Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Oct 2013 00:29

If the chief did say that they have no backup plan and they should get the Rafffy then all I have to say is

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Oct 2013 00:56

Any additional LCAs ordered today will be delivered only after 4-5 years, long after IOC and FOC are achieved, even if delayed. The IAFs would rather fly its Mig 21s till 2025, something it would have to do even after spending 15-20 billion dollars on the Rafael, than buy more LCAs. This of course makes eminent sense to some.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2013 00:58

ChackoJ Kudos on those calls on the Raffy.

Great job.

Looks like GOI had single POC for the deal to be negotiated and he died. Great going.

BTW he was also involved in the Helicopter deal.
Mis-fortunately in India people die inconveniently when the ruling party is suffering from corruption allegations.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Oct 2013 03:21

New person will have new ways of doing things, might actually move things along faster.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Oct 2013 03:43

Doubt we had single POC for Rafale or anything else. GoI would break records for stupidity and mismanagement if true (it's own records--nobody else comes close in the dept). It's simply convenient to blame delay on his death now. Too convenient.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 06 Oct 2013 03:49

So it's official now that IAF doesn't have a plan B if (and looks most possibly now) this deal fails. Some people were very loudly extolling about the virtues of making our aviation industry subservient to IAF now I get why those people were doing so. Well Karma is a b*tch no even IAF can't escape from it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Oct 2013 03:55

Victor wrote:Doubt we had single POC for Rafale or anything else. GoI would break records for stupidity and mismanagement if true (it's own records--nobody else comes close in the dept). It's simply convenient to blame delay on his death now. Too convenient.

be happy the files are not missing!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2013 04:41

It is amazing.A single tragic death of a high-level babu is supposedly enough to derail the world's largest fighter contract ! Such magnificent mis-management by the MOD and GOI.The awesome army of babudom cannot even replace one of its number? Were all the files and details stuck in the mind of just one man? Was only one man involved in all the negotiations and was he was equipped with a photographic memory to dispense with paperwork ? Surely there are tons of paper on the subject,in great detail on every aspect of the deal,or is it that the unwritten details-details that could not be written are now lost?! How very inconvenient as Ramana has put it.

I agree with Rohit,where is the LCA in series production to replace the Rafale if the deal goes sour? We all want it-even 40 of it in its limited Mk-1 avatar.It simply is another species of bird,small,single-engined short on range,with limited air combat and strike capability meant in the main to replace our ancient MIG-21 fleet,and it cannot replicate the twin-engined larger "omni-role" Rafale which would've also had a nuclear weapon delivery dimension.The deal was also meant to help us acquire non-Russian western tech so that we would have the best of both worlds before embarking upon our own future desi designs.If the deal gets scuttled thanks to the "Saint of indecision",one sees no alternative to the "Oliver Twist" strategy of the IAF. "Please sir may I have some more (Sukhois and MIGs)?"

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 07:44

ramanna,

Even if we had all the time in the world, this deal would have caused problems and delays due to french attitude.

If you remember they did not bother replying to MoD technical query and even media queries Dassault Aviation’s Rafale push got a bug

The negotiation troubles MMRCA deal: Negotiations between defence ministry, Dassault run into fresh hurdle

I am sure, they would have put road blocks once the ToT and production begins taking place. They appear to be like that.

Dassault was the only plane maker which was nearly ejected out for their attitude. They came back and won the bid, wow!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Oct 2013 07:48

So, the moral is have an attitude with MoD.. Learn IAF, learn it!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Oct 2013 07:57

Philip wrote:If the deal gets scuttled thanks to the "Saint of indecision",one sees no alternative to the "Oliver Twist" strategy of the IAF. "Please sir may I have some more (Sukhois and MIGs)?"

If the desire is for something non-Russian fast and cheap, there is always the SH . . . .

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 08:19

Since US has softened stand in last MMS trip compared to MMRCA trail days, F-18 with conformal fuel tanks should be a good option. Its cheaper and boeing knows how to deliver. I prefer on 60 planes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Oct 2013 09:02

The strings are always attached to any purchases from Amrikhans. What is the tradeoff? can some one list it out.. that should be a good public information article.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 10:28

I actually do not agree that strings might come. US is rethinking it. I have actually called for experts to work out models instead of getting fixated at the cold war instruments. You can read my comments on this Why India – US defence agreements never really take off?

Second point is that Penetta himself said that the agreements are not expected to be a road block. Loss of MMRCA is bringing them to this new reality. Ashton B. Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense discussed this in open during a discussion on U.S. Defense Re-balance to Asia, on April 8, 2013 at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC.

I tried to figure this out in Can India – US conduct joint defence R&D and co-production amid export controls? . It includes replies to a Q list I sent to Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson, the Defense Press Officer for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs (APSA).

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 06 Oct 2013 11:49

Chacko Ji, welcome back

<OT> It's been a long time since frontierIndia forums and the graphic I submitted for consideration when creating the frontierIndia logo (which didn't get accepted)</OT> You are already adding a lot of signal to BRF. Thank you!

I must disagree with the point of yours highlighted below:

chackojoseph wrote:I actually do not agree that strings might come. US is rethinking it. I have actually called for experts to work out models instead of getting fixated at the cold war instruments. You can read my comments on this Why India – US defence agreements never really take off?

Second point is that Penetta himself said that the agreements are not expected to be a road block. Loss of MMRCA is bringing them to this new reality. Ashton B. Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense discussed this in open during a discussion on U.S. Defense Re-balance to Asia, on April 8, 2013 at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC.

We have said time and time again that it was the utterly professional, technical, unbiased evaluation of the IAF that ruled out the American and the Russian contenders for MMRCA. We cannot now turn back and say that it was due to the acronym laws that the US contenders lost. There is no doubt that the acronym laws were/are a major irritant, but the IAF still invited the US contenders anyway. We can only surmise that India would've tried to negotiate some or all of those laws if the F-18 or F-16 was found to meet the mark technically.

Now that we're already buying C-130J and C-17, it should be fair to deduce that some amicable arrangement has been reached for transport aircraft minus some sensitive US components like communication and IFF suites. The removal of some sensitive components for an amicable arrangement is not that easy for fighter aircraft though, as a fighter minus radar, IFF, high-bandwidth communication links and interfaces for using non-US/NATO weapons is not much of a fighter for India.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 06 Oct 2013 12:45

PratikDas wrote:We have said time and time again that it was the utterly professional, technical, unbiased evaluation of the IAF that ruled out the American and the Russian contenders for MMRCA.

It is important to note that this evaluation was strictly according to the standards set in the MRCA RFP, which is NOT the same as saying it would be unable to meet the needs of the IAF.

By it's very nature the RFP was somewhat aspirational and arbitrary. If a plane fails to meet one point of the RFP it fails the RFP, but does that mean it would be useless to the IAF? Hardly.

Sometimes a certain pragmatism is called for (ie You can't always get what you wish for).

PratikDas wrote:We can only surmise that India would've tried to negotiate some or all of those laws if the F-18 or F-16 was found to meet the mark technically.

Obviously if there was some deal for the SH, it wouldn't be the MRCA, it would be something separate, making the MRCA standards irrelevant.

PratikDas wrote:The removal of some sensitive components for an amicable arrangement is not that easy for fighter aircraft though, as a fighter minus radar, IFF, high-bandwidth communication links and interfaces for using non-US/NATO weapons is not much of a fighter for India.

Both the F-16 and SH were offered as completely functional packages INCLUDING the radar. And don't forget that the radar on the P-8 is in many ways even more advanced than what's on the SH and F-16 and you didn't have any trouble getting that.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 15:27

PrateekDas, I suppose I have the India logo even now, buried in files

Thank You.

Your point : IAF evaluations could have been professional. My point: it was perceived to be professional. Subsequently, IAF Chief's have been found playing around with ASR of VIP Choppers. Don't forget Other aspects of Wikileaks Rajiv Gandhi – Saab 37 Viggen cable. etc.

GE-414 will power LCA MK2, the same as F-18. It has a functional AESA. F-18 operates in climate and terrain all over the world etc. So, how did it fail? Ever thought of it?

Ever thought of the arrogance of Dassault stems from what?

I am not alleging any irregularities. I am only putting up points to ponder.

Leave aside all that. We don't have credible data on F-18 vs Rafale, price vs performance offer.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 06 Oct 2013 17:43

CJ ... I will request everyone to ignore arrogance part as time and time again ... it is shown by every side who could afford to dominate others (technology, sports). American have shown their arrogance not too long ago (....1971, 1998, 1999, 2001 and still till today). Remember man portable anti tank missile, it was only 2 years back.

So we should stick to what offers the best value for the spent buck until we are in the dominating position.

Just my 2 cents

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 06 Oct 2013 18:00

F-35 also has its engine deal finalized just now in August-September. It has brand new engine with more approvals for engines this month.

Raffy has won competition well and fair. Just because we need fighter jets in numbers doesn't mean we overlook what benefits the most instead of run of the mill bomb trucks. Later on when Jaguars start to retire after a while can we have bombers as per US sanction regime again? Rafale or Russian fighter jets are much better deal than a buy deal plainly on numbers.

And isn't it true that pakis have been given fighter jets from US war machine as gifts. This when pak has attacked India and genocided Bangalis not to mention nuke black market and everyone knows about it.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 06 Oct 2013 18:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:It is important to note that this evaluation was strictly according to the standards set in the MRCA RFP, which is NOT the same as saying it would be unable to meet the needs of the IAF.

It's also important to note that whichever fighter didn't meet the requirements didn't make the cut so stop whining about your pet fighters now.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Oct 2013 18:18

When I meant tradeoff analysis, is by analyzing on what factors India stands to lose, and not from cooperation and collaboration point of view alone. What are the areas, where Indian industries need the required help to boost home grown manufacturing capabilities.

Certain areas of interests are:
- Core Engine technologies - we need to rethink, re-org and refund.
- Other enablers - net centric and radar systems - going in the right direction, but not enough - lot of capabilities lacking in terms of pliability to discrete technologies - LRUs should have a pluggable design to integrated with stores, comms, etc to Homegrown, Russian and NATO components.

How does this all fit in with air staff GSQR.. how much of it is that we are losing in terms of capabilities, and how much of it will Amrikhans have to give up (their loss) for the enablers.

What are the stop gap capabilities enhancers, why is it needed? Is that driven out of requirements? what are the impending fallouts if we don't go that path?..

The marriage has to be seen from such trade offs.. more facts, data than mere projections based on politician wishes alone.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Oct 2013 23:17

chackojoseph wrote:
<SNIP>

Your point : IAF evaluations could have been professional. My point: it was perceived to be professional. Subsequently, IAF Chief's have been found playing around with ASR of VIP Choppers.

<SNIP>

I am not alleging any irregularities. I am only putting up points to ponder.

<SNIP>

You put the above two points together in the same post and claim you're not alleging any irregularity?

As for the evaluation was 'perceived' as professional - can you put down points why it was perceived to be professional as against being professional? I'm sure you have some data points to make such a strong statement.

And F/A-18 failing to meet IAF evaluation trials = something wrong because F/A-18 have been flying from different places all over the globe - That is one heck of a statement to make. By that yardstick SPIKE ATGM should not have failed in India because 'N' number of countries operate it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Oct 2013 23:30

Surya wrote:If the chief did say that they have no backup plan and they should get the Raffy then all I have to say is

How can there be Plan B when Plan A has been hanging fire for such a long time?

Let's take the example of French AF or even British AF - what Plan B did they have if Rafale or Typhoon did not come online on time? The Plan B would have been to continue with existing fleet of fighters - be it the Mirages or Tornadoes+Harriers. And they did for sometime. As USAF and USN are doing with delays in F-35.

But Plan B can work only if you leave enough time for it to be worthwhile - in our case, the Plan A has been dragging for so long that Plan B itself has no scope left for further implementation. Part of Plan B initially was to make do with Mig-21 Bison upgrade hoping LCA would become operational by certain timeline. Even that calculation has gone out of window because of repeated delays on IOC-2 and FOC.

Secondly, Rafale/MMRCA is not about only numbers - it is also about change in the very structure of IAF as a fighting force. LCA is not an alternative to Rafale - as Gripen was never a contender in the race against heavies like Rafale/Eurofighter/FA-18.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Oct 2013 23:33

There is a plan B and it is a sort of catch all exception block i.e. FMS if French faulter then F/A 18 SH or 16s will come and without offsets but EUMA.

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Oct 2013 23:36

I think kill Rafale and order additional 120 Su-30MKI and 500 LCA Mark-2 for the same cost.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 06 Oct 2013 23:48

==Deleted==

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Oct 2013 00:10

Didn't MRCA start out as Plan B for the LCA? Now the LCA has been reduced to Plan B of the MRCA?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 07 Oct 2013 00:21

No not plan B but no point of number of fighters as a big factor when LCA production could be planned way better in numbers.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Oct 2013 01:12

How can there be Plan B when Plan A has been hanging fire for such a long time?

that shows poor judgement considering we are an importer and thus hostage to a number of issues

seriously - just seeing how the IAFs desire for M2ks did not happen years ago - one would think - they would not assume all was bright and shining and they were going to get any number of uber expensive weapons at any cost?? (that whole M2k saga is still something i would like to get inside info on)

the other air forces plan b would be increased numbers of some existing type and as non importer air forces they have less to worry about plan b. As its their own aerospace industry - there maybe delays, reduced numbers but the a\c will come. not our case

for them wars an optional action -not for us

but the last decade of "india shining" seems to have made them think that the good times will keep rolling.
well now what??

only choice seems to be more SU 30s and hammer and tong make the LCA work no matter what

looking ahead is the IAF assuming FGFA is all hunky dory and will be in XXXX???

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Oct 2013 02:05

In case the Rafale deals does not materialize, switch for an equal quantity of SuMKI + Extra LCA. At that point we should scrap FGFA and switch to PAK-FA.

Our requirement for a 5th Gen is primarily to counter the Chinese 5th Gen. I for one believe the Russians still hold a lead over the Chinese in Fighter tech and will likely field the PAK-FA earlier than the Chinese equivalent.

Also, Redirect the funding saved on FGFA to LCA-MK3 leading to AMCA. We should be good against Chinese for the foreseeable future as far as fighters are concerned.

If our overall posture is defensive, and that is my understanding, we should really crank up our production of LCA Mk1/Mk2/mk3. A US company has recently picked up Mig21's from Poland for the USAF to practice against. This is probably because of their experience in cope-India. Astra armed LCA Mk2/Mk3 should really excel in Air Defense role.

---
Invest heavily in AD radars and SAM's (Akash, MRSAM/LRSAM) and fund Anti-Stealth Radar.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Oct 2013 12:12

<SNIP>

Your point : IAF evaluations could have been professional. My point: it was perceived to be professional. Subsequently, IAF Chief's have been found playing around with ASR of VIP Choppers.

<SNIP>

<SNIP>

I am not alleging any irregularities. I am only putting up points to ponder.

You put the above two points together in the same post and claim you're not alleging any irregularity?

As for the evaluation was 'perceived' as professional - can you put down points why it was perceived to be professional as against being professional? I'm sure you have some data points to make such a strong statement.

And F/A-18 failing to meet IAF evaluation trials = something wrong because F/A-18 have been flying from different places all over the globe - That is one heck of a statement to make. By that yardstick SPIKE ATGM should not have failed in India because 'N' number of countries operate it.[/quote][/quote]

===========================================================================================

[repeat]I am not alleging any irregularities. I am only putting up points to ponder.[/repeat]

How can one say it was professional? What can be professional for one need not be professional for another. It is a perception. I am not actually getting your question. Look at the past and current news as I have mentioned and gives enough points to ponder on the state of purchases.

I don't agree with the given comparison of Spike ATGM. I don't have idea why it has bearings on MMRCA selection? Referring only to MMRCA selection : Rafale and F-18. F-18 is operated in more environments than rafale considering the the deployment and training patterns of US. So, when Rafale has been selected by testing under varied Indian conditions, it comes as an surprise.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Oct 2013 13:40

chackojoseph wrote:<SNIP>

How can one say it was professional? What can be professional for one need not be professional for another. It is a perception. I am not actually getting your question. Look at the past and current news as I have mentioned and gives enough points to ponder on the state of purchases.

That is why I asked - what makes you believe it was not professional?

The question has been raised by you and you need to answer - not what other's feel or perceive.

Are you technically qualified to say it was not professional or have you received inputs from people you interact with which says that it was not professional?

Other 'instances' do not point to anything related to case of technical evaluation of MMRCA contenders - if you have anything concrete please put that on the table for everyone to see. Otherwise your statements are nothing but innuendos which unnecessarily drag a topic away from the main concern.

I don't agree with the given comparison of Spike ATGM. I don't have idea why it has bearings on MMRCA selection? Referring only to MMRCA selection : Rafale and F-18. F-18 is operated in more environments than Rafale considering the the deployment and training patterns of US. So, when Rafale has been selected by testing under varied Indian conditions, it comes as an surprise.

Considering that almost all weapon systems face problem in India in one terrain or other, your assertion about 'varied' deployment of FA-18 has to be most ridiculous.

For one, how do you that the requirements of IAF are same as that of other FA-18 operators and deploying them from 'varied' environment? And that those varied environment(s) place the same demand on F/A-18 as basing them out of Leh?

If anything, IAF has been consistent about this Bangalore-Jaisalmer-Leh trial circuit. LCA was made to undergo this - why should other fighters not be subjected to same? What is subjective about it? Plus, FA-18 lost on N number of factors - with maneuverability being one of them. So, to point out only the Leh trials is incorrect.

I don't have a dog in the fight - FA-18/Rafale/Eurofighter - all can do the job. IAF needs those planes ASAP.

But to create conspiracy theories and hint at malafide evaluation process is not done - unless you have something concrete.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Oct 2013 14:33

I have Not raised any question. I have given my opinion. Rest is your opinion, which i do not agree to it.

My assertion? Conspiracy theories? when? where? I think you are using words liberally and this is your regular problem, hence I usually don't like to reply to your posts. You keep putting words on others posts (mouths) I have merely raised my opinions and pov's.

I think, you need to read before you hit the keyboard.

Now, your next post will be picking up selective sentences and pretend indignant.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Oct 2013 15:17

Plan B:-

Estimated Cost of Rafale USD 150 Million

Estimated Cost of Su-30MKI is USD 60 Million, LCA USD 20 Million, upgraded radar equipped Jaguar is USD 20 Million and HTT-40 for CAS is USD 10 Million

So instead of 126 Rafales we can have 126 Su-30MKI, 378 LCA, 126 upgraded radar equipped Jaguar and 126 HTT-40

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2013 18:34

we should really crank up our production of LCA Mk1/Mk2/mk3. A US company has recently picked up Mig21's from Poland for the USAF to practice against. This is probably because of their experience in cope-India.

{OT}

1) Where is hell does/did this LCA MK3 come from? And, why would India have a MK3 at all, what is the need, purpose? (Perhaps for the LCA thread)
2) MiG-21? Practice against them? USAF HAS MiG-29s.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Oct 2013 18:57

vic wrote:Estimated Cost of Su-30MKI is USD 60 Million

Last order of MKI was over $100 million.

Expect next order to be even more.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 07 Oct 2013 19:14

Can USAF obtain Mig-29 without approval from USSR or Russia, considering USA developed F-22 after dissolution of USSR to increase its strength.

Almost forgot what US did to LCA team in USA. US can do anything no?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Oct 2013 19:14

NRao wrote:2) MiG-21? Practice against them? USAF HAS MiG-29s.

Draken International acquires MiG-21 fighters for 'red air' training

US commercial air services provider Draken International has added 25 MiG-21UM/bis 'Fishbed' fighters to its fleet of combat aircraft for dissimilar air combat training and other 'red air' duties for the US Department of Defense (DoD), the company announced on 30 September.

Perhaps Cope-India experience made US realize the problem a small light plane with a decent radar and decent AAM in the hands of experienced pilot could pose.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2013 19:19

^^^^^

That seems to be a private company. I have a MiG-21 in my 'hood (where I live) who will for a fee give one a joy ride. A real MiG-21. Will see if I cna post some picture. My kid visited with him a few months ago.

Point being, the USAF itself has such planes for ages.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Oct 2013 19:22

From the above report

"for dissimilar air combat training and other 'red air' duties for the US Department of Defense (DoD)"

This is no joyride venture or museum piece. Further

"The surplus Polish MiGs are currently being re-assembled in the US ahead of being used to help train DoD personnel at test pilot schools across North America."

I did take the liberty of interpreting US DOD to mean USAF.