Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

Saaho

Senior member
Dec 27, 2019
1,888
1,373
Earth
The Delta SDD is being misunderstood. This is only a program similar to Rafale ISE, but for F-35 customers.

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%206.pdf?acsf_files_redirect In 2003, an ‘International Commonality Effort’ program was initiated to define a generic JSF Program partner version and a Foreign Military Sales version of the F‐35 and to complete the necessary preliminary design activity. This ‘delta’ SDD phase would produce a partner version JSF Contract Specification, establish the process for handling country‐specific requirements, and create separate ‘delta’ design reviews.
F-35 is NOT just for partner-specific-enchancements. If you read the language of the contract awarded to LM, it reads specifically the following :

The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible.


I quote the original contract:
"
CONTRACTS

NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $134,188,724 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). This modification is to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD). The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (68 percent), Orlando, Fla. (24 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (8 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
"

Interestingly, your OWN document states that. "to define a generic JSF Program partner version"
SDD will define the base model for all the partners and foreign military sales AND processes for handling country specific changes.

You know the fun part?

Also, features such as nationally required weapons wouldn't be covered in SDD, which has a defined set of weapons to be cleared for the Block 3 configuration -- the endpoint of SDD

The nation specific requirements are NOT covered by SDD. It is just a bunch of protocols for individual nations to cover their specific requirements ON TOP of a SDD specification.

SDD Delta end point is what people call an "export version". Watered down on parts which US National Disclosure Policy wants to hide.
This concept of dumbing down never existed.
Au contrarie!

If it was real, then everybody would have been talking about it even today. LM and Pentagon would have admitted to it in committee hearings as well.
It was talked about. In holland atleast.

There's no need to dumb down an aircraft when you have a kill switch through ODIN/ALIS.
Unfortunately, you cann't "kill switch" a lot of "passive" stealth due to shaping, materials etc. Only the "active" part of the stealth.
 

Saaho

Senior member
Dec 27, 2019
1,888
1,373
Earth
Fiction is indeed fun and interesting. This whole export version thing is a Boeing smear, which naturally fits the Russians and French.
I don't think Pentagon contracts can be a Boeing smear...

It states clearly, "The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible."

It says nothing about partner specific changes etc. Just remain compliant to US National Disclosure Policy (first priority) and remain common to the US Air system, where possible (second priority).
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Banned
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,484
Mumbai
I don't think Pentagon contracts can be a Boeing smear...

It states clearly, "The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible."

It says nothing about partner specific changes etc. Just remain compliant to US National Disclosure Policy (first priority) and remain common to the US Air system, where possible (second priority).
Good find .

Frankly , even without these facts , going purely by the US track record it seems laughable that other nations ( & people here ) expect their JSF to have the same features as that which the US armed forces are equipped with .
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,316
8,564
India
F-35 is NOT just for partner-specific-enchancements. If you read the language of the contract awarded to LM, it reads specifically the following :




I quote the original contract:
"
CONTRACTS

NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $134,188,724 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). This modification is to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD). The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (68 percent), Orlando, Fla. (24 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (8 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
"

Interestingly, your OWN document states that. "to define a generic JSF Program partner version"
SDD will define the base model for all the partners and foreign military sales AND processes for handling country specific changes.

You know the fun part?



The nation specific requirements are NOT covered by SDD. It is just a bunch of protocols for individual nations to cover their specific requirements ON TOP of a SDD specification.

SDD Delta end point is what people call an "export version". Watered down on parts which US National Disclosure Policy wants to hide.

Au contrarie!


It was talked about. In holland atleast.


Unfortunately, you cann't "kill switch" a lot of "passive" stealth due to shaping, materials etc. Only the "active" part of the stealth.

Generic partner version means a common partner version. And when they speak of protecting their disclosure policy, it means they don't want to give away anything to other countries that are not part of NATO, like the Link 16.

It doesn't speak of a watered down version. It only says tech that will not be exported will have to be customised for the particular country's needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunstersun

Saaho

Senior member
Dec 27, 2019
1,888
1,373
Earth
Generic partner version means a common partner version. And when they speak of protecting their disclosure policy, it means they don't want to give away anything to other countries that are not part of NATO, like the Link 16.

It doesn't speak of a watered down version. It only says tech that will not be exported will have to be customised for the particular country's needs.
LOL! You know when these contracts were written?

One in 2003, one in 2007.
2003 : Defense.gov Contracts for Monday, November 10, 2003
2007 : DefenseLink: Contracts for Thursday, November 15, 2007

In short, both contracts were a part of JSF program. Now who were the partners during the jsf project? the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and formerly Turkey.

ALL of them, leaving Australia, were actually members of NATO.
Australia has always been very much equivalent to NATO member.

The SDD Delta effort was PROTECTING US technology and platform from its OWN NATO partners. That my dear, is text book definition of watered down.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,316
8,564
India

This is specific to the UAE because of the US-Israeli law for protection of their air superiority capabilities with the F-35. The US has a law which says Israel's neighbours will not receive technology that's better than what Israel operates. It doesn't mean the same has been exercised with Canada since their security is connected to the US, especially as Canada is part of the Five Eyes.

As per the US, the only difference between US and export jets is the Mission Data Files, which is geography restricted, and it also restricts some computing power in relation to the sensors.


The logic being the US receives the most advanced computing power first, along with software patches, and then it trickles down. This way the US always stays ahead. And when foreign pilots go in for training on US jets, they use the software patch that relates to their air force's specifications.

So the first set of jets to get the TR3 upgrade will be American jets. This consists of a computer and memory upgrade. They will simply add more processing modules as their MDFs get bigger. So export jets will have lesser modules and smaller MDFs in comparison.

If India opts for the F-35, we won't get the MDFs at all, we will have to create our own. Quantifying this as a downgrade would be incorrect.

And of course, weapons can be different. But the hardware is pretty much the same. There is no dumbed down version.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,316
8,564
India
LOL! You know when these contracts were written?

One in 2003, one in 2007.
2003 : Defense.gov Contracts for Monday, November 10, 2003
2007 : DefenseLink: Contracts for Thursday, November 15, 2007

In short, both contracts were a part of JSF program. Now who were the partners during the jsf project? the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and formerly Turkey.

ALL of them, leaving Australia, were actually members of NATO.
Australia has always been very much equivalent to NATO member.

The SDD Delta effort was PROTECTING US technology and platform from its OWN NATO partners. That my dear, is text book definition of watered down.

Going by that logic, India's Rafale is "watered down" as well. And since we have opted for ISE, our version is no longer the same as to the French version.

With the UK opting for Meteor instead of Aim-120D, it's obvious they got a "watered down version" as well.
 

Saaho

Senior member
Dec 27, 2019
1,888
1,373
Earth
Going by that logic, India's Rafale is "watered down" as well. And since we have opted for ISE, our version is no longer the same as to the French version.

With the UK opting for Meteor instead of Aim-120D, it's obvious they got a "watered down version" as well.
Does France have a policy analogous to " U.S. National Disclosure Policy"? And what are its contents? Also what was our final contract with France? I am not privy to last one atleast.

When you say UK got "watered down version", do you mean watered down version of F-35? Actually, UK got something secret as well. Something that no one else got : A MoU giving the assurance for access to more restricted parts of F-35 to integrate their own missiles. Specifically access to avionics source codes. (UPDATE 2-UK signs memo with US on Joint Strike Fighter). So UK got better missile integrated. Remember, in 2006, there was no AIM-120D.

Vis-a-vis France, India also was trying to get a similar kind of arrangement during initial MMRCA. But then... the original deal got scrapped and we got ... i dont know what we actually got on that front.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,316
8,564
India
Does France have a policy analogous to " U.S. National Disclosure Policy"? And what are its contents? Also what was our final contract with France? I am not privy to last one atleast.

When you say UK got "watered down version", do you mean watered down version of F-35? Actually, UK got something secret as well. Something that no one else got : A MoU giving the assurance for access to more restricted parts of F-35 to integrate their own missiles. Specifically access to avionics source codes. (UPDATE 2-UK signs memo with US on Joint Strike Fighter). So UK got better missile integrated. Remember, in 2006, there was no AIM-120D.

Vis-a-vis France, India also was trying to get a similar kind of arrangement during initial MMRCA. But then... the original deal got scrapped and we got ... i dont know what we actually got on that front.

I'm saying the F-35 Delta SDD is meant for a program like the Rafale ISE. So F-35B with UK specific enhancements and Israel specific enhancements etc.

The idea is to maintain common systems and deliver enhancements based on customer preferences. Nothing has been watered down, it's just additions to what already exists.

Given the amount of money spent on just developing the American variant, you think they have the money to develop different types of export variants? Only minor additions to the Rafale has cost us nearly $2B, that's the same amount the ADA has asked for the full development of the AMCA airframe. The West is freaking expensive.

The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible."

So the idea is to deliver them their country specific enhancements without compromising the US's own policy on ToT of source codes and maintain secrecy during the process. For example, if we want Astra integrated on the F-35, the US will work out a system that will make it happen without them revealing secrets they don't want revealed. But the main hardware will share commonality with US tech, so the APG-81 won't be switched out for Uttam, hence "remains common".

SDD = F-35A, F-35B
Delta SDD = F-35A + India-SE, F-35B + UK-SE, F-35A + Israel-SE etc.

There are the US versions, partner versions and FMS versions, because they are all divided based on geography, alliances and even export clearances. It's obvious that F-35s meant for NATO will have different communications, fingerprinting, IFF and secrecy equipment than a potential QUAD-alliance version. So the US F-35As flying over the Pacific may not necessarily be able to communicate and operate effectively with US F-35As flying in Poland, but will be able to do so with Australian and Japanese F-35As instead. Similarly, none of the US or partner versions will be able to communicate and operate with Israeli or UAE F-35s either because the US will simply not make the F-35's comm tech available at all. Hence the National Disclosure Policy is protected in this way as well. No different from how the Indian P-8Is could not communicate with the Americans until we signed COMCASA.

The argument Picdel made falls flat on the face because he's basically claiming some crappy, watered-down export grade F-35 with no stealth has beaten the Rafale F3R by a massive margin. It goes counter to everything he supports. It makes more sense to consider he's just plain wrong about this.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JustCurious

Saaho

Senior member
Dec 27, 2019
1,888
1,373
Earth
I'm saying the F-35 Delta SDD is meant for a program like the Rafale ISE. So F-35B with UK specific enhancements and Israel specific enhancements etc.

The idea is to maintain common systems and deliver enhancements based on customer preferences. Nothing has been watered down, it's just additions to what already exists.

Given the amount of money spent on just developing the American variant, you think they have the money to develop different types of export variants? Only minor additions to the Rafale has cost us nearly $2B, that's the same amount the ADA has asked for the full development of the AMCA airframe. The West is freaking expensive.
Good that you brought in money.

Total money spent to develop the SDD Delta spec from US standard was about $740 millions (worth of those two contracts). This does NOT include any country specific changes, which were got done by countries individually (like Norway wanted a different kind of breaking). Incidentally, its fairly close to 1 billion dollars estimated by USAF Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler for a watered down version of F-22.

For example, if we want Astra integrated on the F-35, the US will work out a system that will make it happen without them revealing secrets they don't want revealed.
Errrr.... nope! It will never happen. Even hypothetically speaking. Why? Because no one other than UK was given assurance for access to source code needed to develop the interface and UK was the only Tier-1 partner in the JSF project.

Will LM do it for you? For a massive price and access to your missile's datalink and other details, may be. But then, will you trust them with access to details of your missile? Sooner or later you will find them floating around to China.

The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible."

So the idea is to deliver them their country specific enhancements without compromising the US's own policy on ToT of source codes and maintain secrecy during the process. For example, if we want Astra integrated on the F-35, the US will work out a system that will make it happen without them revealing secrets they don't want revealed. But the main hardware will share commonality with US tech, so the APG-81 won't be switched out for Uttam, hence "remains common".
Except it was NOT. The idea was to develop a partner version and processes around it and LET individual nations customize it for their need AT THEIR OWN expense. If you read the contract, there was NO language like "Partner specific".

The argument Picdel made falls flat on the face because he's basically claiming some crappy, watered-down export grade F-35 with no stealth has beaten the Rafale F3R by a massive margin. It goes counter to everything he supports. It makes more sense to consider he's just plain wrong about this.
You haven't read his argument. Its NOT "crappy". EVEN this water downed version is having a 95% RCS reduction when compared to 4th gen fighters. Remember, this entire thing was unfolding in 2003. In 2003, if someone asked, do you want a fighter with data fusion, AESA radar and 95% RCS reduction, the answer will be "Oh WOW". Remember, in 2003, F-22 was a mythical beast with godly powers. So even a cheap imitation of F-22 with some of its charecterstics was a massive massive upside.

4.5 Gen, charecterstics (AESA, High bandwidth datalinks, integrated IRST targetting system) came much later. In 2003, they were still a research project for European weapons companies while US had operationalized most of them.

Only lately, with AESA radar, integrated IRST tragetting system, supercruise, High bandwidth datalinks, sensor fusion have become relatively common that F-35 with watered down stealth is no longer as much of a game changer as it was in 2000s. US F-35 are a different beast altogether.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,316
8,564
India
Good that you brought in money.

Total money spent to develop the SDD Delta spec from US standard was about $740 millions (worth of those two contracts). This does NOT include any country specific changes, which were got done by countries individually (like Norway wanted a different kind of breaking). Incidentally, its fairly close to 1 billion dollars estimated by USAF Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler for a watered down version of F-22.


Errrr.... nope! It will never happen. Even hypothetically speaking. Why? Because no one other than UK was given assurance for access to source code needed to develop the interface and UK was the only Tier-1 partner in the JSF project.

Will LM do it for you? For a massive price and access to your missile's datalink and other details, may be. But then, will you trust them with access to details of your missile? Sooner or later you will find them floating around to China.


Except it was NOT. The idea was to develop a partner version and processes around it and LET individual nations customize it for their need AT THEIR OWN expense. If you read the contract, there was NO language like "Partner specific".


You haven't read his argument. Its NOT "crappy". EVEN this water downed version is having a 95% RCS reduction when compared to 4th gen fighters. Remember, this entire thing was unfolding in 2003. In 2003, if someone asked, do you want a fighter with data fusion, AESA radar and 95% RCS reduction, the answer will be "Oh WOW". Remember, in 2003, F-22 was a mythical beast with godly powers. So even a cheap imitation of F-22 with some of its charecterstics was a massive massive upside.

4.5 Gen, charecterstics (AESA, High bandwidth datalinks, integrated IRST targetting system) came much later. In 2003, they were still a research project for European weapons companies while US had operationalized most of them.

Only lately, with AESA radar, integrated IRST tragetting system, supercruise, High bandwidth datalinks, sensor fusion have become relatively common that F-35 with watered down stealth is no longer as much of a game changer as it was in 2000s. US F-35 are a different beast altogether.

@Picdelamirand-oil

So a watered down F-35 with the same RCS as Rafale beat the Rafale by 40%? ;)