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
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by SaiK »

Sagar G wrote:You think these things are not being asked for ?? They are, but since our system has political overlords things always move at a snail's pace.
No. I think you/we all asked.. but as you said, it is not working. Hence, there is a need to change the procurement policies and drivers having a time-period attribute in each.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srin »

Septimus P. wrote:189 Rafales including weapons will finally comes for around $30 billion or around 160 million a piece, very hefty price for a 4.5 gen aircraft. Also not sure if this full-tot song will finally happen, at this price they better release full-tot. The french right now cannot afford to screw about. No way this order is completed by 2025. Rafale line is crawling at a slow rate of 11 aircraft per year, reduced from 14 per year. SH international makes more sense everyday, it will be around 40 million cheaper per aircraft including ample weapons. Raffy deal needs to be cancelled.
The IAF rejection of Shornets was *technical* rejection, not commercial. So the IAF won't accept it because they have already declared to the whole world that it is an aircraft not suitable for them. If they change it, their credibility will be shot.

IMHO, the reason why we haven't had blacklisting, court cases and re-tendering that has dogged other procurements is IAF's sheer professionalism. In this entire MMRCA saga, nobody has accused IAF of being non-professional in their trials. If anything, they have been accused of being too professional (Ashley tellis comes to mind).

MoD also won't do anything, because the very next day everybody else will go to court. The RM will be accused of kickbacks and being a slave of the Khan. Nobody is that "courageous" (to use the "Yes Minister" term for politically dangerous decisions).

So - realistically speaking, and considering the Indian political context, the chances of going for Shornet for MMRCA is pretty low. It *might* still make an appearance as an IN carrier fighter, but that is a different thing altogether.
Again, in the political context, it is acceptable to pay very high for Rafale (or even higher for EF) than to be vulnerable to political attacks.

Mind you, I'm not commenting on the adequacy or the lack of it of Shornet for IAF requirements. The parameters that were tested and the evaluations haven't been shared publicly - we can only guess what they are about.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by vishvak »

The IAF should make the whole selection process as kind of standard setting for requirements for such international purchases.

There are huge advantages of it. Developing synergistic selection procedures can evolve into vision processes for competitions world wide that Indians can drive from leadership position in the international arena. There could be defense institutes that can teach knowledge for educated purchase criteria.

The same can be applied to Defense RnD products and platforms such as Arjun Main Battle Tanks, Tejas Fighter Jets, etc. No one can stop Indians from building highways of knowledge in international defense acquisitions.

Who does not want competitions? Who does not want standards? Who does not want synergy in international military acquisitions that can empower defense of nations? There is a great opportunity here to build institutions here for the Indian defense sector.
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Brando »

Septimus P. wrote:189 Rafales including weapons will finally comes for around $30 billion or around 160 million a piece

SH international makes more sense everyday, it will be around 40 million cheaper per aircraft including ample weapons. Raffy deal needs to be cancelled.
[/quote]

That math is wrong. A bigger order usually brings the unit cost down due to efficiency of scale. And weapons like MICA, etc can be used on a variety of aircraft in the IAF inventory and are not Rafale specific making the weapons package an addition across the board.

The SH is never going to enter IAF service for the simple reason that it's just not good enough. The Rafale is head and shoulders above the SH and the IAF technical parameters prove this. Besides a nation that was reluctant to transfer ATGM (Javelin) to India under current US rules would hardly be forthcoming with fighter technologies. The French maybe expensive and charge for everything but they deliver what they say.
AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by AmitG »

Assuming that we ink the contract in 2013 and the first Rafale gets delivered by 2016 and at the rate of 8/year for Indian Airforce, 126 aircrafts will be delivered by 2030...and we hope that neither of our enemies will attack us in this interim period...even if HAL is able to deliver more than 8 per year ( with 272 Su-30MKIs, we just have been delivered around 150).

We can aim for the sky and hope to achieve the best aircraft with a very slow and painful procurement process, it does not help our readiness or an ability to dominate the skies. The chinese have a the ability to produce carbon copies...and they have dtone that with Su-27 which still today is a potential adversary. And very recently they have cloned the Su-30 as well...

It is possible that the F-16 and F-18 did not completely met the operational criteria and US may still insist on CISMOA and other acts, but we can still work with them. The AESA may not come but we are still not operating a single fghter aircraft with AESA Radar and I doubt if it is going to be a big issue if the AN/APG-79 is replaced with something else.

With P8I, C-130J, we have seen timely deliveries. Lockheed Martin and Boeing have significant experience in manufacturing fighter aircrafts. We should leverage that.

I am not saying that we dump Rafale, but having 2-3 sqdns of F-16/F-18 makes a lot of sense, even if it is through the FMS route.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Lalmohan »

the cost curves are logarithmic - and many times contracts build in ongoing price reduction through learning curve effects
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Then why we would go with phat panting teens which couldn't even take off from Leh? Plus US armed porkis with f-16s and AMRAAMS, if we're worried about falling numbers then 40 Rafales were offered by Dasault 3 years back, we can obtain more readymade numbers. Why make a circus of more types?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Then why we would go with phat panting teens which couldn't even take off from Leh?
Because it was a specific glitch with high-altitude start that was quickly resolved?
Manish_Sharma wrote:Plus US armed porkis with f-16s and AMRAAMS
And Russia armed China with Su-30s and France armed Pakistan with submarines.
Manish_Sharma wrote:if we're worried about falling numbers then 40 Rafales were offered by Dasault 3 years back, we can obtain more readymade numbers. Why make a circus of more types?
The thought isn't more types, it's that the entire MRCA approach isn't necessarily the right one. Trying to combine so many separate goals into one contract makes it an unwieldy mess that takes forever to get anything done. Instead split the goals into separate contracts. Want to bolster fighter numbers? Buy some fighters. Want AESA tech? Enter into contract with an AESA manufacturer. Want to improve your airplane assembly line? Make a separate consulting contract with Boeing or Airbus.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by SaiK »

cost curves are only realized on some level of measured maturity in a production setup.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Philip »

Our SU-30MKIs,Brahmos and T-90s are the cutting edge of the Indian armed forces,not to mention the Talwar class FFGs,an Akula-2 and the huge help in delivering the ATV,with the delayed Gorshkov to come as well.The "fans" for these systems are in actual fact the Indian armed forces,who are buying more Flankers,B-missiles,etc.! Where Russian tech is inferior and cannot fit the bill,acquisitions are being made from the west and Israel and now also from Brazil too. Secondly,though Russia has sold the same aircraft,etc., to China,it has not provided the PRC with the latest versions/eqpt.,who are unable to go beyond a point with their illegal reverse-engineering, and is now ordering Flankers with cockpit suites similar to those on Indian MKIs. That the aircraft has proven itself against western opposition is also a fact,and denigrating the product as well as Brahmos,for which the west has no equivalent anywhere on the horizon,for subjective reasons is immature and very unfairly denigrates the decision-makers in the armed forces who have opted for the same .

In this particular case reg. Rafale,at the very first signing of the contract,if the number of aircraft is increased by a third,a huge discount can be attained.Anyone who has negotiated large deals with suppliers know that this is the norm.In fact,at the outset of the contest a few years ago,I advocated that M-2000 upgrades also be included in a financial "bonus" package with the Rafale offer.Finally,if the cost is going to dramatically increase instead,as is being hinted,we must review the whole deal to see whether we are getting our "bang for the buck",for a 4++ gen fighter which will be inferior to the FGFA which is also estimated to come in at similar cost.Alternative acquisitions in spending such a large amount may throw up better cost-effective alternatives of acquiring more aircraft types in service and dropping the "build-at-home" route. The PRC have unveiled two stealth aircraft,mirroring the US's F-22 and F-35.They will certainly field them or at least one of them in a decade's time whatever its shortcomings when compared with the two US birds.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srai »

AmitG wrote:Assuming that we ink the contract in 2013 and the first Rafale gets delivered by 2016 and at the rate of 8/year for Indian Airforce, 126 aircrafts will be delivered by 2030...and we hope that neither of our enemies will attack us in this interim period...even if HAL is able to deliver more than 8 per year ( with 272 Su-30MKIs, we just have been delivered around 150).

...
You are thinking production rate in linear terms. Think of it more as a bell curve. That 8 units/year is only the initial production rate. It will progressively increase each year to meet the delivery timelines. As an example, SU-30MKI production also began at around 8 units/year capacity, but now it is humming around 20 units/year.

As per news reports, deliveries for the eighth MKI squadron was completed in December 2012. This would mean around 168 [21 ac/sqdn * 8 sqdn] MKIs have been delivered so far. The plan calls for all 272 aircrafts (14 squadrons) to be delivered by 2018, and with current production rates of around 1 squadron per year, this seems to be on schedule.

Another point to make is that India could make use of the Rafale production facilities in France if it is really desperate to acquire MMRCAs on a faster track. At this late in the game and given the Indian bureaucracy, going for "made-in-France" Rafales would beat out any FMS route for other competitors, such as F-16/F-18. Besides, the IAF wants to reduce the number of types of birds in its inventory and only the EuroFighter and Rafale met its technical parameters.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

srai wrote:Another point to make is that India could make use of the Rafale production facilities in France if it is really desperate to acquire MMRCAs on a faster track. At this late in the game and given the Indian bureaucracy, going for "made-in-France" Rafales would beat out any FMS route for other competitors, such as F-16/F-18.
IF India were to toss the MRCA, it's not clear that the Rafale would necessarily have any advantage in any subsequent order.
srai wrote:only the EuroFighter and Rafale met its technical parameters.
The technical objections to both the F-16 and SH were minor and easy to overcome.

And when the cost savings are in the range of $40 million/aircraft, it bears closer examination.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srin »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srai wrote:Another point to make is that India could make use of the Rafale production facilities in France if it is really desperate to acquire MMRCAs on a faster track. At this late in the game and given the Indian bureaucracy, going for "made-in-France" Rafales would beat out any FMS route for other competitors, such as F-16/F-18.
IF India were to toss the MRCA, it's not clear that the Rafale would necessarily have any advantage in any subsequent order.
srai wrote:only the EuroFighter and Rafale met its technical parameters.
The technical objections to both the F-16 and SH were minor and easy to overcome.

And when the cost savings are in the range of $40 million/aircraft, it bears closer examination.
Is there an authoritative open source link that you can send about the technical objections to F-16 and SH ?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

srin wrote:Is there an authoritative open source link that you can send about the technical objections to F-16 and SH ?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... cision.pdf
These concerns arise in part because of the way the F/A-18E/F’s General Electric F414 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) was scored during the competition. Boeing offered this engine, which is in its final development stage, as the standard power-plant for the production version of the F/A-18E/F Super hornet because its 20 per cent greater thrust and advanced design

. . .

Thanks to the EPE, the F/A-18E/F’s climb performance, its transonic acceleration, its maximum sustained G, its maximum sustained turn rates, and its top-end speed all improve considerably, with beneficial impact on its performance in both the air-to-air and the air-to-ground regimes.

The IAF, however, held the engine’s development status as proof of its immaturity, despite the fact that when it enters service it will be a substantially new engine with greatly improved performance and decades of active life ahead of it. That the IAF was unwilling to accept the engineering test results of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F was concerned, even as it accepted the bench test results of the developmental AESA radars proposed by the Europeans, raises questions about whether the service may have interpreted compliance with some ASQRs a tad subjectively.
on the F-16
The F-16IN’s failure to meet the IAF’s standard where engine change time was concerned was due largely to an idiosyncratic mishap during the field trials. It is certain that if the trials were to involve multiple stochastic demonstrations of engine change, the F-16IN would have easily made the mark. Unfortunately, second chances are some-times not available, and the IAF, for its own reasons, chose not to accept Lockheed Martin’s subsequent evidence of being able to meet the engine change standards laid down in the ASQR.
I don't remember the link, but the 'idiosyncratic mishap' was that the engine cart broke. It could have easily passed with another chance, but apparently the IAF was looking for an excuse to exclude the F-16 and took it.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srin »

AmitG wrote:Assuming that we ink the contract in 2013 and the first Rafale gets delivered by 2016 and at the rate of 8/year for Indian Airforce, 126 aircrafts will be delivered by 2030...and we hope that neither of our enemies will attack us in this interim period...even if HAL is able to deliver more than 8 per year ( with 272 Su-30MKIs, we just have been delivered around 150).

We can aim for the sky and hope to achieve the best aircraft with a very slow and painful procurement process, it does not help our readiness or an ability to dominate the skies. The chinese have a the ability to produce carbon copies...and they have dtone that with Su-27 which still today is a potential adversary. And very recently they have cloned the Su-30 as well...

It is possible that the F-16 and F-18 did not completely met the operational criteria and US may still insist on CISMOA and other acts, but we can still work with them. The AESA may not come but we are still not operating a single fghter aircraft with AESA Radar and I doubt if it is going to be a big issue if the AN/APG-79 is replaced with something else.

With P8I, C-130J, we have seen timely deliveries. Lockheed Martin and Boeing have significant experience in manufacturing fighter aircrafts. We should leverage that.

I am not saying that we dump Rafale, but having 2-3 sqdns of F-16/F-18 makes a lot of sense, even if it is through the FMS route.
You are missing the primary point: IAF doesn't want F-16/F-18.

I understand that going for F-18 would get the IAF the planes quickly and more predictably and they would probably be cheaper, but they don't want those planes - so what can anyone do ?


If the forces see an immediate threat, they will go for procurement regardless of the process or expense. We got Mirages to qualify for LGB, procured LGBs from Israel and used it in battle in two weeks. That is the pace at which we can move if necessary. So - the fact that we aren't moving at that pace means IAF thinks it is not necessary.

Given the pace of the MMRCA process, my assessment is that neither the IAF nor the MoD think that there would be a war in the next 2-3 years - so they think instead of spending their budget to satisfy their near term needs, they'd invest for the long term. So - even if it has taken a year to negotiate after the L1 is identified, so be it. Even if LCA takes some more time to mature from being "three-legged cheetah", so be it.

Not only are the F-16 and F-18 been rejected for technical reasons, but also IAF doesn't see any urgency in the procurement. So - why would we buy them ?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

srin wrote:You are missing the primary point: IAF doesn't want F-16/F-18.

I understand that going for F-18 would get the IAF the planes quickly and more predictably and they would probably be cheaper, but they don't want those planes - so what can anyone do ?
The joy of civilian government is that the government can tell the military what to do.
srin wrote:Not only are the F-16 and F-18 been rejected for technical reasons
My impression is that they were rejected less for technical reasons than that they weren't 'as fun to fly'
srin wrote:but also IAF doesn't see any urgency in the procurement. So - why would we buy them ?
IAF doesn't set foreign policy

Theoretically speaking, the GoI could say something like, 'We are concerned about falling squadron strength and we have only $xx billion available. For that money we could get x Rafales in a certain time frame or we could get 1.5x SHs in half the time. Unless the IAF can present a compelling case against the SH, that's what we're going to get.'
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by member_22605 »

^ Then the IAF should tell the civilian govt to fly the 1.5xSH instead. Anyway in India it is services that decide and the govt unlike in the US does not select the military hardware.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srin »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srin wrote:You are missing the primary point: IAF doesn't want F-16/F-18.

I understand that going for F-18 would get the IAF the planes quickly and more predictably and they would probably be cheaper, but they don't want those planes - so what can anyone do ?
The joy of civilian government is that the government can tell the military what to do.
srin wrote:Not only are the F-16 and F-18 been rejected for technical reasons
My impression is that they were rejected less for technical reasons than that they weren't 'as fun to fly'
srin wrote:but also IAF doesn't see any urgency in the procurement. So - why would we buy them ?
IAF doesn't set foreign policy

Theoretically speaking, the GoI could say something like, 'We are concerned about falling squadron strength and we have only $xx billion available. For that money we could get x Rafales in a certain time frame or we could get 1.5x SHs in half the time. Unless the IAF can present a compelling case against the SH, that's what we're going to get.'
:rotfl:

I presume that "fun to fly" comment was a troll attempt, so will ignore that.

Theoretically, the opposition would simply write a letter alleging kickbacks and the procurement is stalled.

And what is this GoI that you speak of that doesn't include the military ?

The minister will never do what the babus won't say. The babus of MoD have been outmaneuvered - the moment IAF said no, forcing SH would mean that babus would be responsible for the decision and babus never take responsibility for the decision.

And .. about the foreign policy. Yeah, unkil figured out that foreign policy is one sure way to sell inferior arms. But our strategic sense ensured that to prevent unkil from controlling our air combat arm (and prevent arm twisting), procurement was divided into two - a very professional technical selection, and a flexible commercial selection.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

srin wrote:I presume that "fun to fly" comment was a troll attempt, so will ignore that.
Not at all. I can only speculate as to 'why', but pick your poison: 'fun to fly', 'got bribes', 'hates America', 'hidden geopolitical concerns', 'something else entirely'

But it looks fairly clear that 'technical reasons' is merely an excuse and not the real issue.

If the IAF was solely concerned about 'technical reasons', why was LockMart not given a second run at the engine change? Was the goal to find a fighter that would meet the IAF's needs or was the goal to find a way to exclude the US birds before the bids were opened?
srin wrote: The minister will never do what the babus won't say. The babus of MoD have been outmaneuvered - the moment IAF said no, forcing SH would mean that babus would be responsible for the decision and babus never take responsibility for the decision.
Well, I did say 'Theoretically' :wink:
srin wrote:But our strategic sense ensured that to prevent unkil from controlling our air combat arm (and prevent arm twisting), procurement was divided into two - a very professional technical selection, and a flexible commercial selection.
Even you say that the technical evaluation was merely a cover for disqualification on strategic issues.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Philip »

I think that we've flogged to death earlier the debate as to why the IAF didn't want either of the two US birds for the MMRCA .Anywhere,here is a brief review.Both US birds have their design origins almost 40 years earlier and both have their latest versions at the extreme end of possible upgrades.Both aircraft were in service with almost every US ally ,decades ago too! The F-16,being used by the Pakis was a no-no right from the start.It left only the loser in the old F-16 vs F-17 battle,the F-18 naval fighter,which evolved out of the F-17 as a poss. contender.Here,it was totally eclipsed along with the Russian MIG-35,Gripen-too small,by the two Eurofighters,belonging to a totally diff. generation in concept,technology and manufacture.The only problem,the huge cost,when viewed in the Indian context of equiv./superior Flankers,etc. available from Russia,which is why we are still buying MIKs in such large qty. to replace much smaller and inferior aircraft like MIG-21s.,32s,and 27s.

The key goal of the MMRCA deal was acquiring the AESA radar which was superior on the European aircraft,with the US very reluctant to supply the same to the IAF,plus carrying a lot of baggage with its intrusive "inspections" clause,which would severely hamper the IAF in times of crisis with Pak.Expressing dismay at being dumped,the US officially said ,or words to that effect,that "India has preferred technical superiority to a relationship",as it hoped to rein in India into its military basket of nations,which toe the US line on strategic and security affairs,esp. with regard to China.

The hope now is that the Rafale deal can be signed asap and deliveries start similarly,without any extra cost being added onto the unit price or life-cycle costs,esp. when we are buying an extra 1/3rd in number.HAL Bangalore will find it very difficult to absorb the tech though.The Nasik unit,which has been producing only Russian aircraft,has done a much better job of producing Flankers than the B'lore unit,which has only made Jaguars,another 3-4 decade old design,which is now on the upgrade list with Raytheon.Probably why Dassault was hesitant in HAL's ability to "do the business". The LCA is yet to start serial production of MK-1 in any worthwhile number,let alone MK-2.As to reneging on the AESA radar,that opens up a whole new ball game.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Philip wrote:The key goal of the MMRCA deal was acquiring the AESA radar
If that's true, then the MRCA program was a huge boondoggle. You could simply buy the tech direct from Elbit or whoever for far, far less than you're spending on the MRCA program and get it far quicker.
Philip wrote:which was superior on the European aircraft
That is an . . . interesting . . . . position to take.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srai »

Philip wrote:I think that we've flogged to death earlier the debate as to why the IAF didn't want either of the two US birds for the MMRCA ...
Yes. That discussion has already taken place. Let's move on.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Aditya_V »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srin wrote:Is there an authoritative open source link that you can send about the technical objections to F-16 and SH ?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... cision.pdf
These concerns arise in part because of the way the F/A-18E/F’s General Electric F414 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) was scored during the competition. Boeing offered this engine, which is in its final development stage, as the standard power-plant for the production version of the F/A-18E/F Super hornet because its 20 per cent greater thrust and advanced design

. . .

Thanks to the EPE, the F/A-18E/F’s climb performance, its transonic acceleration, its maximum sustained G, its maximum sustained turn rates, and its top-end speed all improve considerably, with beneficial impact on its performance in both the air-to-air and the air-to-ground regimes.

The IAF, however, held the engine’s development status as proof of its immaturity, despite the fact that when it enters service it will be a substantially new engine with greatly improved performance and decades of active life ahead of it. That the IAF was unwilling to accept the engineering test results of the F414 EPE where the F/A-18E/F was concerned, even as it accepted the bench test results of the developmental AESA radars proposed by the Europeans, raises questions about whether the service may have interpreted compliance with some ASQRs a tad subjectively.
on the F-16
The F-16IN’s failure to meet the IAF’s standard where engine change time was concerned was due largely to an idiosyncratic mishap during the field trials. It is certain that if the trials were to involve multiple stochastic demonstrations of engine change, the F-16IN would have easily made the mark. Unfortunately, second chances are some-times not available, and the IAF, for its own reasons, chose not to accept Lockheed Martin’s subsequent evidence of being able to meet the engine change standards laid down in the ASQR.
I don't remember the link, but the 'idiosyncratic mishap' was that the engine cart broke. It could have easily passed with another chance, but apparently the IAF was looking for an excuse to exclude the F-16 and took it.
Well if Locked Martin wanted this deal, they could have made sure I neighbors to our northwest did not get some MLU, F-16 C/D , 500 Amraams all funded by the US Taxpayer Aid.

If can sanction TSP like Iran , sure we can consider the F-16 and F-18.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by svinayak »

Aditya_V wrote:
Well if Locked Martin wanted this deal, they could have made sure I neighbors to our northwest did not get some MLU, F-16 C/D , 500 Amraams all funded by the US Taxpayer Aid.

If can sanction TSP like Iran , sure we can consider the F-16 and F-18.
How difficult to understand this.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by PratikDas »

Yes, at times like these you get the "No hablo ingles" response.

And if the IAF was looking for an excuse not to choose an American fighter then why do the US salesmen waste their time here? Would the IAF not want to keep looking for excuses?

Or are the salesmen hoping that the Indian govt shoves a senior citizen down the IAF's throat?

As if the insinuation of unprofessionalism on the IAF's part wasn't bad enough, the need to force something down the IAF's throat is over the top. Besides, after all this time and despite the wishes of many here, we haven't been able to shove the LCA down the IAF's throat, not in the numbers we would've liked, so perhaps the salesmen should take a hint?
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by member_20292 »

I think , that just like LM and Boeing, our lovely boy GeorgeWelch, cannot take a hint either.

IAF prefers the Euros to the Amrus. Simple. as. that.
member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by member_20453 »

The facts remain, French weapons are expensive, often 3 to 4 times the price of an equivalent and in most cases superior US weapons. France hasn't met any TOT related agreements and promises made so far and every deal reluctantly agreed upon is at a higher cost of aquisition and includes a massive waste of time. Rafale though a great aircraft, just isn't the ideal aircraft. when war drums beat against Pak and China, its only the massive war industry in russia and US that can support in our war efforts. Currently, with a rather dismal inventory of Pgms, cruise missiles and in most cases slow production rates, we cannot sustain a drawn out war against war. Though any war with Pak will lead to stunning victories, the same wannot be said against China. Unkil remains strictly opposed to China and hence we must side with Unkil on this one.

I think and believe with enough chat and leverage we can get unkil to drop a lot of the intrusive agreements and have a lot more sharing of tech with the SH. SH international though as yet remains to be fully developed, we can certainly take part in its develoment, funding most of the International upgrades. With the USN and RAAF fleets to be MLUed eventually, we could have a lot of work for the private industry. Since even Dassault doesn't want to share AESA tech whats the point we might as well go for a full-spec SH with unkil and the price saving could be upwards of 40 mil per aircraft.

I also disagree completly on SH international's future upgrade potential, the SH can loose a significant amount of weight, keep the same design but lower weight by having more composites in the airframe and the same bird starts to perform even better. The proposed SH international with EPE, large panel displays, new MAWS, CFTs, stealth pods etc, inherant high alpha performance is ideal for for all our forces.

I really doubt we will get any serious tech from Dassault and we'll end up paying twice the aircraft's worth with an almost laughable air to ground capability i.e if we stick to French weapons on the Rafale, the best we could do at the very least order some serious ground pounders from unkil.

We need to order more CBU-105SFW and CLAW an order of 2500 more would be nice.
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

PratikDas wrote:the need to force something down the IAF's throat is over the top
Not really, that is the purpose of the civilian government, to provide oversight and keep the overarching strategic goals in mind.

It wouldn't be the first time and it surely wouldn't be the last time a government has had to reel in a military that got too focused on gee-whiz weapons that it lost sight of the big picture.

However, never fear, there is no need to 'force' a particular plane on the IAF. Just reject the MRCA as too slow/expensive/whatever and tell the IAF to setup a new program that is focused strictly on procuring fighters, this is the budget, and that quantity and timeliness of delivery should be key metrics. (Don't get too excited, I said 'key', not 'sole'.) Then let the IAF runs it's own program using those guidelines and see what pops out.

Something similar happened with the tanker bid. It was rejected as too costly, so the IAF had to go back and show KC-30 was the most affordable option. If the IAF can show that Dassault can deliver a competitive number of fighters for the given budget in a timely manner, then so be it.

But even if the Rafale is selected again, I still believe it would be a win for India because without all the other cruft that was rolled into the MRCA, you can get far better prices than what you're getting now.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Yagnasri »

Septimus ji - may be we do not fully trust unkil for f18 which could have been a good buy. We do not know how F18 failed performed in the trials also. So this is now a mute point.
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by member_20292 »

^^ Okay George,
I will buy me 126 F 18s.

Do you take cash on delivery or credit cards please? Can we barter milk cheese, goats, cows and yoga classes?
:D
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote: Because it was a specific glitch with high-altitude start that was quickly resolved?
Nyet, the phat panting teens couldn't take off with the payload IAF wanted them to, while Rafale and ef2k did take off with it. The f-16 - 18 both were given second chance in this they took double the runway than rafale still with very very less payload. Its amazing how pathetic SH was in leh, the a/c almost in the weight category of MKI struggled to take off.
And Russia armed China with Su-30s and France armed Pakistan with submarines.
The US upgraded porki f 16 with their own money and supplied BVRs too, while dasault refused to give them RDY radar for Bandar a/c. Also US put pressure of Israel not give Bharat 2052 radar.
The thought isn't more types, it's that the entire MRCA approach isn't necessarily the right one.
It is not just the right one but the best one, what IAF has done is absolute genius creating the competition on 636 parameters, no other AF in the world is capable of doing it, even brazilian have asked IAF's help in their FX competition.
Trying to combine so many separate goals into one contract makes it an unwieldy mess that takes forever to get anything done. Instead split the goals into separate contracts. Want to bolster fighter numbers? Buy some fighters. Want AESA tech? Enter into contract with an AESA manufacturer. Want to improve your airplane assembly line? Make a separate consulting contract with Boeing or Airbus.
What looks like an unwieldy mess to you has been successfully turned into an advantage by sheer genius of MMRCA contract. When you buy such a huge number of a/cs from one source , you get all these for free why should we buy separately? And why would a co. give just aesa tech to any buyer?

But I can understand you , you bring this argument of buying separately 'cause in your heart as an patriotic american you don't want US to share its APG radar techs with Bharat. So you say 'well quickly buy f/18s from us(without ToT and sign EULA , EUMA)' while go somewhere else to buy this aesa-shesa from somebody else. You also know that US isn't going to part with radar tech, so you are starting this new argument of buy tech from somewhere else. Nope we will get it with MMRCA and thats it.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote: IF India were to toss the MRCA, it's not clear that the Rafale would necessarily have any advantage in any subsequent order.
Rafale and ef2k have trumped others in passing more parameters than others, they have proved their advantages of others.
The technical objections to both the F-16 and SH were minor and easy to overcome.

And when the cost savings are in the range of $40 million/aircraft, it bears closer examination.
Then others like mig 35 and grippen would also say give us time to clear more parameters than teens, and this circle would continue for next million years.....
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote: I don't remember the link, but the 'idiosyncratic mishap' was that the engine cart broke. It could have easily passed with another chance, but apparently the IAF was looking for an excuse to exclude the F-16 and took it.
Since you are accusing Indian Air Force of conspiring to sabotage F-16's chances, I have to point out the wound in you american's of being rejected by Indian Air Force, your fighters were not rejected on the basis of your past 'sanctions' and other things but they were shown to be inferior to other country's fighters in full view of the world. IAF had your jets compete with others and told you in front of the whole world "regret to inform you but your fighers are technically inferior to others......."

And you can't digest it ! Hnair ji had summed up your pain perfectly in a post.

Here again I post Shri Hnairs comment :

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1078469
hnair wrote:Acharayaji, the takleef(pain) is this - currently. Khan power is personified by two things amongst World public. Its aircraft carrier sailing ominously over a calm sea and the multi-role fighters that dash off to smote "God's righteous anger". Forget the fact that those 10s of bus-size satellites make it all possible. In fact no lowly tinpot cringes when these satellites silently flit over their heads. But the stock footage of roaring teen fighters and stock footage of a carrier with lots of conveniently parked craft in CNN makes them assume the worst......

So any number of orders for transports is not going to get khan to acknowledge that their wazikashi is blunt. Especially when said by an SDRE warrior with a barely straight face. There is going to be bitterness against India. Bitterness of a kind that would make a paki jihadi or Osamy-mama contemplate apostasy.....

Geez, I cant afford a 2$ meal, but boy am I laughing :lol:
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Manish_Sharma wrote: Also US put pressure of Israel not give Bharat 2052 radar.
That report was denied by Saab
Manish_Sharma wrote:
The thought isn't more types, it's that the entire MRCA approach isn't necessarily the right one.
It is not just the right one but the best one, what IAF has done is absolute genius creating the competition on 636 parameters, no other AF in the world is capable of doing it, even brazilian have asked IAF's help in their FX competition.
It's genius right up to the time you actually need planes that you don't have because you're still negotiating.
Manish_Sharma wrote:When you buy such a huge number of a/cs from one source , you get all these for free why should we buy separately?
You think you're getting it for free? :rotfl:

Just because it's all rolled into the inflated price of the contract so you don't see it broken out doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
Manish_Sharma wrote:And why would a co. give just aesa tech to any buyer?
Because you offer them a fair price? Same as any other deal.
Manish_Sharma wrote:You also know that US isn't going to part with radar tech
All bidders met ToT requirements, so wrong again.
Manish_Sharma wrote:Nope we will get it with MMRCA and thats it.
But will you get it while it's still relevant? Will you have enough planes if an urgent need arises?

Also aren't you getting it from Russian anyways with the PAK-FA deal? I could have sworn that gave you access to all of Russia's latest and greatest including AESA.

So if you're getting AESA from that, then what exactly are you trying to accomplish with MRCA again?
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by GeorgeWelch »

Manish_Sharma wrote: Since you are accusing Indian Air Force of conspiring to sabotage F-16's chances, I have to point out the wound in you american's of being rejected by Indian Air Force, your fighters were not rejected on the basis of your past 'sanctions' and other things but they were shown to be inferior to other country's fighters in full view of the world. IAF had your jets compete with others and told you in front of the whole world "regret to inform you but your fighers are technically inferior to others......."

And you can't digest it ! Hnair ji had summed up your pain perfectly in a post.
An interesting case of wishful thinking no doubt, but there is no need for shame in the teens as we are already moving on to the next generation.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srin wrote:I presume that "fun to fly" comment was a troll attempt, so will ignore that.
Not at all. I can only speculate as to 'why', but pick your poison: 'fun to fly', 'got bribes', 'hates America', 'hidden geopolitical concerns', 'something else entirely'

But it looks fairly clear that 'technical reasons' is merely an excuse and not the real issue.

If the IAF was solely concerned about 'technical reasons', why was LockMart not given a second run at the engine change? Was the goal to find a fighter that would meet the IAF's needs or was the goal to find a way to exclude the US birds before the bids were opened?

Even you say that the technical evaluation was merely a cover for disqualification on strategic issues.
As I said before then everyone would want a second chance on their shortcomings, you are projecting your own country's especially USAF and pentagon's dishonesty and dirty games mindset on IAF. Just like USAF and pentagon had played dirty games to disqualify french tankers vs boeing tankers thingy.

As an aside , do you agree with US decision in javlin missile tender to limit the launchers numbers for Indian Army? Reason US gave was it would give Indian Army 'unfair advantage' over porki army.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Sagar G »

GeorgeWelch wrote:The thought isn't more types, it's that the entire MRCA approach isn't necessarily the right one. Trying to combine so many separate goals into one contract makes it an unwieldy mess that takes forever to get anything done.
Well this is the way India does business we want everything in a single package if americans don't like it they have a choice not to participate. India didn't beg before america to come and participate it's actually the reverse situation with American companies salivating to get deals from India but getting cut sort by your own government.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Instead split the goals into separate contracts. Want to bolster fighter numbers? Buy some fighters. Want AESA tech? Enter into contract with an AESA manufacturer. Want to improve your airplane assembly line? Make a separate consulting contract with Boeing or Airbus.
Not going to happen, single package delivery we want if Americans can't do it then no need to participate take your military hardware to some place else along with your unwanted speeches.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
That report was denied by Saab
:rotfl: Ah just 'cause Saab are your fellow caucasians they are to be believed while non-caucasian IAF is to doubted as conspirators.


It's genius right up to the time you actually need planes that you don't have because you're still negotiating.
Whenever we see a shortfall we order two extra squadrons of sukhois, 40 ordered twice. Will do it again in case of need


You think you're getting it for free? :rotfl:

Just because it's all rolled into the inflated price of the contract so you don't see it broken out doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
When you go to buy it separately the price is compounded plus US dirty tricks of pressurising others not to sell.

Because you offer them a fair price? Same as any other deal.
:shock: You mean if we were to offer fair price US would sell us the tot for APG line of radar tech, f-22 / f-35 engine tech, various techs from seawolf or whole of seawolf.

All bidders met ToT requirements, so wrong again.
We would never really know would we? Just like your mistrust of IAF, I mistrust US on everything later through some parliamentarian objection US would have reneged and we would have a big mess, see slimey slippery dishones US can easily renege and provide some proof of their 'helplessness' as constitutional majboori.

But will you get it while it's still relevant? Will you have enough planes if an urgent need arises?
Yes we will , thank you for your concern I'm touched by it. As I said above in case of shortage we can get Su 30s.

Also aren't you getting it from Russian anyways with the PAK-FA deal? I could have sworn that gave you access to all of Russia's latest and greatest including AESA.

So if you're getting AESA from that, then what exactly are you trying to accomplish with MRCA again?
As it is MMRCA isn't just about AESA, IAF's original MMRCA M2k had no AESA, but US got their 60s old airframe f-18(another minus was itsSu 30 weight category) by offering aesa into the competition. Then all others started offering their AESAs, while 9 ton rafale carrying 20ton weight is perfect MMRCA with its looong range fuel sipping engines.

So you see the same AESA you are arguing against about got this oldest/heaviest jet f-18 entry in the MMRCA
Note: my answers are in maroon.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote: Since you are accusing Indian Air Force of conspiring to sabotage F-16's chances, I have to point out the wound in you american's of being rejected by Indian Air Force, your fighters were not rejected on the basis of your past 'sanctions' and other things but they were shown to be inferior to other country's fighters in full view of the world. IAF had your jets compete with others and told you in front of the whole world "regret to inform you but your fighers are technically inferior to others......."

And you can't digest it ! Hnair ji had summed up your pain perfectly in a post.
An interesting case of wishful thinking no doubt, but there is no need for shame in the teens as we are already moving on to the next generation.
Happy for you, so are we :wink:
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by srin »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
And Russia armed China with Su-30s and France armed Pakistan with submarines.
The US upgraded porki f 16 with their own money and supplied BVRs too, while dasault refused to give them RDY radar for Bandar a/c. Also US put pressure of Israel not give Bharat 2052 radar.
The F-16s and amraams were for the legitimate purposes of fighting the Taliban airforce, don't ya know ?
Post Reply