Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 03 Sep 2014 02:03

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 133  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 08:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
Kartik wrote:
For instance, how does one know the exact utilization per day (in flight hours) that an airline will make of its fleet for 50 years? They go with a simpler calculation that basically looks at the routes that the airplane will serve, the estimated time for each route, the network efficiency factor for the airline and then come up with the number of flights per day- using that they devise the maintenance schedule for 50 years (when a A, B or C check must happen) to come up with the estimated costs of operating that airplane over 50 years.


So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 10:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3806
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Assumptions are based on some historical data, which IAF used to calculate the figures. It may be that the Defence ministry officers might not be aware it, or need more clarifications. One cannot make assumptions in vacuum. There needs to be some basis for assumptions. And some members are asking how those assumptions are arrived at. So whats the big deal, happens in many companies too. We are making a big deal of the file notings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 13:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2487
shukla wrote:
So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..


The reason may be that in this case, some of the assumptions may have been made after consulting with the customer. In Boeing's case, they know their equipment and its time before breakdown or failure, so they can give a good ballpark figure of how much it costs to keep a particular piece of equipment in service before a scheduled check comes up.

In this case, the IAF has no way of knowing when a particular equipment on board the Rafale may fail except for asking Dassault and AdlA to provide some data that they could use in their calculations. Some equipment may not even be in service, so how is one to come up with their longevity or their maintenance headaches? When we got the Kopyo for the Bison, its advertised MTBF was one thing, and its real MTBF quite another. Which would mean that had they done a life-cycle cost analysis of how many man-hours it would take to keep the Kopyo in service and how many spares would be required for that, they'd find that their calculations would've been wrong because they had gone with the manufacturer's data.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the calculations are skewed in Dassault's favour- the same is true of every other manufacturer as well who would've been consulted and asked to give data that was used in the life-cycle costs calculations.

Companies like GE, that provide turbofans to airlines have to keep a very very tight watch over their predicted failure rates, since they basically provide warranties for each turbofan that end up costing them a bundle if the engines fail for any reason that cannot be blamed on the user. So they do very detailed failure analyses using methods to statistically determine the odds of a particular failure occurring over a very large number of simulations (Monte Carlo simulations where thousands of cases are run with each variable being randomly varied). If the odds of it failing are very low, they are more comfortable making claims of a certain piece of equipement lasting as long as they claimed it will when they sold it to the customer.

If the IAF is going to introduce clauses in its contract that hold the manufacturer responsible for penalties if their equipment fails to meet the MTBF data they've given for the life-cycle cost calculations, then they may find out to their shock that the MTBF numbers may suddenly drop dramatically. After all brochure figures are one thing, and in-field figures are another. This is also what has happened to the IA, with the T-90, where the manufacturer's claimed performance and reliability specs are hugely bloated and are routinely exposed as being unreliable when the equipment is used in conditions that are dramatically different from bench test conditions or the relatively benign environments of the OEM nation.

That is one of the reasons why some Air Forces are now literally renting out the hours for operating some aircraft, such as trainers (Israel is also following that route, with an IAI/Elbit JV called TOR to buy the M-346 Master and then rent out each flying hour to the IsAF). Why be responsible for all the hassles that arise out of the equipment failing prematurely if another company is willing to do it for you, make sure that your reliability goals (which are paramount for any service) are met AND go run after the OEM when equipment doesn't meet reliability requirements?

Another model is where the OEM offers to meet the customer's reliability requirements with support contracts, but this is again basically money in their pockets for doing something that they claim their aircraft can do anyway. For e.g. Boeing offers a warranty with the C-17 that the user can buy, which basically takes care of this situation arising- they offer the guarantee that a specified range of requirements will be met. If they cannot meet that requirement, they stand to pay for not doing so.

Quote:
Reliability and maintainability are two outstanding benefits of the C-17 system. Current operational requirements impose demanding reliability and maintainability. These requirements include an aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent, only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour, and full and partial mission availability rates of 74.7 and 82.5 percent, respectively. The Boeing warranty assures these figures will be met.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 16:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Posts: 560
Location: Mumbai
PHOTO of Me, Shiv & Dassault Test Pilot Dominique Sébastien who gave me his 'France' Patch which he has worn while & since flying Rafale missions over Afghanistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 17:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
Kartik wrote:
shukla wrote:
So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..


The reason may be that in this case, some of the assumptions may have been made after consulting with the customer. In Boeing's case, they know their equipment and its time before breakdown or failure, so they can give a good ballpark figure of how much it costs to keep a particular piece of equipment in service before a scheduled check comes up.


I see your point. Just hope its just a routine part of the process and doesn't serve as seeds for unwarranted and unwanted media attention to derail, what should be, a reasonably smooth acquisition process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 19:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jan 2012 18:00
Posts: 806
Kartik wrote:
suryag wrote:
Thanks Karthik ji, how inept are the french they can produce only 12ac/year. They are as inept as the HAL which can only produce the same number of LCAs. LCA MK3(if at all there is ever one) would be what raffy is right now


They aren't inept. THey are simply producing what is the least number of Rafales they can while maintaining that assembly line. The French govt. cannot afford to acquire the number of Rafales that Dassault can produce, so the 12/year is a mutually agreed number. Dassault can scale up that line to 36 per year if they need to.


Yet this logic won't apply to the LCA or the Rafale itself if made by HAL, another example of the negative bias against anything remotely native.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 20:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24
Posts: 306
Image

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hp ... 6912_n.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 21:06 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32646
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
^ :rotfl:

so its the PLAAF which is kimono shivering this time - the writer saying the J-10B and J-11 even with improved engines and radars would be insufficient to deal with the rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 22:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2679
Kartik wrote:
An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale


Even if it is Nth time, always fresh to read.

Quote:
The final handling manoeuvre was to complete a low-speed loop in full afterburner starting from 170kt and maintaining 16° AoA. The loop was simple to fly and control and I used just over 2,000ft vertically to complete it:
There was a debate here whether a/c can employ afterburner in low speed loop seen in Airshows.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2012 23:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24606
Location: NowHere
so babudom adds the real strategic aspect of expenses for the enemy.. the more time we take to decide, the enemy goes into faster acquisitions.. and suddenly, for the enemy all those investments are a waste since the new delayed acquisition of India is much much superior! haaha!

still.. I would say superior, only when we get GaN for Rafale, and if possible slam a mig29ish retractable refuler pod.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 00:09 
Offline
Webmaster BR

Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 1246
Location: Planet Earth
RKumar, I am very disappointed that you posted that analysis by China military outlook. We have many Chinese apologists on this forum (and elsewhere) who will read that and claim that it is all bogus. In fact the F-10, F-11 and the upcoming J-20 are the best that the aviation world has ever seen --> bar the F-18 Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II. In fact only these two aircraft are capable of keeping India's lungi intact and right where it should be. Now that the Rafale has been chosen as L1, India's very future as a nation is now in doubt...because swarms of J-20s, F-11s and F-10s will now fly over Delhi in a victory fly past for the slap that we are about to get from the Chinese. Only China makes the world's best - with the exception of America - military equipment. The rest...like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.

In fact the J-20 is so advanced and state-of-the-art, that even before concrete & verifiable information about ANY of its capabilities are out...we are already dhoti shivering. All hail Mao!

P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 00:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41
Posts: 149
Kartik wrote:
An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale


It is always a fantastic read - love to read it every time !!

However Critics (read Typhoon fans) have severly questioned his professional analysis and quite a many of them dismissed it as being too childish in making 'fanboy' remarks! Reason being cited are as follows - The only modern fighter that Peter has undertaken sortie on is the Rafale ! - He does not - has not evaluated any of other modern - contemporary fighters (EF, F18 , Gripen , etc). He used to be a Wing Co for the earlier versions of Harrier jet and as such is not abreast of the recent developments in aviation industry. Due to this fact he was bowled over when he saw Rafale without understanding pretty much all fighters nowadays offers similar capabilities....

Anyways who cares - i have bookmarked that link !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 00:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 692
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
^ :rotfl:

Well it was nice to read sensible analysis then keeping our dhotis wet without knowing the shortcomings and strengths of the opponent. The problem in relation to China is language, so we really don't know their real capabilities. Other nations produce reports to serve and implant their goals in our head. I would like to see people try to find out more and more about their real capabilities coming from their own mouth although I admit it is really hard and time consuming task to find any useful info.

From day one Raffy was my favourite ... and I am happy that IAF, MoD and GoI selected it. But I would like to see India getting critical technology which can help us setting up robotic LCA and AMCA production lines along with engine R&D setup and production. Well we still have a long way to go, GoI, MoD, DRDO and HAL has major and serious work to do this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 02:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24606
Location: NowHere
I hope HAL gets into integration and testing, while major of components and parts assembly line goes to private sector.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 04:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5897
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Rakesh wrote:
<SNIP>P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.


You counter-revolutionary bourgeois you......you need to be sent immediately to the re-education camp for spreading western propaganda against the glorious movement of the proletariat..... :twisted: :mrgreen: :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 06:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10797
Location: India
Lohit,you are long.You need to be le-educated! The words should be spert as "counter-levoutionaly,"le-education","plopaganda"and "ploletaliat"!

Comlade Lakesh is no counter-levolutionaly,he is showing himserf to be a rickspittle petit-bourgeois lunning dog of capitarism.Islaeri Ravi indeed!
Just wait and see who gleat-reader-in-waiting Comlade Xi "Jumping" Jinping wirr make exampre of.... "Short-Lee",pun intended!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 06:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10796
Location: Illini Nation
God, what has become of these threads? Georgian flags, a deformed cheetah, and now we have the unique French influence of inability to spell words properly? Down with the Rafale. Banish it to the underworld. Let the Ozies buy it.

One to more serious maters, we need a name change. Here from a very authoritative source:

Katrina can't dance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 08:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32646
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the J-10 has the size and boxy shape of the Mig-31 albeit with bigger wings and canards. so it should be fast and more manouverable than Mig-31. but a dogfighter or wvr kamandu it does not look like.

if it reaches production in this form factor would be suited for a high alt BVR standoff shootdown LRAAM mission like Mig31 and naval ASM strike using high loiter time/range to outlast and wear down enemy CAP units.

but no doubt they are working on a parallel project to produce a J-10 sized fighter and that will be the one to watch...not this elephant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2012 16:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
BAE Eurofighter: Warton and Salmesbury 'no direct job losses'

Quote:
Mr Menzies is among a group of MPs meeting David Cameron later to "reiterate the importance" the Eurofighter has to the region. He said: "We want to drive home to him that everything must be done even at this late stage to secure this order. "The deal is very important, not just for the export potential of this aircraft, but also for the jobs and the skills we have in the North West."


Thought of a perfect kahavat for the Brits.. "haath to aya par muh na lag" :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 12:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
New horizons
The Week - Air Vice Marshal Mohan John (retd)

The main challenges in inducting the Rafale to the IAF will be training and infrastructure

Quote:
The air force is more technology oriented than the army or the navy. In a combat scenario, all other factors being the same, the air force with better technology will come out ahead. With two nuclear-armed neighbours, and given India's political relationship with them, it is imperative that the IAF has the best technology that the country can afford. The MMRCA deal is about induction of such technology.

Quote:
In 1974, the IAF was trying to inculcate cost consciousness among its personnel. One step taken was to mark each item of equipment, including the aircraft, with its cost. Every time you came near the MiG-21 FL, you were reminded that the aircraft cost 076 lakh. Today, you will not get a high-end car for that money! This aspect of the low cost of Soviet/Russian aircraft became a kind of mantra in the IAF. As the IAF progressed professionally, the flaw in this logic came out. The IAF had started the process of ‘life cycle cost' studies of the aircraft in its inventory. By then it had inducted a number of MiG variants (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27 and MiG-29) and the Mirage-2000. The study brought out that, when the life cycle costs are worked out, aircraft like the MiG-29 are not really cheap.

In 1985, I joined the newly inducted Mirage-2000 fleet. The aircraft was a technological marvel. What surprised me the most was the ease with which you could adapt to and assimilate these new technologies. I think it was the way in which it was presented to the pilot in the cockpit. It all seemed so natural and logical, and left you wondering how you managed without these technologies so far. While the aircraft performance was in a different league, mainly because of the innovative fly-by-wire system, basic flying was extremely simple. It was the management of the onboard systems that required skill. The availability of onboard systems like the multimode radar and the navigation and weapon-aiming systems made it possible to exploit the aircraft operationally for tasks limited only by your imagination.

Also, the Mirage-2000 has an exceptionally good flight safety record. As I went up in the hierarchy of the IAF, I got to see these aircraft from a different perspective. As the chief operations officer of a flying base, and thereafter as a base commander, I realised that the MiG-21 and other Soviet/Russian aircraft were not really maintenance friendly. Keeping these aircraft fly-worthy was a challenge. Compared with them, the Mirage-2000 was in a totally different league.

The Mirage-2000 is built on a modular concept. Most modules had built-in test equipment. If the test showed ‘no-go', the faulty module just had to be pulled out and replaced with a functional module, and you were good to go. Even the engine was a module. Replacing an engine, which is required at times, took a little more than an hour. In the case of the MiG-21, an engine change was a major job which took significantly longer time and more effort to accomplish.

In 1993, I was part of the team bringing in more Mirage-2000 aircraft from France. Dassault, the manufacturer of the aircraft, made it a point to show us the Rafale, which was in the process of being operationalised for induction into the French air force and navy. The aircraft embodied an extension of the Mirage-2000 philosophy, but was more than a generation ahead in technology.

My association with the Mirage-2000 fleet included a fair amount of interaction with the French representatives, especially from Dassault. They are hard-nosed businessmen. If you have the money, and are willing to pay, they will deliver the required service. They did not seem too concerned with matters like foreign policy. However, like any businessmen, they will not waste an opportunity to exploit the customer if the opportunity arises.

In 2006, I was part of a delegation to the Farnborough Air Show. The Indian delegation was in demand because of the MMRCA deal. We were given briefings by all vendors in the fray. One common point about the two American vendors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was that, when queried about specific equipment or weapon options for the F-18 and the F-16, the standard reply was “We will have to check with the State Department”. I do not think Dassault does business under such constraints. The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 12:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
The power of high technology
MyDigital - Arun Kumar (Professor of strategy and corporate governance, IIM-Lucknow)

Quote:
Technological innovations have caused a fundamental shift in the science and management of warfare and national defence preparedness, especially in the past 25 ye­ars. Rather than being a te­st of numerical strength, organisation and bravery, wars have become extensions of computer games, joysticks and GPS systems picking up data from satellite systems. Unmanned US drone aircraft are a great example where experts sitting in front of computer screens command it to aim at and destroy a high-value target sitting in a moving vehicle 5,000 km away (from Hawaii) in an otherwise inaccessible Waziristan area. Firms are introducing other major technological innovations such as remote ja­mming of communication eq­uipment, enemy radars and aircraft, hacking computers for intelligence, and hitting the enemy precisely.

A state-of-the-art airplane has to do all of these while maintaining its firing systems integrity, achieving quick advantage in case of dogfights and dropping payloads precisely deep into enemy territory while avoiding detection. Each of these technologies is an extremely sophisticated combination of other pieces of technologies. An example is stealth capability, which is a combination of plane design, flight capabilities (high-angle vertical manoeuvres and low-flying), material coatings and onboard software. The pilot’s seat and cockpit, his visor-helmets, and onboard avionics are pieces of fly-by-wire technology that helps control and maintain the man-machine interface. Nations that have such technologies have a great sense of pride and accomplishment and showcase it to the rest of the world. French president Nicholas Sarkozy, for example, hops from one country capital to the next across the globe whether it is Brasilia, New Delhi, Abu Dhabi or Kuwait, lobbying to sell the planes. One should not expect our prime minister to go out and sell rice, wheat and tea to the world — that would be humiliating.

It is indeed ironical that a nation, which worships Ma Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge and Ma Laxhmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity, has to import the former and export the latter. Ideally, it should the other way around. Unfortunately, we as a nation rely heavily on destiny, heavenly miracles and false oracles hoping to come out of miseries and afflictions. Prosperity is an outcome of a nation’s capability to imagine and envision a future and determinedly create an eco-system where brain-intensive enterprises thrive. Small nations without many natural resources in Europe are prosperous by selling brain-made goods to developing nations (such as Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon).

Finally, based on personal observations as a professor at universities in France, Britain and Germany, I offer three pieces of gratuitous advice to the Indian team that will negotiate price and business terms with Dassault Aviation — makers of Rafale: One, there are steep experience curve effects on high-tech and capital intensive-items such as a fighter plane. In brief, this scientific principle means that for every doubling of cumulative output, the production costs come down by a certain exponential factor. In simple terms, this can result in huge cost benefits to the manufacturer. For example, if an item costs Rs 1,000 for the first output, and has an experience effect factor of say 20 per cent (common in equipment with large development costs), the 128th piece shall cost only Rs 380. At this factor rate, conceptually, if the first Rafale costs Rs 600 crore, then the 128th would cost only Rs 228 crore. Second, do not let the glamorous yet chimerical ch­arm of Paris, champagne, Mo­ulin Rouge cabaret and other (monetary and material) allurements soften the hardball approach required to safeguard Indian security and financial interests. It happened in the case of Mirage fighter aircraft. Third, the project has long gestation periods, delivery and transfer-of-tec­hn­ology and maintenance sch­edules. The team needs to have a watertight contract on price escalations. The country has already suffered steep cost increases for the retro-fitted Ru­ssian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (now INS Vikramaditya). The French negotiating te­am will certainly have tho­ught deeply about the scientific principles, financial aspects, as well as how to exploit the traditional psychological we­aknesses of Indians. Negotiation is also a high-tech game, implications of which cannot be underestimated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 13:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9851
Location: In between wars in our time
^^^ gratuituous advice indeed. poor understanding of defense tech, and rather patronising to think that procurement specialists don't understand price curves...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 15:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 2289
^^ good prafessar forgot to highlight the fact that IAF/MOD used academic input on devising the models. So, all this basic 101 stuff has been taken care of (like you make gazzillion rafales, unit cost will be zero :D ).

Looks like there is a lot of R&D :(( :(( going on fed by you-kn0w-wh0 on Raffy being cheaper of the two finalists.yikes .check keypub.

The guy who most likely started all this:
Quote:
flyingjok john neilson

PR and communications platespinner,with multi-sector and multi-channel experience, working internationally. Views expressed are entirely my own.


from tweet feed:
Quote:
flyingjok French media suggesting #dassault offered #rafale to #India #mmrca for almost 1/2 cost paid by #france taxpayers - no wonder it won on price


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 21:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10027
Location: Kamariya lollipop lagelu ...
I for one would give the Professor benifit of doubt in fact in all honesty our past record at closing deals involving ToT or offsets is not something to be proud of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 22:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9851
Location: In between wars in our time
prafesar is bajaoing his own baja at expense of IAF, and that too speculatively


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 22:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10027
Location: Kamariya lollipop lagelu ...
I don't think so afaik IAF as such does not have much say in price negotiations or the financial side of the procurement itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 22:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1164
Rakesh wrote:
Only China makes the world's best - with the exception of America - military equipment. The rest...like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.


WRONG WRONG WRONG

China makes the world's best military equipment.

AND

Pakistan makes the world's second best military equipment.

The rest of the world like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.

SO WHY THE HELLWE DID NOT CONSIDER THIS J10, J11,J23.3434, J31.54 ?

Why do we settle for the nth best equipmnet

K



Kersi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 22:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1164
rohitvats wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
<SNIP>P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.


You counter-revolutionary bourgeois you......you need to be sent immediately to the re-education camp for spreading western propaganda against the glorious movement of the proletariat..... :twisted: :mrgreen: :P


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2012 22:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1164
shukla wrote:
New horizons
The Week - Air Vice Marshal Mohan John (retd)

The main challenges in inducting the Rafale to the IAF will be training and infrastructure

Quote:
The air force is more technology oriented than the army or the navy. In a combat scenario, all other factors being the same, the air force with better technology will come out ahead. With two nuclear-armed neighbours, and given India's political relationship with them, it is imperative that the IAF has the best technology that the country can afford. The MMRCA deal is about induction of such technology.

Quote:
In 1974, the IAF was trying to inculcate cost consciousness among its personnel. One step taken was to mark each item of equipment, including the aircraft, with its cost. Every time you came near the MiG-21 FL, you were reminded that the aircraft cost 076 lakh. Today, you will not get a high-end car for that money! This aspect of the low cost of Soviet/Russian aircraft became a kind of mantra in the IAF. As the IAF progressed professionally, the flaw in this logic came out. The IAF had started the process of ‘life cycle cost' studies of the aircraft in its inventory. By then it had inducted a number of MiG variants (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27 and MiG-29) and the Mirage-2000. The study brought out that, when the life cycle costs are worked out, aircraft like the MiG-29 are not really cheap.

In 1985, I joined the newly inducted Mirage-2000 fleet. The aircraft was a technological marvel. What surprised me the most was the ease with which you could adapt to and assimilate these new technologies. I think it was the way in which it was presented to the pilot in the cockpit. It all seemed so natural and logical, and left you wondering how you managed without these technologies so far. While the aircraft performance was in a different league, mainly because of the innovative fly-by-wire system, basic flying was extremely simple. It was the management of the onboard systems that required skill. The availability of onboard systems like the multimode radar and the navigation and weapon-aiming systems made it possible to exploit the aircraft operationally for tasks limited only by your imagination.

Also, the Mirage-2000 has an exceptionally good flight safety record. As I went up in the hierarchy of the IAF, I got to see these aircraft from a different perspective. As the chief operations officer of a flying base, and thereafter as a base commander, I realised that the MiG-21 and other Soviet/Russian aircraft were not really maintenance friendly. Keeping these aircraft fly-worthy was a challenge. Compared with them, the Mirage-2000 was in a totally different league.

The Mirage-2000 is built on a modular concept. Most modules had built-in test equipment. If the test showed ‘no-go', the faulty module just had to be pulled out and replaced with a functional module, and you were good to go. Even the engine was a module. Replacing an engine, which is required at times, took a little more than an hour. In the case of the MiG-21, an engine change was a major job which took significantly longer time and more effort to accomplish.

In 1993, I was part of the team bringing in more Mirage-2000 aircraft from France. Dassault, the manufacturer of the aircraft, made it a point to show us the Rafale, which was in the process of being operationalised for induction into the French air force and navy. The aircraft embodied an extension of the Mirage-2000 philosophy, but was more than a generation ahead in technology.

My association with the Mirage-2000 fleet included a fair amount of interaction with the French representatives, especially from Dassault. They are hard-nosed businessmen. If you have the money, and are willing to pay, they will deliver the required service. They did not seem too concerned with matters like foreign policy. However, like any businessmen, they will not waste an opportunity to exploit the customer if the opportunity arises.

In 2006, I was part of a delegation to the Farnborough Air Show. The Indian delegation was in demand because of the MMRCA deal. We were given briefings by all vendors in the fray. One common point about the two American vendors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was that, when queried about specific equipment or weapon options for the F-18 and the F-16, the standard reply was “We will have to check with the State Department”. I do not think Dassault does business under such constraints. The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.


Superb Summary.

But get ready for Kh 31 and Kh 29 and RWR AE and ODAP 500s form all the Rodina lovers.

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 00:40 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 11:25
Posts: 25
Location: California
While Brits are saying "Do everything to get the deal back" I hope we get ready ASAP to deal with an act of highly sophisticated espionage aimed at killing the Rafale deal. I think it's a matter of time if not already underway in some sort of a way. I pray that it is unsuccessful. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 00:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2487
shukla wrote:
Quote:
The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.


This is exactly what I was saying to Badar about composites - that maintaining a large fleet of high composite content airplanes will require a lot of training and education of maintenance personnel. But this is just the beginning- every new induction henceforth on will be fighters that have a large composite content. The Tejas, the FGFA, the AMCA all will have as much composites content as the Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 00:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Jan 2012 21:18
Posts: 119
Kersi D wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
Only China makes the world's best - with the exception of America - military equipment. The rest...like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.


WRONG WRONG WRONG

China makes the world's best military equipment.

AND

Pakistan makes the world's second best military equipment.

The rest of the world like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.

SO WHY THE HELLWE DID NOT CONSIDER THIS J10, J11,J23.3434, J31.54 ?

Why do we settle for the nth best equipmnet

K



Kersi


Kersi, i agree with you wholeheartedly. China is the only country in the world that made a piano fly. The first time i saw a clear picture of J-20 i thought it was a piano to be played by Elton John in the Chengdu concert. But later i found the amazing Chinese engineers found a way to fly it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 03:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2487
BAe Systems and Cassidian are apparently working on a revised proposal that will be "sharper" while not reducing their margins..Fat chance of such a proposal ever attracting the MoD or the MoF even if the Rafale negotiations get into a stalemate situation.

Aviation Week article

Quote:
Meanwhile, the company continues to keep its eye on the Indian Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition, where Dassault Aviation was named the lowest-cost compliant bidder. There is precedent for talks between the lowest-cost bidder and the government to stall, and the runner-up lowest-cost bidder – in this case the Eurofighter Typhoon – to win the final contract, BAE Systems CEO Ian King notes.

BAE Systems is now working with Cassidian, the German EADS unit leading the campaign, to improve the offer on the table in case New Delhi turns away from Rafale. The goal is to sharpen the proposal “without slashing margins,” says Guy Griffiths, BAE Systems managing director, international. “We and the U.K. government will be pushing hard to get our German partners to move forward,” King adds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 04:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38061
The above statement shows how the proposal was padded.

In US the bidder won't be allowed any where near the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 12:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 984
Nothing to do with MMRCA, but certainly shows the change in attitude..

Quote:
Minister of State at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Jeremy Browne, on Thursday said India deserves place at top tables where decisions are taken on security.

Browne was speaking at the Conference on CBRN Disaster Management and Security. He said that UK was keen to share its expertise in this field with India and there was much to be gained through sharing of experiences. He lauded India's economic rise and its strong industrial base


Reject one fighter and suddenly become important :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 13:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9851
Location: In between wars in our time
^^^ this change has been brewing for some time, the fighter deal was to 'cement the relationship' - france is also treating it the same way
we are back to the days of european artillery and musketry officers freelancing with indian armies :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 17:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jan 2012 18:00
Posts: 806
Singha wrote:
^ :rotfl:

so its the PLAAF which is kimono shivering this time - the writer saying the J-10B and J-11 even with improved engines and radars would be insufficient to deal with the rafale.



Kimono is Japanese, this is akin to accusing Indians of salwar shivering :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 20:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43
Posts: 6685
FYI, EF gang and governments are launching an investigation into how dassault got the L1. Looks like this may not die down. Apparently arms dealers are being placed under scrutiny as well as dassaults contacts in Asia.

Expect some leaks to the press over the next month or 2. No one can believe how rafale got l1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012 23:54 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 27 Jun 2011 12:05
Posts: 66
Well, Rafale has always been cheaper than EF, there is no surprise at all! It seems germans and italians are giving up but the british unions are hysterical, that's why we can read violent articles in nationalist press.

The truth is very cruel for EF crew, the swiss evaluation (Typhoon more expensive and less capable than Rafale in all kind of missions, even air to air!) is very difficult to admit.

How will britain make an investigation in India? Even if the secret services try to find something to leak, it will be very negative reports for Typhoon...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2012 04:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Posts: 1721
Location: Land of Oz!
India’s quest for the top gun
LiveMint


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 133  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, kapio and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group