our Ms will be F4-spec.



I'm pretty sure we aren't gonna bother with Vikramaditya anymore. That was the plan back when we wanted 57 MRCBF, but with only 26 coming they're just enough for the Vikrant. I think we've determined, correctly, that it isn't worth the trouble to put a brand new air wing on the Vikramaditya.



That's not how that works.

Your ability to detect, track or engage low RCS targets depends primarily on the signal transmission strength of your TRMs (in turn determined by power output & substrate material) & on your signal-processing capabilities (back-end electronics & software). There are more than enough TRMs to provide the mainlobe with all the performance that any other AESA-FCR of this generation can realistically deliver. Plus, the French have a nearly 10-year lead over the other European companies when it comes to operationalizing the AESA - so I would trust Thales' solutions wrt signal processing over Selex/Leonardo which is a fairly new-comer to the field.

Where a smaller array will hurt you however, is with regard to 1) weaker sidelobe performance, 2) lower active Field of View & 3) lower number of interleaved operations that can be performed simultaneously.

The first two disadvantages do not really manifest much in BVR engagements, rather in WVR situations. Because in BVR, Rafale relies on a vast array of passive/offboard inputs to cue the radar. This was more of an issue back when AESAs were sitting on early 4th gen jets that did not have sensor fusion. It's still an issue, though less severe, on Rafale - which is why they plan on implementing conformal tile radars around the airframe in future blocks, which should make it a considerably superior solution to having a single larger array in the nose.

The last disadvantage can indeed manifest in BVR...but given that the RBE can actively track more targets than any other FCR on a non-5th gen jet (40 targets simultaneously), it's evident that Thales has found a back-end solution that can work with the smaller front-end (active array).

I would put the latest versions of the F/A-18 above the Rafale for Radar and EW. The Americans just have better radars and EW technology than the Europeans. Of course I'm not sure what would be offered to India. The Growler version for example is probably out of the question. Even the RCS of the F/A-18 is suppose to be more refined than the Rafale though probably not enough to make much of a difference.

The Rafale-M only really make sense as it allows the Indian Navy to share logistics with the Air Force which is a big plus. Operating yet another fighter with its separate ecosystem is costly. With the Rafale you can use the same weapons and munitions of the air force Rafale and Mirage 2000. The French will also probably allow integration of Indian weapons given the large Indian Rafale fleet.
With the F/A-18 you would have to buy a separate ecosystem of American weapons.

 

[Nilgiri]

Confirmed:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680114008056012800