All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Srin and Vivek are quite right. The "mother of all aircraft deals" attracts the wildest competition,widest too-as we trawled the globe from the Gripen to the EF,dirty tricks,arms dealers and fixers galore,etc.,etc. Had we wanted say just 50-60 aircraft as we did with the initial MIG-29s and M-2000s,the cost would've been halved,with guaranteed options for another 60-120.THis was done with the Flankers,the extras ordered from time to time made no noise at all and numbers have now reached 272! It is the initial choice that sets off the highest decibel levels.
The same yardstick could be used for inking on the Rafale.If the costs remain exorbitantly high ,cheaper birds will keep knocking on the IAF/MOD's door.
^^^There is a new rumor floating around that GOI/MOD is. Going to sign a deal with Dassault for the MMRCA before Feb 15th, anyone heard about it.. This would be a real lungi dance moment...
Last edited by Shrinivasan on 03 Jan 2014 13:02, edited 1 time in total.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
bring it on
We need Rafale, reason being simple what if there is delay in PAK FA ? Do we want to be an Air force of one fighter namely Su 30 MKI.
Rafale + Su 30 MKI will keep a lot of adversaries away
Lalmohan wrote:not on this one... the vvip helos were totally not necessary for anyone
Yes, but the deal didn't fall through because the aircraft were found to be unnecessary.
Rushing an acquisition through because of overt political considerations is the kind of step that the country pays a heavy price for down the line.
In this case, we're planning to commit to an aircraft even before its cost has been negotiated. Its like rigging the game to ensure your opponent wins.
Viv S wrote:
Rushing an acquisition through because of overt political considerations is the kind of step that the country pays a heavy price for down the line.
In this case, we're planning to commit to an aircraft even before its cost has been negotiated. Its like rigging the game to ensure your opponent wins.
Rushing? They have been negotiating for two years. They should either buy it or admit that we can't afford it and tell the IAF to make other plans.
nachiket wrote:Rushing? They have been negotiating for two years. They should either buy it or admit that we can't afford it and tell the IAF to make other plans.
They've been negotiating for two years and still haven't agreed to a price (the implications of that are obvious). Then two months before the govt is to demit office, it decides to strip away the leverage held by the Indian negotiators (i.e. the possibility of walking away). Its hard to interpret this as good news.
Viv S wrote:
Rushing an acquisition through because of overt political considerations is the kind of step that the country pays a heavy price for down the line.
In this case, we're planning to commit to an aircraft even before its cost has been negotiated. Its like rigging the game to ensure your opponent wins.
Rushing? They have been negotiating for two years. They should either buy it or admit that we can't afford it and tell the IAF to make other plans.
There are no other plans. IAF has been clear there is no Plan-B to this tender.
Christopher Sidor wrote:There are no other plans. IAF has been clear there is no Plan-B to this tender.
The MMRCA evolved out of a requirement for a large scale acquisition of a mid-rung fighter (i.e. the Mirage 2000). The shortlisting of the Eurofighter and Rafale wasn't really Plan A... it was Christmas; brought on by a booming economy.
Whatever the IAF may say publicly, fact is the Plan B just got its IOC few days back.
LCA Mk1 is not PlanB. It is meant as a replacement for Mig-21. Moreover what IAF/IN require is LCA MK2, which is expected some 7 years down the line. We need these fighters in our force. Hopefully the new government does not put this on cold storage.
I feel fitting the RBE2AA + OSF + Spectra + Astra mk1 & 2 + Sudarshan on the Tejas would make it a very potent platform....able to outmuscle and outfight any model of the F-solah and J-10....just what we need.
to my knowledge
- no domestic project for IRST
- astra1 is about to enter flight test , so maybe mica can be a stopgap for a decade
- astra2 is some time away from flight tests
- my est is 50 firings will be needed of each to validate in all regimes and fix bugs before IOC
- we do not have a functional pulse-doppler desi radar, so talk of a desi AESA is a bit off...for now no option but the RBE2AA which will nicely fit within the Tejas nose barring it might need some additional power generator on the spine .... can be worked out
my suggestion would be to give the french a consolation prize by buying the desirable bits and pieces of the rafale in a 250 plane Tejas confirmed order. the likes of MBDA and Thales would be most glad to get such a large order in difficult times and lobby the paris govt to smooth things out. Dassault and snecma will sulk..but they have been amply compensated in the hideously overpriced M2k upg deal and see my next chankian judo move below.
or maybe buy just 60 Rafale (4 squadrons) as a high end F-solah marshallah type DPSA stick and implement the plan above for the rest. armed with 4 of the sleek new brahmos3 and CFTs, it should be able to go in and SHRED hard targets before throwing dust on pursuers and recover in style.
Lalmohan wrote:not on this one... the vvip helos were totally not necessary for anyone
Yes, but the deal didn't fall through because the aircraft were found to be unnecessary.
Rushing an acquisition through because of overt political considerations is the kind of step that the country pays a heavy price for down the line.
In this case, we're planning to commit to an aircraft even before its cost has been negotiated. Its like rigging the game to ensure your opponent wins.
If you don't give the bean counters a deadline, they'll keep negotiating forever. They have had more than enough time. Now they have to stop and take a decision one way or the other.
Christopher Sidor wrote:
There are no other plans. IAF has been clear there is no Plan-B to this tender.
If there are no other plans yet they'll have to make them. But there needs to be some clarity from the govt. Our financial situation has deteriorated considerably and they need to make it clear whether or not we can actually afford this anymore. If it is not possible, it doesn't matter if there is no plan B, Plan A still goes out of the window. And the sooner the IAF is told, the sooner they can start thinking of alternatives. Like others have said, more MKIs and LCA's is an option. May not be ideal, but it is better than nothing.
nachiket wrote:If it is not possible, it doesn't matter if there is no plan B, Plan A still goes out of the window. And the sooner the IAF is told, the sooner they can start thinking of alternatives. Like others have said, more MKIs and LCA's is an option. May not be ideal, but it is better than nothing.
Why not just close shop.....
It would save us plenty of money to do the development work...guess like Bhutan or Nepal...we can also manage without ANY airforce at all....
After all since the expense is waste.... since its not producing any results or output in any case
Singha wrote:my suggestion would be to give the french a consolation prize by buying the desirable bits and pieces of the rafale in a 250 plane Tejas confirmed order. the likes of MBDA and Thales would be most glad to get such a large order in difficult times and lobby the paris govt to smooth things out. Dassault and snecma will sulk..but they have been amply compensated in the hideously overpriced M2k upg deal and see my next chankian judo move below.
Increasingly now it makes sense to fit the Snecma engine on few of the LCA LSP versions so that we have an insurance policy, balance the costs by canceling one of pending US defence deals like the Apache or the Chinook, everything is in IAF budgets and they get to retain the strategic independence, one of the primary motivations of the Rafale deal
Christopher Sidor wrote:LCA Mk1 is not PlanB. It is meant as a replacement for Mig-21. Moreover what IAF/IN require is LCA MK2, which is expected some 7 years down the line. We need these fighters in our force. Hopefully the new government does not put this on cold storage.
What's the Rafale being acquired to replace then? The only aircraft being retired is the MiG-27. And the Tejas and Su-30MKI can comfortably cover that role between them.
nachiket wrote:If you don't give the bean counters a deadline, they'll keep negotiating forever. They have had more than enough time. Now they have to stop and take a decision one way or the other.
Except that the report by Neelam Matthews suggests that a decision rather than a deadline is being forced upon them.
If the Indian negotiating team has been employing stalling tactics so far and the French have actually made a reasonable offer, why would the govt be scrambling around to ensure the next govt can't overturn the decision?
Christopher Sidor wrote:LCA Mk1 is not PlanB. It is meant as a replacement for Mig-21. Moreover what IAF/IN require is LCA MK2, which is expected some 7 years down the line. We need these fighters in our force. Hopefully the new government does not put this on cold storage.
What's the Rafale being acquired to replace then? The only aircraft being retired is the MiG-27. And the Tejas and Su-30MKI can comfortably cover that role between them.
Oh God not the same argument all over again. Not everything can be resolved by SU-30MKI and LCA.
the deal is more or less on schedule, the sticking point has been (for some time) the degree of liability that dassault will have for HAL's manufacturing quality and timeliness. not much has changed in the past 6-9 months
well the USA has been managing with the F-16 and the F-15 which is their Tejas and sukhoi.
our upg Mig29 and M2K will serve for 15 years for sure - ample time to FOC the Tejas mk2 if we dont goof up real bad.
likewise our new set of 39 jaguars will serve another 25 years. old kit like Mig27/Bison/Jags will go.
we just need to scale up tejas production and work out the initial issues.....there is a cushion of few years to get that done....
Christopher Sidor wrote:
Oh God not the same argument all over again. Not everything can be resolved by SU-30MKI and LCA.
Any special advantage offered by the Rafale over the MKI and LCA has to be weighed against the cost. Previously, when the economy was growing at 8% p.a. the cost was less of a concern. Now the times are different. Aside from better avionics, I'm not really sure what these advantages are anyway.
Oh God not the same argument all over again. Not everything can be resolved by SU-30MKI and LCA.
So blowing $150 million per unit on an aircraft offering incremental improvement over in-service aircraft and only marginal advantages when coupled with force multipliers is how we can actually 'resolve' our problems.
NRao wrote:Unfortunately India has financial space for only one aircraft: The Rafale or the FGFA. I think the latter will survive.
I agree. I would much rather see the money for the Rafale being spent on serious ramp-up of the LCA production line. When the original MRCA deal was put forward, the Tejas was essentially a paper tiger. The MKIs were only entering service in decent numbers and the economy was sound with money available.
If the Rafale had come in the last few years, then we could say "fair enough" and move to increase its numbers in our arsenal.
Its been a decade since the MRCA fiasco and not one aircraft has been delivered. In the meantime, the LCA has been nicely chugging along towards its essential acceptance and series production. The MKI has become the dominant fighter in the IAF in its hundreds and the economy has gone down so that the Rafale deal now seems painful.
So my question is why are we still unable to change with the ground realities and put our eggs in the "jugaad" basket until such a time as other projects come on line (AMCA, UCAVs and FGFA)?
Singha wrote:or maybe buy just 60 Rafale (4 squadrons) as a high end F-solah marshallah type DPSA stick and implement the plan above for the rest. armed with 4 of the sleek new brahmos3 and CFTs, it should be able to go in and SHRED hard targets before throwing dust on pursuers and recover in style.
Trouble is you can't really use the Rafale for deep strike. Not against the PLAAF. Not to rub folks the wrong way again but the only aircraft capable of deep strike in the near future is the F-35. The PAK FA is an option but for first 5-7 years of service its likely to function with the same limitations as the F-22 i.e. configured for an air-superiority role.
Singha wrote:or maybe buy just 60 Rafale (4 squadrons) as a high end F-solah marshallah type DPSA stick and implement the plan above for the rest. armed with 4 of the sleek new brahmos3 and CFTs, it should be able to go in and SHRED hard targets before throwing dust on pursuers and recover in style.
Trouble is you can't really use the Rafale for deep strike. Not against the PLAAF.
A fully laden Rafale with fuel tanks and CMs will have a fairly large RCS. So I don't understand what advantage it offers over the MKI for a deep strike mission. Might as well spend a fraction of the money to upgrade 60 MKIs with the latest and greatest radar, avionics and EW systems.
Christopher Sidor wrote:The maintenance should have another tender with the company winning the construction tender being immediately disqualified for the maintenance part.
Singha wrote:or maybe buy just 60 Rafale (4 squadrons) as a high end F-solah marshallah type DPSA stick and implement the plan above for the rest. armed with 4 of the sleek new brahmos3 and CFTs, it should be able to go in and SHRED hard targets before throwing dust on pursuers and recover in style.
Trouble is you can't really use the Rafale for deep strike. Not against the PLAAF. Not to rub folks the wrong way again but the only aircraft capable of deep strike in the near future is the F-35. The PAK FA is an option but for first 5-7 years of service its likely to function with the same limitations as the F-22 i.e. configured for an air-superiority role.
Thats just rubbish I am afraid. The F-35 or F-22 may be easier to use in the deep strike or whatever role, but that does not mean other aircraft can't be used in that role, whether it be the Su-30 family or the Rafale.
vivek_ahuja wrote:
Its been a decade since the MRCA fiasco and not one aircraft has been delivered. In the meantime, the LCA has been nicely chugging along towards its essential acceptance and series production. The MKI has become the dominant fighter in the IAF in its hundreds and the economy has gone down so that the Rafale deal now seems painful.
So my question is why are we still unable to change with the ground realities and put our eggs in the "jugaad" basket until such a time as other projects come on line (AMCA, UCAVs and FGFA)?
The Rafale deal is being pursued for strategic reasons. During the 1998 tests, the French were the most supportive of India's position. Enough said.
Also, one of the primary purposes of the MMRCA deal is to diversify the suppliers of India's fighter jets. Russia supplies the MKI and FGFA. The U.S. (through its engines) supplies the Tejas and the Jaguar. For understandable reasons, the IAF wants a third supplier.
vivek_ahuja wrote:
Its been a decade since the MRCA fiasco and not one aircraft has been delivered. In the meantime, the LCA has been nicely chugging along towards its essential acceptance and series production. The MKI has become the dominant fighter in the IAF in its hundreds and the economy has gone down so that the Rafale deal now seems painful.
So my question is why are we still unable to change with the ground realities and put our eggs in the "jugaad" basket until such a time as other projects come on line (AMCA, UCAVs and FGFA)?
The Rafale deal is being pursued for strategic reasons. During the 1998 tests, the French were the most supportive of India's position. Enough said.
Also, one of the primary purposes of the MMRCA deal is to diversify the suppliers of India's fighter jets. Russia supplies the MKI and FGFA. The U.S. (through its engines) supplies the Tejas and the Jaguar. For understandable reasons, the IAF wants a third supplier.
Interesting take about the nuclear support. I always thought it was because the French allowed India to use some computational assets to "test" a miniature nuke. ?????
About diversification, why would India go through the whole process? Makes no sense. IF it was because of the law, then this makes no sense.
nachiket wrote:
A fully laden Rafale with fuel tanks and CMs will have a fairly large RCS. So I don't understand what advantage it offers over the MKI for a deep strike mission. Might as well spend a fraction of the money to upgrade 60 MKIs with the latest and greatest radar, avionics and EW systems.
IIRC it was Kartik who had posted that MMRCA was to be 80 single seaters and 46 double seaters. So maybe go for 80 Su-35S (next version from 35BM). While rest double seater 46 numbers can be Super Sukhois later.
Karan M wrote:Thats just rubbish I am afraid. The F-35 or F-22 may be easier to use in the deep strike or whatever role, but that does not mean other aircraft can't be used in that role, whether it be the Su-30 family or the Rafale.
You can use any aircraft with the requisite range for deep strike. But if its not to be a one-way trip, the aircraft's ability to survive is critical. In that respect, the Rafale with its dirty payload is at a fundamental disadvantage in an airspace heavy with hostile AEW&C aircraft, 4G and 5G fighters, long range SAMs, all linked together by a first rate C4I system.
Christopher Sidor wrote:The maintenance should have another tender with the company winning the construction tender being immediately disqualified for the maintenance part.
What good will come from this ???
Increasing the market depth. Or enlarging the pool of companies which can support our Air Force. Say company A builds/manufactures/assembles the plane. Now if we give Company B the contract to maintain it, we are in fact supporting an Eco system of two or more companies. Otherwise we will be faced with a situation like Americans face. Loose a contract and the company goes out of aerospace business entirely. The loosing company either merges into another company or with the winning company. This reduces competition in the market.
Please Note I am not talking about avoiding bankruptcy. Rather trying to increase the number of players in the market.
Christopher Sidor wrote:Increasing the market depth. Or enlarging the pool of companies which can support our Air Force. Say company A builds/manufactures/assembles the plane. Now if we give Company B the contract to maintain it, we are in fact supporting an Eco system of two or more companies. Otherwise we will be faced with a situation like Americans face. Loose a contract and the company goes out of aerospace business entirely. The loosing company either merges into another company or with the winning company. This reduces competition in the market.
Please Note I am not talking about avoiding bankruptcy. Rather trying to increase the number of players in the market.
Bad Idea, a company which was not at all involved with the product will have tough time in learning to maintain the system at the first place and without the support of OEM the situation will get more tricky. Plus increasing the number of vendors you are dealing with is only a headache. What you are saying is rather done by the OEM themselves where they sub contract the maintenance part to other smaller companies. The maintenance must always be/is demanded from OEM for the simple reason of being the OEM he knows the system in and out and has all the necessary documentation ready for the same as would be demanded in the tender. By bringing in another company in it and that too regarding something as critical as maintenance you are only shooting yourself on the foot since if the other company effs up in maintenance you wouldn't be able to go back to OEM regarding poor product support.
Even in the public field I have never come across any product which is made by one company and maintained by a totally different one other than being subcontracted for it by the OEM. The guarantee/warrantee card you get with your product is kind of deal between you and the OEM for product support in case the product misbehaves during the said period. Have you ever brought something in which the guarantee/warrantee card stated that the OEM wasn't responsible for the product and states the name of a totally different company for the same ???
Aerospace is a very high investment industry and I doubt their will be a "lot" of players in it simply for the reason of want of money so the competition will be between two or three big players who will have their own army of small/medium scale vendors providing the OEM the necessary support. Maintenance is what keeps the bean counter running, if you devoid the OEM of this then good luck finding an OEM in the first place.
The SU-34 is one aircraft that the IAF should seriously look at.In fact,the absence of a genuine strategic bomber in the IAF's wish list is bewildering.How can it hope to become a global "aero-space power" if it cannot field aircraft capable of bombing Beijing and returning? The SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker would be easiest to acquire and operate given that 272 Flankers are in service/on order.The SU-35 single-seater is another option instead of the Rafale.On pilot less,plus some 5h-gen tech thrown in.
However ,one would wish that we possessed at least a couple of sqds. of Backfires of which the Russians have dozens mothballed but need considerable upgrading.Equipped with LR stand-off cruise missiles like Nirbhay and the future hyper version of BMos,these aircraft could even serve with the In if the IAF isn't interested.
The Rafale deal may have to be downsized in view of the eco crisis. There are cheaper alternatives with the MIG-29/35 and Gripen waiting in the wings.The LCA achieving IOC has also turned the spotlight on it,and if the same tempo continues for the next few years,resulting in the definitive MK-2 succeeding,the Rafale deal even if sealed may not go beyond the 120 number.
The MRCA was relevant around 5-10 years back when IAF fleet strength was decreasing at an alarming rate and we did not have Su 30 MKI in numbers.
Today Rafale will not bring anything much to IAF which SU 30 will not have.Plus its going to be much costlier.Plus the headache of another aircraft type with all its spare and support.This is not the 80's where we could have managed with a number of aircraft types like : Mig21,Mig23,Mig25,Mig27,Mig29,Mirage200,Jaguar etc. at the same time.
The capability of LCA mk2 will be closer to Rafale at fraction of the cost.Also most of the money will circulate in india itself.
So we could do the following instead of purchasing Rafale:
1) A part of 126 MRCA could be met by additional LCA mk2.
2) A part can be met by additional Su 30MKI.
Put the money saved(This will be a huge amount for sure) in AMCA and UCAV.
AMCA will be our own MRCA.This can also replace Mig29 and MIrage2000 in the future.
So future IAF should have :
1) Su-30MKI/Future Replaement- for heavy role.
2) AMCA for medium role
3) LCA mk2. for lighter role
4) Few stealth UCAV primarly for high risk SEAD roles.
Spending our money on FGFA joint venture will be foolish since it is not going to bring any real technology into india but just the screw-driver.
Using the money saved in Rafale and FGFA joint venture should be put into AMCA.
I guess the minimum amount saved will be upwards of 10$ Billion.
Just imagine if we could develop LCA for under 2$Billion, what we could do for AMCA with 10$Billon.
Just buy the FGFA at market price after the russians have developed its full functionality instead of using our money for its development in the name of a farce joint venture.
