Below are attached two visuals, with the first pertaining to Dassault Aviation’s definition of transfer of technologies (ToT), by far the clearest and most detailed explanation of what exactly constitutes ToT. The second visual gives a simple explanation of what Dassault Aviation claims to be its superior man-machine interface, achieved through the application of leading-edge sensor fusion technologies. This in fact reminds me of my first visit to Dassault Aviation’s facilities in Saint-Cloud way back in 1992, during which officials from both Dassault Aviation and THALES were extremely dismissive about the prospects of such technologies being applied to the Eurofighter EF-2000, citing the Rafale’s superior cockpit ergonomics versus the EF-2000’s multiplicity of AMLCD displays (which Eurofighter officials have since countered by stating that this ‘disadvantage’ is easily neutralised through the incorporation of direct voice command inputs.—Prasun K. Sengupta
24 comments:
how will iaf tends to use Rafale?
will Rafale be able to fulfill the Indian requirement?
that is against j-10B,j-11,jf-17,f-16,j-20.
rafle will not be used for air supremacy but for deep penetration
To Anon @8.29AM: One cannot and must not compare the Rafale itself against all the other combat aircraft that you've mentioned. Instead, what needs to be compared are the nature of air campaigns to be employed by India against her adversaries in the years to come.
To buddha: The rafale is omnirole, i.e. multi-role, meaning it can be employed as part of any kind of air campaign, be it for tactical air superiority, strategic air supremacy or even interdiction. The word 'deep' is relative. While a Rafale equipped with twin conformal fuel tanks has a combat radius of 820nm, more than enough to cover the entire Pakistani landmass, it is not enough to cover the farthest landmass within Mainland China's Chengdu and Lanzhou military regions.
Interesting analysis Prasun, but if India is even thinking of taking the fight that deep into china[Lanzhou,Chengdu] a missile war would be a few hours away.
My gut says such a thing would be attempted only after the dragon has already initiated a missile strike deep into the north eastern[Assam Plains].
The political will now or in the future [looking at our up and coming leaders] for this type of planning is just not there.
The Rafale is still a wonderful fighter and provides a strong deterrent.
I have some questions, what we will gain from these ToT ??
I mean we have received ToTs before also like in Su30 mki, Jaguars but all these have hardly helped us, now we are going for tech transfer for MMRCA followed by FGFA where we are paying 5 billion $ but nothing seems to be helping...??/
Same is the problem we are facing in submarines also...
We paid hugely for 6 Scorpenes (4.6 billion $) with full ToT but now again we are willing to spend for technology transfer for next generation but the funny thing is there is no such SSK which should cost so much (11 billion 4 for 6 subs). Again we are paying so much in the name of tech transfer but nothing seems to be helping our shipyards and a there's a funny question, will they be able to build SSK after this deal or we will be signing a new deal with tech transfer for the next generation SSK ??
To Anon@4.56PM: For gaining further insight into the kind of air warfare likely to be waged along India's northwestern and northeastern borders, kindly go to:
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/separating-wheat-from-chaff.html
To Anon@9.15PM: What will India gain through ToT from the M-MRCA deal? The answer is: 'full operational sovereignty' over its M-MRCA assets.
The problems arising out of the Scorpene SSK programme are altogether of a different nature. When the deal was signed, it was the best anyone could have dreamt of, especially regarding ToT. The French really took pains to ensure that the best bToT package was on offer. According to this deal, MDL was made responsible for selecting private-sector and public-sector Indian vendors for producing various components and ancillary items in cooperation with their French counterparts. But when it came to implementation, it emerged that the Indian vendors were unable to cough up the funds reqd for upgrading their human resource skills and production engineering expertise. Therefore, MDL had no option but to discard this vendor development programme in toto and instead, place orders directly with France-based vendors in order to avoid further production schedule slippages. Consequently, all these processes and activities consumed a lot of time and money. This was a classic case of the OEM more than willing to offer a comprehensive ToT package, but the recipient being unable to absorb and master the various ToT packages.
It is for this very reason that I've opposed the setting up of a second SSK production line for a second SSK type for the Project 75I programme. It is far better, instead, to consolidate all SSK licenced-production activities with one single consortium of shipbuilders, and select one foreign shipbuilder (DCNS in this case) to provide both the first six Scorpenes and the follow-on upgraded design. That makes perfect financial sense in the long-term. Setting up a parallel SSK production capability with another foreign shipyard will enormously complicate matters and will only lead to utter financial wastage. Show me at least one country that has adopted the kind of SSK licenced-production approach which India is trying to for the Project 75I SSK programme.
What is the status of our own aesa meant for LCA and other future aircrafts??/ Are we going solo on the project or still looking for a partner ? If we are choosing a partner then when will the deal finalizing ?/
Also the 2 european winners are providing us tech for aesa, will this tech transfer enable us to develop our own aesa ?/ If yes then why are we looking for partner ?
Also we are building a aesa for Su30 separately with Russia but its also appears to be not helping us develop our own aesa...Why so ?/
One of your previous article on lca mk2 states about various tenders to be issued for various components. Why are we issuing global tenders for components like aesa, IRST etc. for lca mk2 when we are paying for tech transfer for these components in MMRCA contract ?// When we are going to apply these techs in our domestic projects ?
Do we have have any indigenous project to develop IRST ?
Also can you tell me how much will per unit Rafale and EF will cost us in MMRCA contract ? I am not talking about 126 * 1 rafale costs because when we will buy we will negotiate on cost and per aircraft cost will be lesser...so how much is the deal from dassault and EF consortium costs ?
Please inform whether the Rafale is somewhere or somehow less in power.
Thanx for the reply...
Your quote : What will India gain through ToT from the M-MRCA deal? The answer is: 'full operational sovereignty' over its M-MRCA assets
The full operational sovereignty for a purchased fighter jet will be possible only if we get the full source code which only french are offering...
I just wanted to know whether after this ToT we will be able to build components like aesa,irst etc. on our own for our future aircrafts ?/
Because ToT is mainly meant for that and yeah operational sovereignty will definitely come if we will be able to produce our own components....
Is there any report of higher power engine being offered by dassault to India ?? They are offering it to UAE...
To Anon@9.51PM: Since India has yet to master the art of designing and producing MMRs, total reliance on foreign suppliers of airborne MMRs will continue. As for the AESA-based MMR, since the Tejas Mk1's environment control system from Honeywell has been designed around the IAI/ELTA-built EL/M-2032, the chances of the EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR being selected for the Tejas Mk2 remain very high. Final selection will be made before the middle of next year.
THALES and Cassidian are offering India ToT for maintaining and servicing the AESA-MMRs, and not for designing and producing them. No one can indigenously develop AESA-MMRs based on such ToT packages. India is not building AESA-MMRs with Russia. Instead, India will procure them off-the-shelf from Russia for installation on the to-be-upgraded Su-30MKIs.
Procurement of ToT for maintaining and servicing radars is the not the same as procuring the skills and technologies reqd for designing and developing radars.
There is no programme as yet within India for designing and developing IRST systems. The per-unit cost of the M-MRCA is determined by the by the type and quantum of product-support and training packages to be acquired. Even so, the Rafale will most likely be less expensive than the Eurofighter EF-2000.
To Anon@12.15AM: The Rafale is not underpowered.
To Anon@12.18AM: Even the US has offered to transfer its source codes via a special mechanism, which will see the IAF being supplied with 'object codes', a procedure already being applied to the UAE Air Force's F-16E/F Desert Falcons. Therefore, on the subject of source codes transfer, all six M-MRCA contenders are even and have complied with the IAF's demands. An as clearly explained in the first visual, ToT applies only for maintenance and servicing of the avionics and upgrading their applications software by getting access to source codes. The ToT does not inlcude the option of producing elements and components of the avionics package.
To Anon@2.14AM: The higher-thrust derivative of the Snecma M-88 as well as an upgraded version of the THALES-built RBE-2 AESA-MMR will definitely be offered to the IAF whenever they enter production. They are both part of the Rafale's future upgrade roadmap. And also take note that elements of this upgraded higher-thrust M-88 will also find their way into the indigenous Kaveri turbofan now being developed for the Tejas Mk2.
Hi Prasun,
Any insight into US plans to deploy ABM in europe and possible countermeasures against them by Russia?Will Russia finally partner China/india in this regard?
Will Japan/S Korea able to induct indigenous mrca(ATD-X....)into their airforce and pbbly market overseas?
To Anon@12.15AM: The Rafale is not underpowered.
Thanx...
sir,
one thing i failed to understand is, will it cost around 1.5 billion for a diesel attack sub. if with all those tech if it does cost that much, is it reasonable to go for 6 of them at that cost. would it not have been better to go for 3 of them and go for another 10 cheaper versions with remaining money (ignorance in technology apologized). Even spread over 10 years 6 billion will take away close to half a billion from the navy budget every year. Also will it not be too much of costly asset to be left to fend itself alone as subs for attack. I know the Navy knows better of its business, but somehow i find it difficult to digest. just curios to know the logic.
To Anon@7:57PM: The US-led ABM system to be deployed in Central and eastern Europe is optimised for defence against IRBMs and MRBMs carrying unitary warheads. Consequently, Russia as such will not feel threatened and in any case, Russia has cruise missiles as well as depressed-trajectory ballistic missiles to counter the ABM netwowk if it so desires and therefore is unlikely to partner with either India or China in this regard.
As for Japan and the ROK being able to develop 5th-generation MRCAs, the answer is definitely yes. Not only do they have a strong high-tech industrial base, but they also have the reqd national will to develop them. The ROK has already joined forces with Indonesia to develop such an MRCA, which will definitely be offered for export.
To Anon@11.10PM: Well, let's admit it, it was the Govt of India that screwed up big time since the 1990s and decided to re-invent the wheel. In an ideal world, India should have stuck to her military-industrial alliance with Germany's HDW/IKL and in addition to importing two Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs off-the-shelf, should have built four more in-country. Once that was done, India should have immediately decided upon procuring a follow-on six Class 214 SSKs by the late 1990s (as per the Navy's recommendations). In doing so, MDL would have preserved and improved upon its SSK production skills. Instead, the Govt of India willfully allowed all such human resource skills to disappear by not ordering any SSK at all between 1995 and 2005, and then decided to re-acquire such lost expertise by tying up with DCNS for the six Project 75 Scorpene SSKs. This to me is a classic case of governmental criminal negligence. Everywhere else, be it in the ROK or Greece or Portugal, their navies have stuck to HDW, while those traditionally linked to DCNS (like Pakistan and Spain) have maintained their SSK production programmes with France. So, the answer to your query is that the Govt of India has not followed any logic when it comes to SSK procurement since the mid-1980s. And it is now all set to repeat this very same mistake by trying to open a second line of SSK production in alliance with another new foreign OEM for the Project 75I programme. It is like asking SpiceJet (an established B.737NG operator) to order A321s as well and asking InDiGo (an established A320 operator) to order B.737NGs as well!
i am the anonymous at 11.10pm
sir, thanks for the reply.
any way we are used to the blunders of our redtape system, nothing new about it and not to say about the euphoria around the word 'transparent' while being inefficient.
But still you didnt answer to the cost factor. whether attack subs cost more than nuclear ones (source wiki). I read earlier from Ajayji's column about a debate in navy about whether to go for conventional or nuke subs if at all above a surface navy. may be ultimately the conventional guys won. But still i feel 10 billion for just 6 subs to be too much to digest. may be we should spend our def money much more judiciously, what we covet and what we really need has too much difference. apologies again for being ignorant but i am mesmerized after seeing the zeroes in the $10billion in Indian rupees!
heard that DCNS is offering follow on at 5 billion/6 sub since they have ground preparations in scorpene here. Should we really go for a lengthy transparency or a short wise decision. too young to think!
^^^
Even U214 is also not that expensive, actually none of them are. U214 is offered at max. for 500 million $ per submarine.
I don't understand, i bet if we purchase 20 U214 for 10 billion$, Germans will even shift the production line to India forget about the ToT.
I also think it was stupidest idea to reveal the amount of money sanctioned for any project as it will be hard to negotiate now.
I don't think DCNS should charge us so much, we already have most of the tech to develop a SSK, now what we need is few new gen techs....
Best thing is to purchase the techs from any country who will win MMRCA. We can purchase the tech in 3-4 billion $ and then set up an indigenous line for SSK, also to keep up with the pase wee can place follow on order for Scorpenes which is an option open for us as per the contract of P75.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIPZ8-AqVec&feature=player_embedded#at=12
To Anon@5.29AM: In India's case, procuring nuclear-powered submarines will definitely be far more expensive than attacking diesel-electric or AIP-powered SSKs, primarily due to the sheer complexity of putting in place a fleet of SSBNs and SSGNs. You can read more about this issue at:
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/mag-report-indias-secret-k-missile.html
&
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/12/agni-slbm-myth.html
Within the Indian Navy there was never a debate on whether to go for SSKs or nuclear-powered submarines. Rather, the debate was about whether to first go for SSGNs or SSBNs. The Indian Navy ultimately decided to go for SSGNs (attack submarines), but were overruled by the DAE/DRDO combine, which wanted to start things with a SSBN construction programme, which in my view was a wrong decision. At the end of the day, any kind of submarine-building programme is bound to be an expensive affair since the core technological competencies don't exist in-country, and therefore have to be imported at a very high cost. Various elements of the submarine (either conventional or nuclear-powered), such as periscopes, combat management systems, heavyweight torpedoes, navigation systems, simulators, etc have all got to be imported. Therefore, all that India can do is reduce the non-recurring R & D costs by sticking to one foreign submarine designer/manufacturer.
But who told you that the six Scorpenes cost US$10 billion? The contractual amount is actually Rs 15,400 crore(US$3.5 billion).
Hi Prasun,
If the russians are capable of countering US missile defence why are they making so much of noise at US decision on basing Patriots in Romania and Poland?
"China-russian strategic partnership"
Where is this going?(media reports of chinese ambassador to russia saying so)
What are the acquisitions indian defence forces is likely to make in the near future which are going to be game changers you forsee that nobody in the media is talking about?
To Anon@7.51PM: It's quite simple, really. The Russians wanted the US to make use of existing BMD sites located in southern Russia and Azerbaijan, so that the Russians too could make some money from this exercise.
Regarding China-Russia strategic relationships, the coming five years will be quite interesting, especially after the Chinese have openly and blatantly violated their IPR commitments to Russia by producing a clone of the Su-33 (the J-15), a clone of the Type 636 Kilo-class SSK (the Qing-class SSK), and are now all set to unveil a strategic airlifter (like the C-17A Globemaster), which would mean that China is no longer interested in buying IL-476s in large numbers from Russia. In addition, China's steadily growth clout within the Central Asian Republics is bound to make Russia feel very uncomfortable.
Regarding future gamechangers for India's armed forces, some systems are presently being tried out in the war-games, such as real-time airborne intelligence gathering-cum-targetting systems and their ground-based imagery analysis-cum-interpretation components. Without such systems, weapons like the BrahMos Block 2/3 land-launched cruise missiles are quite useless. Also, the IRNSS constellation of GPS satellites, and the RISAT-1 overhead recce satellite (to be launched later this year), to name a few.
Post a Comment