Lack of advanced trainers before, lack of basic trainers today.
VRS doesn't affect the fighter stream.
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Lack of advanced trainers before, lack of basic trainers today.
VRS doesn't affect the fighter stream.
Mano a mano, we are fine. Two-front war, we are not.
A war with Pakistan is unlikely to result in a two-front war, but a war with China more likely to, unless it's restricted to a single sector and neither side wants to escalate.
AMCA and F-35 Mk2 should end up with more or less similar capabilities in terms of avionics. AMCA will retain its performance advantage though. But AMCA should be compared to what comes next, like NGAD, J-XX, Su-57M2/Su-60 etc, and it will fall short, so we will need a more advanced design to enter development in the next 10 years to replace the MKI, for a post 2045 induction.
The least risky move is to just buy 2 squadrons of Su-57M. Then AMCA's comparison with J-20 and F-35 will matter only on the internet and the export market, not in warfighting. The Su-57M will take care of our needs for the next 20 years after induction, by which time the MKI replacement will become available.
The 2 way data link was not requested by french air force... Why? I don't know.
If I remember well, it seems that some export Rafale are fitted with 2 way DL for Meteor (Qatar ???), but I'm not 100% sure.
More thrust : every pilot requested more thrust ! the last evol of M88 is able or for increase thrust but same life time or same thrust and less cost of ownership. French armies didn't opt for more thrust. It was rumored than Qatar rafale are fitted with 8.3 tons M88....
But a fact remain : with 2x7.5T engine Rafale has +/- 95% of the max vertical speed than a EF2000 with 2x9T, but less fuel greedy.
The EF turbofan is definitely much better in terms of thrust ( for obvious reasons ) as compared to the M-88 , fuel consumption apart . Frankly , I wonder why didn't Dassault insist on a higher thrust taking future upgradation / modernization into account settling for what SAFRAN / SNECMA offered .
After all the core of the M-88 isn't anything new . It's at least 3 decades old if not more though I'd put it down more to the limitations of the French aerospace ecosystem where fighter development & mfg is more a once in 3 decade output as opposed to the US / Russian / Chinese aerospace ecosystem .
Hence why would a turbofan manufacturer invest in developing fresh iterations every decade ? I think SAFRAN would do well to take note of the independent 5th Gen FA development programs coming up across the world viz Turkey , South Korea , Pakistan , India , Indonesia , Sweden , etc .
Otherwise it'd prove a huge drain of resources on the part of the French government to keep subsidizing in one way or the other it's defence ecosystem particularly the defence aerospace ecosystem . A case in point is how Naval Group is reinventing itself , focusing on non N subs like Scorpenes etc tapping that market. Now while I don't claim to know what exactly are the business plans of SAFRAN in this regard , just thought I'd pen my thoughts .
Any comments on the above ? @Picdelamirand-oil
Thank you for worrying about the future of the French defence aerospace eco system. But so far we've managed to hold our own, despite the handicaps due to our size. In fact, we are specialists in this field and the organisation of our eco-system with the DGA at its head and the interweaving of the public and private sectors is unique in the world.
To maintain a high level without wasting budgets, we must distinguish between research and development, which allows us to reach the necessary technological level, and mass production, which is the use of this technological level for operational purposes.
For the first aspect, we try to maintain the highest level, for the second aspect, the DGA studies the right need with the operational staff and defines the lowest economic level that satisfies the need by design to cost. Because it is this second aspect that is the most expensive.
This is why, for the engine, technological advances have not been used to increase thrust but to reduce maintenance needs. SAFRAN has had two PEAs paid for by the DGA, called Turenne 1 and Turenne 2, in order to maintain the best technological level in the world.
Moreover, 30 years ago, the M88 core was already capable of giving rise to a family of engines from 7.5 to 11.5 t, which is why for the NGF demonstrator, it was planned to use an M88 with 11 t of thrust.
The M88 may be 30 years old, but it must have been ahead of its time because it is still much more modular than all the others. And these are characteristics that are not widely publicised but are more important than the thrust at sea level, which is the only figure that is publicised.
Even the UAE, which asked for a 9t thrust M88, recognised that it was not necessary and ordered 80 Rafales with the same configuration as France.
Last edited:
Looking at the Ukraine Conflict
EVEN IF , Ukraine gets more Fighters , It has neither got Operational Airfields Nor Radars
But it is still firing Tochka Missiles on Russia
Similarly if our Airfields and Radars close to the borders become dysfunctional in a war ,
We will have to launch fighters from Central India using Refuellers
But Missiles can be used in Any Circumstances
We must invest MORE in Missiles and Less in Aircrafts
Thank you for the detailed answer.
As regards our concern about the future of the French defence aerospace ecosystem, let me inform you that it's restricted mostly to SAFRAN & that we can choose to be anything but not be concerned especially since we've had news that DRDO / GTRE would be teaming up with SAFRAN for development of a new generation of turbofans.
I'd say we must keep ourselves aware of the financial health of SAFRAN, it's dealings, it's revenue streams , it's developmental activities, it's sources of funding , the amount of subsidies it receives from the French government etc
After all we've had hardcore experience with the Naval Group & it's list of exemptions , items not considered, refusal to engage in offset activities with local partners after due diligence before signing of contract , etc which jacked up the price of the Scorpenes by hundreds of millions of Euros.
Pretty much what Australia had to report when even before a rivet was struck, the estimated contract value ballooned to twice the original value taking into account inflation by the end of 2-2.5 decades when the last of the subs was supposed to have sailed out. Then there was a Norwegian member here detailing her experiences with the Naval Group - good negotiators, bad partners. With the result both the Norwegians & Australians bid you adieu .
Then there's our own HAL vs Dassault experience.
Can we say with any degree of confidence that the road ahead won't be marred by similar instances which'd be resolved only by SAFRAN presenting a hefty bill for services not considered as part of the original contract & India'd have no choice but to pay up !
However, the bigger the spread of the French defense sales the less the need to indulge in behavior as detailed above.
Hence, as of now, believe me when we say this , that more than the French people & government, we are concerned about the financial wellbeing of the French defense aerospace ecosystem. Trust that clarifies.
It may not be the right criterion to look at, because the financial well-being of the French defence aerospace ecosystem is guaranteed by the French state which considers it strategic. So it is always flourishing.
The EF turbofan is like a M53 engine of M2000 after a diet. Nothing special. Just made for high thrust in high altitude.
M88 was designed to be potent in low, medium and high altitude. Not the best scorer in each, but good in every.
30 years old, yes. But for its time it had the higher temperature available ! It was at least on par with best US engine.
And since a lot of job has been done to increase the global efficency. R&D efforts called Turenne 1 and Turenne 2 open the way for 2250 °K core temperature at least.
Chinese ecosystem for jet engine ? wake me up when they will be able to developp from scratch a modern engine. actually they use a derivative of CFM56 core copy.
And what about the Boeing vs HAL experience ? Boeing found that HAL was even not able to produce doors....
The problem when HAL is involved is always HAL : too big, too lazy, too bureaucratic.
They've already retrofitted their WS series of turbofans into the J-10 & J-20 FA series among other FAs. It's now only a question of scaling up production & continuous R&D to come up with suitable upgradations & newer iterations.
Question how long the people of india will be willing to absorb wrath of war, i seriously doubt unlike Ukrain guys our people will call for settlement over suffering.
Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production
US defence major Boeing has terminated a contract with state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for component supplies to the former’s war and commercial planes being inducted into the Indian Navy.Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said, adding that the US company’s move underlined the need for better strategies by India’s policymakers in order to bolster the order books of defence PSUs.
Boeing has over the last few years shifted its component sourcing requirements in India to private companies — Tata Group, Dynamatic Technologies, Rossell Techsys and others.
Under a $4.7-million contract signed with Boeing in 2010, HAL was to provide weapons bay doors for eight P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft that the former would supply to the Indian Navy.
The contract with HAL for equipment for the P8I, through its avionics division in Hyderabad, was the first P-8I offset package that Boeing had directly executed with India’s largest aerospace company. In addition to its work on the P-8I programme, HAL was to also supply Boeing with gun bay doors and wire harnesses for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and uplock boxes for the 777 commercial airplane.
Boeing refused to comment for this story, while senior HAL officials said although “there were problems” (with the Boeing contract), these would be resolved.
“Boeing is already working with multiple companies in India to fulfil its commitments. We are actively working global sourcing strategies that can help make Boeing more competitive around the world, in addition to building India’s aerospace capabilities and meeting our offset commitments,” Dennis Swanson, vice-president of Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) in India, had told FE in an interview earlier.
Industry sources have indicated that since 2014, Boeing has been expressing its dissatisfaction with HAL’s performance and has moved to other firms to meet its requirements. For instance, Dynamatic Technologies and Tata Advanced Materials (TAML) are delivering power and mission equipment cabinets for P-8I aircraft, and TAML is also on contract to provide P-8I auxiliary power unit door fairings. Dynamatic Technologies is on contract to manufacture the aft pylon and cargo ramp assemblies for Boeing’s CH-47F Chinook. Maini and TAL Manufacturing Solutions are on contract to provide C-17 ground support equipment to Boeing.
Boeing is interested in setting up a manufacturing base in India under the ‘Make in India’ programme. It has recently inked a framework agreement with Tata Advanced Systems to collaborate in aerospace and defence manufacturing and potential integrated systems development opportunities, including unmanned aerial vehicles.
Yes, the article I linked to came out at the time when the cooperation between Dassault and HAL for the MMRCA was being discussed. It was not very positive at the time and moreover HAL refused the quality control of Dassault.
I think many Indian & French members have locked horns over this issue plenty of times in the past . No point revisiting it . Dassault knew what it was getting into before they submitted the tender . All arguments post their winning the contract were in bad faith .
And the arguments ranged from poor work standards & practises including too much reliance on obsolete machines poor work practices & over reliance on manual labour which affected the finish & quality of the end product by HAL to Dassault not willing to stand guarantee on HAL's manufacturing unless they exercised total control over the project or even agree to the time scale in terms of man hours for delivery of each Rafale as the entire process at Dassault was heavily automated but not so at HAL
One can accept the latter two arguments by Dassault not the first part . Naval Group enacted the same role as Dassault around that time for the Scorpenes pushing up the price of the Contract Value significantly .
This pretty much seems out of the playbook from French defence organisations. I think one can safely conclude this much from both these episodes in addition to other nation's armed forces reporting similar instances out here .
Last edited:
Boeing ends contract with HAL over ‘poor quality’ of production
US firm’s decision comes over HAL’s ‘poor quality’ of production
www.financialexpress.com
"US defence major Boeing has terminated a contract with state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for component supplies to the former’s war and commercial planes being inducted into the Indian Navy.
Boeing’s decision came after repeated reminders to HAL about its “poor quality” of production, sources said"
Because for the MMRCA it was asked to Dassault to guarantee the HAL quality. Only possible if HAL use the Dassault quality management and tools.