Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

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.
Post Reply
Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Multatuli »

A quote from this reponse by Bharat Karnad posted by Shaurya T.:

http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/02/coun ... ment-10519
Unlike, Subramaniam and Bahadur, the more senior and apparently more responsible, ex-VCAS Barbora, is candid in acknowledging that costs are a factor, and that the unit cost of any fully loaded 4th generation fighter is presently in the $300 million-$400 million range, which is precisely the price range I said Rafale falls in.
Roughly each new generation fighter costs about twice as much as the previous generation.

The IAF will acquire the 4.5 generation Rafale for some USD 90 million per aircraft. And most likely the PAK-FA too for USD 150 million per aircraft.
This is without the extra's like weapons etc..

IF the IAF does not change it's present mindset, then by 2030-2035, when presumably the US will introduce the 6th generation fighter, the IAF will ask the GOI to buy a 6th generation (Russian/European) fighter for some USD 300 million per aircraft.

Does anyone in the IAF think about this and how obscene it would be?
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Bharat Karnad's views on the F-35 are spot on. World's most expensive dud ever.

What Mr. Karnad did not respond to sufficiently or at all was the following statement in AVM Bahadur's piece (highlighted by Philip) which deserves very close attention:
the yet-to-be inducted Tejas Mk I is unsuitable for IAF operational requirements (and hence would limited to only two squadrons) and Tejas Mk II would have less than one-third the flight range and armament capability of the MMRCA
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by ArmenT »

Viv S wrote:
dhiraj wrote:I am curious about this. F 35 has better RCS , and host of other improved systems compared to F 22 , then why should US simply ban F 22 export while it encourages all its allies to purchase F 35. Japan was and is desperate for F 22 and F 22 assembly line is probably always ready to produce more aircrafts in a short notice.
Why should it not? What it'll gain by F-22 exports it'll lose with reductions in the F-35 order book. And the F-35's cost reduction (for all its customers including the US DoD) is being achieved through manufacturing at a huge scale. Japanese or Australian orders for the F-35 helps that equation, F-22 orders would obviously hurt it.
F-22 is not for sale and was never intended for sale. Same reason that the F-117 and B2 were never on the catalog either -- too much secret tech in them. For people who want something stealthy, there is the F-35, which contains some technologies originally developed for the F-22, but cheaper and designed to be exported (IIRC, there was an effort a couple of years back to make an export model of the F-22 as well, but never went past planning stages).
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Philip wrote:From this report its "Vive la France!"

https://www.google.co.in/search?newwind ... ElW_HkqQZA

MMRCA Misgivings Unfounded

By Manmohan Bahadur
Published: 02nd August 2014
This is a perfect example of the ignorant trying to drive defence force structuring as the yet-to-be inducted Tejas Mk I is unsuitable for IAF operational requirements (and hence would limited to only two squadrons) and Tejas Mk II would have less than one-third the flight range and armament capability of the MMRCA and just qualify to be a MiG 21 replacement. Why the use of future tense? Because Tejas Mk II is still on DRDO’s drawing board and would NOT enter squadron service before 2020-22, just like the fifth generation fighter (which would be 2025 or later).


The writer, a retired Air Vice Marshal, is a distinguished fellow at Centre for Air Power Studies.
Strange this Bahadur's arguments! First he talks of Tejas' range unsuitable for MMRCA, these professionals of IAF should answer that then:

a.) Why the hell was swedish grippen was called for MMRCA then? Does the grippen have 3 times the range of Tejas? Doesn't it point to the double stands of these professionals?

b.) First bahadur says "....mmrca to replace Mig 21s...." then later changes his tune to Tejas' unsuitability as it can ONLY replace Migs. Strange professionalism!

c.) Can a Fighter a/c be developed every 2-3 years or takes a couple of decades, like we see in ef2k, rafale, grippen etc. So how come when Tejas was being planned for range, dimensions & payload the IAF just remained aloof, ignoring LCA with as much contempt as possible.

Nope sad but true while brave paki AF pilots & cheeni pilots are backing their inferior JF-17s, J-10s ours are coming across as rich man's spoiled brats who want expensive toys.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

dhiraj wrote:
Also, the F-35's stealth has recently been revealed to be superior to the F-22 and thus better than its originally specified requirement
TSJones wrote:
I am curious about this. F 35 has better RCS , and host of other improved systems compared to F 22 , then why should US simply ban F 22 export while it encourages all its allies to purchase F 35. Japan was and is desperate for F 22 and F 22 assembly line is probably always ready to produce more aircrafts in a short notice.
US would have gained a lot more money selling an inferior F 22 compared to F 35. :roll:
at the time of its design and fabrication it had certain attributes that the US did not want to disclose to rest of the world. the jsf is a different program meant for different purposes. we're not making anymore f-22's. we've got other fish to fry.
But then don't pressurise japan and other friends to buy a superior jsf, instead just take their money and shift the inferior F-22 lines to japan with complete ToT so they can be happy with it. Surely those techs are now outdated compared to F-35 so safeguarding them makes no sense. Also why not sell F-22 with dumbed down techs, surely F-35s sold to foreign AFs would be slightly dumbed down then what usaf/usn will be getting. Why refuse outrightly?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Lol!!!!

Things have not changed!!! At any level!!

State of Indian Air Power

In that set of four vids, Inderjit Badhwar states that he had addressed this topic 25 years ago - that should make it 1989 or so - at another conference.

Problem with India is not any plane, but a Plan. It has none. Listen to what is said in those vids by people who formulated the MMRCA. No doubt that the commoner who has interest in this topic is also lost.

So, what the US (and her tax payers) do with the Dud Turkey they do. What are the people of India going to do? Buy a $50-60 billion 4th generation plane?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Most of this has already been discussed many times on the forum. Hmm.. I guess once more then -

.............................

- The Type 30 is a clean sheet design, the result still remains to be seen. The F135 is based on the tried-and-tested F119, has an overall stellar safety record and has nevertheless faced significantly hurdles culminating in the recent fire.
(A lot from post-n-scoot, but .......... on Type 30 and at the risk of deriding - again!!)

This among other sources, claims that the 117 suffices:

Aug, 2013 :: Engines of PAK FA
According to Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan, the 117 (AL-41F1) is a new fifth generation engine built specifically for the PAK-FA. Pogosyan has clarified that claims of the use of an older engine are incorrect. Though the specifics of the new engine remain classified, information provided has included: increased engine thrust by 2.5 tonnes over the AL-31 engine, a reduction in engine weight by 150 kilograms (330 lb). These changes allow the aircraft to supercruise, sustaining supersonic flight speeds without using afterburners. Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that this engine (117) meets the Russian Air Force's requirements and will be installed in production PAK-FA aircraft.
So, where is this Type 30 canard coming in from, when the Russians themselves seem to be content with the 117?

As far as I can see, the results will never be seen. ???????????
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

dhiraj wrote:
Also, the F-35's stealth has recently been revealed to be superior to the F-22 and thus better than its originally specified requirement
I am curious about this. F 35 has better RCS , and host of other improved systems compared to F 22 , then why should US simply ban F 22 export while it encourages all its allies to purchase F 35. Japan was and is desperate for F 22 and F 22 assembly line is probably always ready to produce more aircrafts in a short notice.
US would have gained a lot more money selling an inferior F 22 compared to F 35. :roll:
I'll try to keep it nice and short. There were two reasons for this -

1) The F-22 was not a popular program in the post cold war acquisition world. This was due to many reason. It was a cold war legacy designed around a cold war doctrine based on a set of conditions and requirements that made it a pain in the back end to mould into something that would fit into future doctrines based both on the low end threats originating in the middle east, or the higher end threats of the Pacific. The problems began with the requirement to replace the A2A F-15 (C's). The goal for the F-15 program and the F-22 program was fully focused on air to air performance. The Motto during the F-22 development was the same as it was during the F-15 days " Not a Pound for Air to Ground". Post-Cold war doctrine called for weapons systems that were modular, multi role, scalable, and that could rapidly adapt to changing threats. Platforms that could rapidly transform into whatever the acquisition priorities were at that point. The F-22 was made with a laser focus on having the best of everything, with little emphasis on being a team player. The IFDL in the late 90's was a huge leap in data linking compared to the baseline NATO standard but the IFDL could not talk to any other fighter. The EW suite was also very advance, but it could only link up and triangulate targets with other F-22's. LPI and LPD modes meant that absolutely nothing could communicate with the raptor unless that platform enjoyed the same degree of stealth and LPI comms as it. Link 16 was added only because it was a NATO requirement, and that only one directional (receive only). The ICP's on the raptor were very advanced at the time but the system was not open architecture oriented which means that upgrades would be slow, costly and platform dependent. UAI was no where on the F-22 and to get UAI on the F-22 would mean an F-22 specific UAI program rather then simply Driver uploads for other fighters such as the F-18E/F and F-35. Based on program performance the F-18E/F Super Hornet has outperformed the F-22A program. The F-18E/F has more weapons cleared on it, faster and with lower cost then the raptor. All the performance superiority means little in the modern acquisition world if the platform cannot adapt as fast as an alternative, even if the alternative massively underperforms when compared to the F-22. All of this made the F-22 the peak performer in many areas, speed, stealth, sensor fusion, sensor reach and quality but as a platform it was not multi-role, was not adaptable, could not be upgraded as quickly or as cheaply as the new acquisition reformers suggested etc etc etc.

2) The second reason which is more relevant was that the nature of the Export proposition was such that it came from the USAF rather then the traditional route (USAF suggested the weapons system be cleared). The way high tech weapon systems are exported is usually through the FMS route, where a nation requests certain capability through diplomatic channels. With very high end and sensitive technology the first and for most thing the political class looks at is the threat index. Does the balance tilt in the region with the export sale. In case of the F-22 the balance would have tiled. China would have fast tracked its modernization but more importantly US Ally South Korea which does not have the best relation with Japan would have been very very upset. The F-22J would have given the JASDF almost a decade lead (if not more) with stealth over South Korea. This sort of a tilt in a balance was considered as unjustified given that there was no immediate 5th generation threat for the Japanese and that a greater F-22 export relaxation was never in contention. The USAF's push for special export clearance for 2 customers was seen as a move by the acquisition community as a way to extend the production line that would eventually lower the cost of the fighter and give the USAF some breathing room to develop a more robust multi role variant of the jet that could be acquired. The F-22 was the right fighter at the absolute wrong time. Today the F-22 has limited multi-role capability that is limited due to the cost of integration and the utility given how many fighters the ACC can spare given that the fleet is small and 1 squadron per AEF means very few raptors that can be let go from a2a towards a2g. Only that capability for A2G was given to the raptor that would allow the USAF to retire the F-117. This laser focused development of an AIR DOMINANCE fighter was acceptable in the cold war world, but since that the emphasis has shifted to systems that can adapt, that can do multiple things, that are modular where technology and capability can be scaled back. The doctrine calls for flexibility. Say if a particular threat is legit and very damaging, the doctrine calls for a rapid capability addition to counter that threat..This is only possible with a system that is designed with these features. The F-35 is that. The F-22 is not.

In sum, the f-22 was not cleared for export, no contracts were awarded was done to give it export compatibility. The USAF wanted to make special exceptions that that the acquisition community thought as a back door to sneak more raptors in by prolonging the production run based on export orders. This did not fly. The F-35 on the other hand had all these issues dealt with at the inception. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 was born as an international program with participation form international industry right through the design phase of the prototypes and which extends well into the production of the very last F-35.
Also why not sell F-22 with dumbed down techs, surely F-35s sold to foreign AFs would be slightly dumbed down then what usaf/usn will be getting. Why refuse outrightly?
The export myth (f-35) has been quashed so many times on the internet that it does not warrant a revision. The Dumbed down F-22 is not an easy solution. It would take Billions to revive the production line. The line currently is making transport aircraft. Tooling is preserved but there is absolutely no viability unless the production run extends close to a decade. The cost associated with such a move would come very very close to developing a Super Hornet like version of the F-35 and would take away money from strategic programs like the Next gen fighter. Japan would be dumb to go in for a fighter that no one else will be able to buy, and that has absolutely zero industrial support. The F-22's time has come and gone. The cost to make it compatible with the current USAF acquisition and transformational doctrine would be astronomical. It would require totally gutting the F-22 innards, changing 180 degrees the software and avionics architecture of the jet which basically means a rerun of the SDD phase of the program. There is absolutely no point in doing that when the investments have shifted to other programs.
US would have gained a lot more money selling an inferior F 22 compared to F 35
Absolutely incorrect. The F-35 has a robust industrial base, it is going to be UAI compatible post block 4. It is an open architecture system that can be easily kept relevant to the evolving threat. The F-22 is neither of these things. Financially the cost of keeping the f-22 relevant would be an order of magnitude higher than that on the F-35. The F-22 is a closed-cold-war system meant to do just one thing. Getting it to a level where it can do a lot of things would be extremely costly given the way it has been created. Pilots who have flown it would tell you this (I have posted the video on the Turkey thread).
It hasn't been upgraded as per the original plan but its not necessary inferior (WVR combat is just one factor).
F-22 can easily get HMD which would give it all the technology enjoyed by other 4th and 4.5th generation systems such as the Su-35. The problem for integration existed with the JHMCS. The Current systems available to it, the Scorpion made by the french and the JHMCS II made by vision systems are both zero integration systems meaning that they do not require any cockpit mapping. The F-22 program run by the ACC has evaluated both these systems and a decision is expected in 2015. The Scorpion is in service with the A-10 community (i think) and the ANG, while the JHMCS II is slowly replacing the older JHMCS systems that were acquired in huge amounts. Both are full color displays and both do not require any competition as this is a rapidly capability acquisition through the lowest life cost hardware.

[youtube]7RtYaE8pibo&list=UUVTj-D9IQXCdJ162q7uVJBw[/youtube]

Last edited by brar_w on 03 Aug 2014 07:01, edited 3 times in total.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

Tx. for posting that piece! Should be sent to Arun Jaitley.
All the IAF luminaries – ACM (retd) SP Tyagi on down, it is obvious, have no clue about what “life costing” metrics are all about, and routinely talk down Russian aircraft, but are mute when informed about the intricacies of lifetime costing of aircraft and about the fact of the 44% availability of Rafale in the French AF, which matches the availability of the Su-30 in IAF. This last is in the 4th part of the above seminar at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 9cjvVw#t=0.

There’s even more damning stuff about, such as the scale of “commissions””, etc. on offer or already deposited which, as one of my well-informed correspondents writes, tongue barely in cheek, would put the Rafale in the “heavy” class. And there’s lots more — all there for the BJP government to examine, enough reason, in any case, for it to revisit the matter of MMRCA, and just how and why the Rafale deal will not only beggar the country – not that the IAF cares — but take down the Tejas programme and the nascent Indian defence industry with it.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

Cop-out.

No system exists, nor has one existed for the past decades.

So, how can one expect solid decisions from a non-existing system?

No one person can be blamed - the highest will, by default, have to unfortunately fall on the sword, but that is a different matter.

No use sending it to AJ. He has already told the LS that the Rafale process is following the RFP. He has no time to delve into if the RFP itself was flawed - which it seems it was handled by people not equipped or trained to handle it (learning on the job).

The MMRCA - now, IMHO, - is about reducing the negatives. But, no use running away from calling a spade a spade.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by abhik »

Dhananjay wrote: Strange this Bahadur's arguments! First he talks of Tejas' range unsuitable for MMRCA, these professionals of IAF should answer that then:

a.) Why the hell was swedish grippen was called for MMRCA then? Does the grippen have 3 times the range of Tejas? Doesn't it point to the double stands of these professionals?

b.) First bahadur says "....mmrca to replace Mig 21s...." then later changes his tune to Tejas' unsuitability as it can ONLY replace Migs. Strange professionalism!

c.) Can a Fighter a/c be developed every 2-3 years or takes a couple of decades, like we see in ef2k, rafale, grippen etc. So how come when Tejas was being planned for range, dimensions & payload the IAF just remained aloof, ignoring LCA with as much contempt as possible.

Nope sad but true while brave paki AF pilots & cheeni pilots are backing their inferior JF-17s, J-10s ours are coming across as rich man's spoiled brats who want expensive toys.
+1, What range and payload did the MRCA contract specify in the first place, three times the range and payload of the Tejas Mk1/Mk2? And we are to believe that the Saab Gripen and all other fighters were compliant with these requirements?
It is said that the Tejas is "unsuitable for IAF operational requirements", but exactly which requirements does the Tejas currently fail to fulfill will not be able to in the near future either. This reminds me of the DRDO demands for a comparative trial between indigenously developed and imported weapons.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by vic »

When we calculate the life cycle costs then such costs will be different for IAF and western air forces. In our Case ie IAF, the interest rate will be higher and man power cost will be lower while for western air forces it will be opposite. Assuming interest rate of 6% for IAF, if Rafale is USD 50 million more costly than Su-30MKI then it will add USD 2.5Million per annum to Rafale cost compared to France for whom the interest cost may be 1%. Russian equipment may require more manpower, more fuel and more spares but we still have to calculate if such costs are fraction of capital cost or interest costs of western equipment or the savings are material.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Viv S »

vic wrote:When we calculate the life cycle costs then such costs will be different for IAF and western air forces. In our Case ie IAF, the interest rate will be higher and man power cost will be lower while for western air forces it will be opposite. Assuming interest rate of 6% for IAF, if Rafale is USD 50 million more costly than Su-30MKI then it will add USD 2.5Million per annum to Rafale cost compared to France for whom the interest cost may be 1%. Russian equipment may require more manpower, more fuel and more spares but we still have to calculate if such costs are fraction of capital cost or interest costs of western equipment or the savings are material.
Indian arms purchases are not made on credit AFAIK. Hard cash, no interest; which is popular with foreign vendors. Unless you were referring to the rate of inflation with regard to the operating cost, which should be similar for both. If anything, greater economic volatility in Russia along with a lesser adherence to contracts makes cost inflation a greater possibility.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

If the Rupee-Rouble trade route is re-established by both nations,as some hints indicate,then Russian wares will become more attractive.Indo-Russian trade will explode dramatically if we can pay for def/industrial goods in tea,footwear,software,whatever. Of course the usual factors of support,etc. have to be ironed out satisfactorily first. perhaps given the huge % of Russian origin def. ware that will be with us for a few decades,an SEZ/SEZs should be set up for def. eqpt. support for the pvt. sector where both wetsern and eastern origin eqpt. could be manufactured bu local corporate industries.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

abhik wrote:It is said that the Tejas is "unsuitable for IAF operational requirements", but exactly which requirements does the Tejas currently fail to fulfill will not be able to in the near future either.
I believe it is the ability to engage in combat ... angle-of-attack, g-limits, etc. That is why Mk 2 is being "planned"; realistic timeframe for IOC: 202?.

As per wiki:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas
In November 2010, it was reported that the Tejas Mk1 reportedly fell short of the relaxed Air Staff Requirements stipulated for limited series production (LSP) aircraft. The areas that did not meet requirements were power to weight ratio, sustained turning rate, maximum speeds at low altitudes, AoA range, and weapon delivery profiles. The extent of the deficiencies was classified.[71]
Perhaps someone has more up to date information?

No reason to disbelieve AVM Bahadur, and certainly no one in HAL/ADA is disputing his statement about the operational unsuitability of the LCA Mk 1.
Last edited by eklavya on 03 Aug 2014 16:19, edited 1 time in total.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Dhananjay wrote:Nope sad but true while brave paki AF pilots & cheeni pilots are backing their inferior JF-17s, J-10s ours are coming across as rich man's spoiled brats who want expensive toys.
If a JF-17 comes across a MiG-29, a Mirage 2000 or a Su-30 MKI, its pilot will die. Perhaps you have a deathwish for IAF pilots as well? The IAF leadership wants its combat pilots to survive combat; you may prefer a different yardstick.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

eklavya wrote: Perhaps someone has more up to date information?

No reason to disbelieve AVM Bahadur, and certainly no one in HAL/ADA is disputing his statement about the operational unsuitability of the LCA Mk 1.
No Bahadur specifically mentioned the 3 times range of Tejas, so he has to answer why did they invite grippen then which has same range and payload as Tejas?

ACM Tyagi had already said in '09 to reporters that IAF is not looking for a platform which merely does gymnastics in the air. And true otherwise why was fat panting F-16 invited?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

eklavya wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Nope sad but true while brave paki AF pilots & cheeni pilots are backing their inferior JF-17s, J-10s ours are coming across as rich man's spoiled brats who want expensive toys.
If a JF-17 comes across a MiG-29, a Mirage 2000 or a Su-30 MKI, its pilot will die. Perhaps you have a deathwish for IAF pilots as well? The IAF leadership wants its combat pilots to survive combat; you may prefer a different yardstick.
Nope even the paki prime minister nawaz had said to Bharatiya journalists in some Aero "our Jf-17 isn't as advanced as Tejas, but it can drop bombs......"

Why would IAF pilots die if they fight porkis and cheenis sitting in Tejas?

Perhaps you've a yadstick with which you've come to conclusion that Tejas is inferior to paki & cheeni jets?
----------------------------------------------

What makes one suspicious about IAF professionals is a single minded approach against both enemies.

Porkis have what 25 squadrons? Cheenis have 90 squadrons?

Both come to 115 squadrons, (mota mota estimate I'm guessing)

Against these 115 squadrons what IAF has is 34 squadrons, which they hope will go upto 39.5 OR later 42 squadrons.

Now IAF can at least provide govt. that they either be given 100 squadrons AF to fight on both the fronts OR superior jets with lesser numbers. Now how come Rafale is such a Amitabh Bachan of Deewar beating up 20 gundas alone in a warehouse?

Why they were even ok with a grippen/m2k to do that? Did any of these IAF pilots ever write an article about "Govt. should equip IAF with 99 squadrons...."
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Dhananjay wrote:No Bahadur specifically mentioned the 3 times range of Tejas, so he has to answer why did they invite grippen then which has same range and payload as Tejas?

ACM Tyagi had already said in '09 to reporters that IAF is not looking for a platform which merely does gymnastics in the air. And true otherwise why was fat panting F-16 invited?
Are you having a joke at your own expense? The Gripen NG and the F-16IN are way ahead of Mk 2 (202?), let alone Mk 1. Anyway, neither of them got through the technical evaluation stage for MMRCA.

Survivability in combat is about more than payload and range, but even on these parameters:

According to wiki, the IOC II LCA Mk 1 carries 3t of armament to a range of 400-500km; and the Gripen C/D has a payload of 5.3t and a combat radius of 800km. Wiki states a combat radius for LCA of 186 miles / 162 nautical miles (ie ca 300km).

Rafale can carry 9t and it goes an awful long way!
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Dhananjay wrote:Nope even the paki prime minister nawaz had said to Bharatiya journalists in some Aero "our Jf-17 isn't as advanced as Tejas, but it can drop bombs......"

Why would IAF pilots die if they fight porkis and cheenis sitting in Tejas?

Perhaps you've a yadstick with which you've come to conclusion that Tejas is inferior to paki & cheeni jets?
Did nawaz sharif promise that he would not use his F-16s against the LCA. What a wonderful chap.

Did the PLAAF promise that they would not use their Su-30s against the LCA?

LCA is inferior to Paki F-16 and Cheeni Su-27/30.

But, you should write more posts about brave paki and cheeni pilots, and the brats of the IAF.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

eklavya wrote: Are you having a joke at your own expense? The Gripen NG and the F-16IN are way ahead of Mk 2 (202?), let alone Mk 1. Anyway, neither of them got through the technical evaluation stage for MMRCA.
Tell me Sir Eklavya on whom the joke is! Was bahadur or IAF were crystal gazing when they sent RFP '07 to sweden when the first flight of NG happened IIRC late 2008 or early 2009. And please tell me by what stretch is even this 800 km. range 3 times to that of 500 km. range of Tejas?

Now I see what obfuscation you're doing, the F-16 I'd brought in to your point of manueverablity etc. as an example just as I'd taken the grippen as range example, but you're presenting them together to misquote me.
Survivability in combat is about more than payload and range, but even on these parameters:

According to wiki, the IOC II LCA Mk 1 carries 3t of armament to a range of 400-500km; and the Gripen C/D has a payload of 5.3t and a combat radius of 800km. Wiki states a combat radius for LCA of 186 miles / 162 nautical miles (ie ca 300km).
LCA's payload is realistic, but grippen being a foreign private company is a brochure range still NOT the 3 times of Tejas. Please use calculater again and multiply 500 x 3 = ??Kms.

Still a joke?
Rafale can carry 9t and it goes an awful long way!
Now read these lines slowly so you can understand:

I took grippen example not by random

there was a reason for that.........

because no way grippen's range is 3 times of Tejas

in fact in case you remove brochure figure.... the grippen range is same or slightly more than Tejas.

The cunning swedes have a rule to help with exports...... There Airforce OR armed force personnal can take a long leave and join private swedish defence companies to promote their products all over the world.

The saab grippen's representative sitting in New Delhi is a bloody Swedish AirForce Officer.

Yes he is on leave from Swedish Airforce and serving as Saab Grippen employee, to promote His bloody country's inferior jet which is not in league with Rafale or ef2k at all.

Amazing the contrast between two airforces, ours like bahadur are publicly insulting a homegrown pride of the nation.

While swedish airforce gives its employee a special leave to promote their country's inferior jet to foreign lands.
---------------------------------------------

This is my post and figure I've posted at least a half dozen times accepting the supreriority of Rafale:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... c#p1091033
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... page1.aspx

Rafale has excellent payload for its small size. Officially Rafale C can carry a incredible 20900 pounds of payload despite the fact that it is slightly smaller than Typhoon which can carry only 16500 pounds.

The payload of Rafale C is also officially MORE than F-18EF ( F-18EF is 42% larger than rafale C, but F-18ef carries only 17700 pound officially).

And this is not all. When Rafale get its uprated M88-3 engine and when the new 3000 liter (792.6gals) center line external fuel tank is being qualified for use, rafale external payload weight will further increase to almost 23000 pound !!! Thats almost the same as the 24000 pounds achieve by the 50-65% larger F-15E.

Rafale C MTOW will soon be increase to 60,000 pounds. Rafale C is about 20680 pound when empty. Its MTOW to empty weight ratio is 2.9 times !!

F-15E MTOW to empty ratio is 2.56 or less. F-15E probably rank second.

No other airplane is close or even close. eurofighter Typhoon MTWO to empty weight is only 2.14 !

B-2 bomber may have highere MTOW to empty weight ratio. But B-2 is a subsonic load carrying bomber. For fighter plane comparison Rafale C MTOW to empty weight ratio is HIGHEST among all supersonic fighter aircraft.
Dhananjay wrote:What magic have they done to achieve this capability compared to others?

Do you have some chart where it compares Range with Typhoon? I have been searching Range and payload comparison with Typhoon chart but couldn't find it.

Rafale's having more wetpoints and payload versus Typhoon is going to be a big boost.

The only minus seems to be smaller nose for radar, the reason given usually is to reduce its radar cross section. In that case Why have they left out refueling pod fixed outside? Doesn't that add to radar crossection?
So please do not bring in rafale as I accept its superiority, please argue fairly.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

eklavya wrote: Did nawaz sharif promise that he would not use his F-16s against the LCA. What a wonderful chap.

Did the PLAAF promise that they would not use their Su-30s against the LCA?

LCA is inferior to Paki F-16 and Cheeni Su-27/30.

But, you should write more posts about brave paki and cheeni pilots, and the brats of the IAF.
Common all the jets coming across have not to be superior than theirs. What if a jaguar comes across cheeni su-30? what if Mig-27 comes across su-30 OR F-16?

Like it's been mentioned before F-16 lost its manueverability after block-30, now its just a phat panting teen. Porki block 52 is hardly a match for Tejas.

The F-16 and 18 couldn't even take off from leh airbase with payload, later they just took of with 2 BVR missiles and still took twice the runway of Rafale and ef2k

While Tejas does it without breaking the sweat. 8)
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

The issue being debated by Karnad, etc is whether to procure Rafale. F-16IN, F-18E/F, EF and Gripen NG ki kahani khatam. The force structure Karnad and some recent converts to the LCA on this forum (who were previously pushing other top-of-the-line foreign fighters, and are still pushing for F-35 Super Dud) propose is based on substituting the Rafale induction with lots of LCA Mk 1. Well, in that case, the PM had better hope that the clever ladies and fellows in the IFS can avert a two-front war without signing over any Indian territory, because relying on an IAF based on LCA Mk 1 to defend the skies in a two-front war scenario is just plain wishful thinking. As ever, the decision will be made by the PM, and he can choose to listen to experts like Karnad or the brats who've spent their entire adult lives in IAF fighter cockpits.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by chaanakya »

What is F-35? It sound suspiciously similar to 3.5 friends of Bakis.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Dhananjay wrote:Common all the jets coming across have not to be superior than theirs. What if a jaguar comes across cheeni su-30? what if Mig-27 comes across su-30 OR F-16?

Like it's been mentioned before F-16 lost its manueverability after block-30, now its just a phat panting teen. Porki block 52 is hardly a match for Tejas.

The F-16 and 18 couldn't even take off from leh airbase with payload, later they just took of with 2 BVR missiles and still took twice the runway of Rafale and ef2k

While Tejas does it without breaking the sweat. 8)
If an unescorted Jaguar or MiG-27 comes across a Su-30 or an F-16, its dead. Jags and MiG-27 will need to be escorted by Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, MiG-29.

F-16 Block 52 is a formidable fighter, its radar & BVR missile combination is superior to the LCA, and it also has excellent aerodynamics.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

eklavya wrote:The issue being debated by Karnad, etc is whether to procure Rafale. F-16IN, F-18E/F, EF and Gripen NG ki kahani khatam.
My post was not to answer karnad or shauryaT siachin vacater group.

It was to the answer of bahadur who said IAF wants 3 times the range of Tejas. I raised points as to why IAF didn't raise hue and cry from the time of Tejas development when its payload range size was being planned? In case DRDO was not listening they should have pushed for being given more input in Tejas program. Now they're writing articles to protect their beloved MMRCA program aren't they?

I also raised why grippen was invited to participate as surely it doesn't have the 3 times thingy on Tejas.
The force structure Karnad and some recent converts to the LCA on this forum (who were previously pushing other top-of-the-line foreign fighters, and are still pushing for F-35 Super Dud) propose is based on substituting the Rafale induction with lots of LCA Mk 1.
Well i guess that convert is VivS who is clearly an admirer of anything american. When Rafale and Ef2k were shorlisted he was writing post after post on why Ef2k should be bought. Then Rafale was chosen and he retired for sometime.

Then came back arguing against Rafale and propogating '900 Tejas against 126 Rafale'.

But also by side he started flashing ideas how its a waste of money and you get nothing for ToT and how wonderful it would be to buy F-35 :roll:

As he knows americans won't given any ToT, +EULA - EUMA are actually to help us integrate better into power NATO :rotfl:

Also that in case Pokharan 3, US won't apply any sanctions.

Its just sad that idea of vast number of Tejas in IAF gets clubbed with such posters, but it is actually true.
Well, in that case, the PM had better hope that the clever ladies and fellows in the IFS can avert a two-front war without signing over any Indian territory, because relying on an IAF based on LCA Mk 1 to defend the skies in a two-front war scenario is just plain wishful thinking. As ever, the decision will be made by the PM, and he can choose to listen to experts like Karnad or the brats who've spent their entire adult lives in IAF fighter cockpits.
Who was it just few pages back that said what IAF officer told him "Its true the MKI is = 6 Mig 21s, but MKI can only be in one place at a time while 6 migs can be in 6 places.

Eklavaya jee imagine :

Formation of 6 Tejas a/cs covered with non-radar reflecting composites sized what 1/4 of Su-30??? Radar nose bigger than Rafale armed with Python 5s, Astras and even R-?? going against any formation of porki-cheeni combine, how can they lose?

The IAF pilots who have flown have said how easy it is to fly.

Come on forget viv or karnad.

Tejas in big number will be a game changer.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by ldev »

The 4 part video posted on the MRCA deliberations is very illuminating. Some highlights I can recall:

1. The evaluating group floundered trying to figure out how to compute life cycle costs. SP Tyagi states that they even enlisted the help of E Sreedharan in trying to figure that out. Talk about learning on the job....They must have been open to manipulation by the bidders who would have been only too happy to "help and educate" the evaluating committee.

2. The only reason the RFP/Q was categorized as "medium" was to keep the "heavies" out of the equation. The specific "heavy" in this case they wanted to preclude was the SU-30 and the weight cut off was therefore 30 tons.

3. SP Tyagi asks the Malaysian Air Chief as to why they don't utilize their SU-30s much and the reply is something to the effect," When you have a Rolls Royce, you do not take it out every day...only on special occasions, its expensive to run"!!.

4. Whenever an Air Chief complains to the MOD about a shortfall of squadrons, another 2 squadrons of SU-30s are ordered to keep him happy. About as ad-hoc as it can get.

4. When PK Barbora talks about Chinese air force squadron strength, he says paraphrasing," And then they also build the J10s and the SU-27s with and without licence which adds to their numbers". Every country in the world steals and copies designs, ideas etc, the Soviets copied from the US, the US in its early years stole from the Germans, the Chinese steal designs from everyone else. India must be the most law abiding country in the world.

5. The original LCA program started in 1983, the original J17 program started 10 years later in 1993. Today the PAF has 50 J17s and they are looking at building another 200-300 more with about a dozen air forces interested in the plane. Where is the LCA?

6. The RFP/Q as written had dual objectives i.e. meet the requirements of the IAF and serve in building an industrial-aerospace infrastructure in the country. I've no idea whether the 2nd objective is remotely feasible under the circumstances and to what extent Dassault's proposal is compliant with it.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

NRao wrote:^^^^^

My impression - based on those vids - is that there is a strong leaning towards the "West". And, that, in the IAF, will remain. My thinking is that the FGFA is in warm waters and one that is getting warmer.
In my understanding, this leaning to the west needs to be seen in context of our force structure and overall limitations under which Services operate. Indulge me as I elaborate:

1. BRFites talk glowingly about China and the single mindedness with which it has built the domestic military-industrial complex. What people forget that behind this pursuit lies a clear political and military thought-process. I have included military as well because PLA is one of the pillars of Communist rule in that country. And sits at the high table in CMC and gives it's inputs on wide range of national objectives and policies.

2. The strategic culture ingrained in the Chinese made them realize the requirement for nuclear weapons - weapons which could be used to secure the Chinese heartland inspite of the rank inferiority of Chinese armed forces.

3. Till the time Chinese lacked quality, they went with the quantity. From a large standing army with thousand and thousand of tanks to large AF with fighters from 50s-60s and 70s to navy will large number of submarines.

4. The GW-1 opened the Chinese eyes to what technology could do to modern-warfare and what kind of RMA - Revolution in Military Affairs - they had brought in. And you had the Chinese resorting to every trick in the book to gain technology for themselves.

5. Today, when the Chinese have right kind of technology, they're moving from quantity to quality. Just look at the way PLA has downsized. And tried to incorporate 'All-Arms Warfare'. What were earlier Divisions are but mere Brigades now. But full strength and with whatever latest tech the Chinese can feed. For all you know, the PLA may actually be smaller than IA in overall numbers!!!

6. In contrast to that, Services in India have been so far removed from the high-table that they themselves don't know how things will pan out.

7. Further, we've grossly under-spent on our armed forces (as %age of GDP given our threat levels) leading to present levels of sanctioned strength for different Services. Primarily in terms of quantity and nature of weapon systems held.

8. So, while we've relatively smaller sized armed forces, they're equipped predominantly with weapons (or were equipped-slowly changing) which were meant to be used in LARGE NUMBERS by the country which manufactured them!

9. Just take some examples - The T-72 tanks, BMP-1/2 IFV, Mig-21/23/27 or Su-7 and what have you.

10. We're trying to marry two disparate concepts here - While we should ideally have a weapon system with superlative PER UNIT capability (to compensate for lower numbers), we're using weapon system with low technology which was meant to be used in a system where quantity trumped quality.

11. So, it is not surprising that IAF favors the Mirage-2000 or wants something like Rafale. We've increased the PER UNIT capability of systems wherever we can - Su-30 MKI is a prime example. (I know T-90 is an exception... :mrgreen: :P :mrgreen: )

12. We'll never have the numbers we want - therefore it is important we have superior PER UNIT capability in all our systems.

13. And this means that domestic MIL-IND Complex really needs to buckle-up because only way this transition to high-end products can be managed in our limited resources is for things to come from in-house.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Viv S »

Dhananjay wrote:Well i guess that convert is VivS who is clearly an admirer of anything american.

When Rafale and Ef2k were shorlisted he was writing post after post on why Ef2k should be bought. Then Rafale was chosen and he retired for sometime.
I see. And how would you explain my opposition to the Apache purchase then? BTW I was writing posts supporting the EF, long before it was shortlisted. The Eurofighter not American to the best of my knowledge.

Where the Europeans build at scale (eg. Airbus A330), I'm an 'admirer' of their products.
Then came back arguing against Rafale and propogating '900 Tejas against 126 Rafale'.
I have never mentioned this '900 Tejas' figure. Try 300, you'll be closer to the mark. With the balance money spend on force multipliers, that better capability at a lower cost.
But also by side he started flashing ideas how its a waste of money and you get nothing for ToT and how wonderful it would be to buy F-35 :roll:

As he knows americans won't given any ToT, +EULA - EUMA are actually to help us integrate better into power NATO :rotfl:
As if mere ToT could ever be worth spending $20 billion on a fourth gen fighter. :roll:

Nearly 15 years, four upgrades and over half a dozen competitions later, the Rafale's domestic order book is just 180 units while export orders stand at diddly squat. The French MoD is cutting back orders and looking for a foreign entity to pick up the slack, its just amazing that some would like to offer up a hog-tied Indian taxpayer onto that sacrificial altar.

As far as the F-35 is concerned, you may not like its origin, but fact is costs are falling across the board and will hit the $75M mark by the 2018. That's far better value offered than the EF & Rafale. There's a reason why future European contests have been reduced to a straight fight between the Gripen E and F-35.

To reiterate, the Rafale is a 4.5G fighter at 5G prices delivered in a 5G timeframe. 'Full ToT' uselessly delivered in the same time-frame, doesn't make the deal anymore palatable.
Also that in case Pokharan 3, US won't apply any sanctions.
It can't afford to. Not without sanctioning its own trade and industry. Which is why we'll be flying P-8Is, C-17s, C-130s, Chinooks, employing US engines in fighters, frigates, aircraft carriers and so on.
Its just sad that idea of vast number of Tejas in IAF gets clubbed with such posters, but it is actually true.


If you think you can expound the case for the Tejas better than me, go right ahead.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Viv S »

rohitvats wrote:10. We're trying to marry two disparate concepts here - While we should ideally have a weapon system with superlative PER UNIT capability (to compensate for lower numbers), we're using weapon system with low technology which was meant to be used in a system where quantity trumped quality.
Our limitation is still financial rather than doctrinal.

What we should ideally focus on is maximizing capability PER RUPEE SPENT.
11. So, it is not surprising that IAF favors the Mirage-2000 or wants something like Rafale. We've increased the PER UNIT capability of systems wherever we can - Su-30 MKI is a prime example.
If the IAF continues to treat the financial aspect as something for only the babus to worry about, it'll continue to find its acquisition plans hobbled. The recent budget woes should have served as a jolt, but I'm not holding my breath, that narrow focus is institutional.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Some people were touting for the more expensive and less capable EF and are now touting for the most expensive super dud F35, and feel qualified to talk about financial aspects; sounds like sour grapes from those whose plans to inflict super duds have been undone by the DPP, which has been followed in the MMRCA procurement.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

In my understanding, this leaning to the west needs to be seen in context of our force structure and overall limitations under which Services operate. Indulge me as I elaborate:
You have framed one important point, I think there are many others.

Discipline in delivery and support.

Maturity of deploy-able technologies.

Variety in future technologies.

Track record of bringing lab technologies to market.

And, finally, commonality. I think this to be key.

Cost is perhaps the only questionable issue.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

As I said, with Bharat Karnad, you never know where facts end and fantasies begin.

So, I was really intrigued about the 44% Rafale availability rate; it makes no sense considering our experience with Mirage-2000 and Rafale being a home-grown product for French. So, a little snooping around threw this data point:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... &p=7316727

Copied from the link above - courtesy a poster named Olybrius:
These are irrelevant polemics i generally read diagonally but the point about the 44% availability rate deserves to be clarified (and it demonstrates how these polemics between some so-called indian experts are superficial):

In the French Air Force and Navy, there are 2 different availability rate :

- DT (disponibilité technique/technical availability) is the availability rate with regard to the entire existing fleet.
- DTO (disponibilité technique opérationelle/ operational technical availability) is the ratio between the number of aircraft available and the number of aircraft needed to achieve the planned activity, that is to say the ability to achieve the operational goal, the mission.

The first indicator, DT, is generally around 50% for the Air Force and actually around 30% for the Navy. This is not because there are maintenance issues on the Rafale fleet, this is simply because a part of the existing fleet is not immediately needed to achieve the operational contract: ie a 100 percent DTO rate. France did not need 100 or 150 Rafale immediately available for training and air policing; thus, over a year, a part of the fleet, usually composed of the aircraft that have, at the moment, the highest number of flight hours, is temporarily parked or even sometimes temporarily mothballed at Chateaudun air base. (Similarly, there are no specific maintenance problems with Rafale M, the difference (DT) between Air Force and Navy is mainly due to the ongoing modernization of 10 Rafale F1)

Each country has its own constraints. What is really important and significant is to achieve a high DTO rate. And especially during real operations (like Lybia, Mali ...) when all committed aircraft must operate at maximum efficiency over long periods. In that case the availability rate for the Rafale is close to 100% ; see 2nd chart below.
You can see the charts he refers to in the link or Page 29 and Page 31 of the PDF document linked below:

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pd ... 56-tvi.pdf

Bharat Karnad's article seem more like idyllic ramblings than anything else!

PS: Saw The State of Air Power videos. Just one comment - that Saurabh Joshi fellow from StatPost comes across as pompous ass who knows nothing about the topic. Yet, the smugness with which he makes that 44% availability comment needs to seen to be believed...no wonder Defense reporting in India is so useless!
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by Viv S »

eklavya wrote:Some people were touting for the more expensive and less capable EF and are now touting for the most expensive super dud F35, and feel qualified to talk about financial aspects; sounds like sour grapes from those whose plans to inflict super duds have been undone by the DPP, which has been followed in the MMRCA procurement.
EF less capable according to whom? Certainly not the IAF.

Sour grapes? I didn't make the cost go past $20 billion or the delivery date past 2018 by which time almost a dozen air forces would have inducted fifth generation aircraft.

As far as the F-35's cost and capability is concerned -

I'll invite you to make a cogent argument based on your independent research and your understanding of the technical aspects of the aircraft (rather than google sourced articles). Set aside rhetoric for a moment. Also go through US budgets documents for the cost and place your adverse findings before the forum.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

So, I was really intrigued about the 44% Rafale availability rate
I do not recall who, but someone in the one of the four vids stated that a recent French gov report stated that. Official French gov stuff.

In fact the question was posed if that is what teh IAF expects and what about the planes within the IAF (MKI) and IIRC the IAF people said it is OK.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

There is absolutely no way that the Rafale has a mission availability rate of 44%. There is no reason to believe that the rate is any less than that of the M2K or the standard F-16C. Peacetime force availability rates are calculated differently by different accounting wings of various governments, similarly the services that operate these aircraft may wish to intentionally keep the mission rates lower to prolong airframe life and keep the fleet operational costs low.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Some people were touting for the more expensive and less capable EF and are now touting for the most expensive super dud F35, and feel qualified to talk about financial aspects; sounds like sour grapes from those whose plans to inflict super duds have been undone by the DPP, which has been followed in the MMRCA procurement.
EF less capable according to whom? Certainly not the IAF.

Sour grapes? I didn't make the cost go past $20 billion or the delivery date past 2018 by which time almost a dozen air forces would have inducted fifth generation aircraft.

As far as the F-35's cost and capability is concerned -

I'll invite you to make a cogent argument based on your independent research and your understanding of the technical aspects of the aircraft (rather than google sourced articles). Set aside rhetoric for a moment. Also go through US budgets documents for the cost and place your adverse findings before the forum.
When it mattered, India gave the thumbs down to EF. Get used to it ....

The outcome of the MMRCA selection process still stands. The negotiations take time because the issue at hand is very serious and very complex. Obviously those who lost will make up any number of excuses to cancel the entire programme; but that is because of their narrow commercial interests.

The world's most expensive super-dud F35 is not under consideration by India, and never will be, so kindly take it to another thread.

How DoD's $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force

Almost a dozen countries which are dependent on the US for their security and do not have an independent foreign policy have ordered the F-35; you would like India to be a member of this illustrious club of nations. :lol:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Almost a dozen countries which are dependent on the US for their security and do not have an independent foreign policy have ordered the F-35; you would like India to be a member of this illustrious club of nations
India already is.

Outside of a few ships, very unfortunately, what in the Indian Services is India not dependent on another country?

Heck 10+ years ago India had to depend on some other nation to pull her out. Has it changed that much today?

The Rafale will make India further dependent on ..................
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by eklavya »

^^^^
India has an independent foreign policy; the countries that ordered the super-dud F-35 do not, not one of them.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

If one listens to those vids one would never laugh over any matter.

AM Barbora, very clearly states in the 4th Vid @ around 15 min, that there were no planes that could fire above a certain height and they had to improvise for the Kargil war.

The IAF "dependent" on some other nation then.

Kanwal asks if India has 10% of PGM required to execute a war.

Another AM states that India does not even get 10% of what funds it needs.

A two front war: impossible. Will fight it because there are no options, but India is nowhere close to fighting one.





What emoticon to use then?
Post Reply