With our effective 25% devaluation of the mighty "Re",approaching 100% from 2008 figs,any firang long term major expenditure is a huge price to pay.On the fiscal issue alone,the MOD.GOI has to review the nation's security issues,taking the entire House into confidence (through parliament's standing committee on defence) .They say war is too serious a matter to be left to the generals,same case with "one (UPA) regime".
More to the point,the IAF must now review their short,med, and long term requirements,in order
to sustain force levels and maintain an upward momentum in preserving the tech advantage over the enemy (Pak & China).Therefore,discussing indigenous alternatives would be fruitless given the long gestation time (a leading Russian expert said that it took the world 3 decades to transit from 4th gen to 5th-gen,a min. of 15 yrs, for a 6th-gen aircraft) ,which cannot be factored in with replacing the IAF's inventory.The LCA has its own niche ,replacing MIG-21s. Regardless of skyrocketing prices,we need a 5th-gen aircraft for the same.Having entered into the JV with Russia,how far we are down the line only the two nations know,
any extra costs will have to be studied and aircraft numbers revised or stretched/spread out during the production phase,making it easier on the purse.
The same yardstick then applies for the Rafale.It was earlier estimated to be $10.4+B for 126 aircraft ($20B for 189) when the Re. was approx. $45.That figure is now at least 50% more in Rupee terms and climbing.So the cost of a Rafale,is now 25% more than the earlier est. in crores,if we compare the $ at the old and new rate,approx.$100M per unit.Now that is near to an est. FGFA.Can we afford TOT/production for both types (Rafale and FGFA) at this moment? Secondly,in the offset regime,who in the country are going to be the offset partners in such a volatile fiscal situ? Perhaps we too should take a not out of the USN's CNO,Adm.Greenert,when he said that one doesn't need "luxury" where "bomb truck" will suffice.It does not mean that he or the USN is "dumping" the JSF,only that they may cut their coat according to their cloth and acquire fewer 5th-gen JSFs and more 4++ gen F-8 advanced SHs.Western air forces are looking at this compromise,to have 5th-gen aircraft creating large holes in enemy ADs to allow "bomb trucks" to deliver the business.
Option1.
I've given elsewhere current prices for MIG-29Ks which the IN is acquiring.$45M is a reasonable price for the same.If we need to acquire "bomb trucks" it is one option.Russia too is acquiring more MIG-29s until MIG-35 series production is assured.The aircraft is a cheaper alternative to more Flanker variants.This the keeping numbers happy option.Alternatives like acquiring the Gripen,F-18SH,etc. would be costlier since the MIG-29 type is already in service,69 being upgraded very economically, and the 29K in service too with the IN.
Option 2.
As some have chewed upon , not going in for total TOT for the Rafale,but buying the aircraft and perhaps TOT for key components like the radar,engine,etc.,reducing capital costs.Already doubt has been expressed by Dassault whether Indian industry and HAL can absorb the 50% offsets while we do not possess the tech and production infrastructure for the same.There may be some room for manouevre here.Of course reducing the TOT % will leave us wide open to French spares and support price hikes,but we have lived with the M-2000 all this time haven't we? Reliability and support of French aircraft has not been a serious problem unlike Soviet/Russian aircraft.Can we do so too with the Rafale? I've also given elsewhere the annual cost (reply to parliament) of operating the M-2000 fleet which if I recollect was $80M per year,working out to approx $2M per aircraft. We do not have figs for Indian Rafales so can't throw numbers on the table right now.One article says that for Dasaault,the MMRCA deal is a "do or die" issue for the aircraft's future.Here is an option to make it more affordable from DID .
(
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fra ... ime-05991/).
That leaves 2 options for the platform.(increasing exports one)
As the British have demonstrated, one way to improve a jet’s affordability is to improve maintenance contracts. In 2008, the French defense ministry’s SIMMAD signed a 10-year “Rafale Care” contract with Dassault that paid for availability and flight-hours, rather than spares and man-hours. The British approach has been to build toward a contract that makes 1 firm responsible for all sub-contractors as well, but in 2012, a decade-long contract between SIMMAD and Thales made it clear that France prefers a set of modular performance-based contracts instead.
..the French approach has several years of data behind it, that kind of future cost certainty could be helpful on the export front.
That would be timely, because after over a decade of failure, exports may offer the program a second ray of hope. Rafale versions were picked as the preferred choice in India’s MMRCA competition, may be about to win in Brazil, and have reportedly been offered to Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, and Qatar. They were also re-offered to the UAE, to replace their Mirage 2000-9s.
Option 3.
A similar case for the FGFA.Go back to the screwdriver (get screwed.. just joking guys!) deal,reduce % of one's stake.This is exactly what "allies" of the US have been doing with the JSF."!st,2nd and turd class" variants for partner nations depending upon their stake in the partnership. Since HAL wants to drop "30% of their 50% " share of dev. work on the FGFA,for a variety of reasons,there could be some cost cutting here.However,we have to judiciously see "how much bang we get for our rapidly depreciating buck",vis-a-vis acquiring 4++ gen TOT (Rafale) and 5th-gen TOT (FGFA).A similar maintennce/flying hr. contract can be worked out with Sukhoi as shown above for the Rafale.
Option4.
Advancing the indigenous UCAV programmes.This is a long term option,it does not satisfy the need for
"sustaining the IAF;s inventory and air dominance capability",but when viewed in the perspective of 2025-2030,a vital one.Our DRDO chief and foreign analysts have mentioned the growing need worldwide for UCAVs,weapons of choice these days,and the USN hopes to field its X-47B before the decade is out.Well known US analysts,Norman Friedman has written a piece "Man vs Machine" in a professional journal.Summing up the issue,he says that the carrier UCAV could resemble a "re-usable Tomahawk missile".In an era where "nearly all targets are designated by ground operators surrounded by intelligence data,how much do the pilots who attack the designated systems add?"
Now this echoes APJAK's statement of a few years old,about us needing a "re-usable missile".The DRDO chief has mentioned hypersonic qualities,the X-47B due to its stealth profile is not,but it can carry roughly the same payload internally as manned equivalents.Friedman says that
the F-35 JSF was conceived as a low-cost attack bomber,but during dev. a lot added to make it more survivable and pilot aids,like cameras which can make him look "through the aircraft downwards",etc.However,adding all these extras for the pilot has made it
"the most expensive aircraft programme in history".But viewed in the momentum of the RMA which is upon us
,no alternative but to develop our own UCAVs.Those advocating the AMCA could take a look at this option which could enable us to leapfrog manned 5th-gen types earlier.Regardless of the current shortfall,this is a vital long term requirement that should be supported to the hilt.
Option 5.
Acquiring in the interim extra SU-34s,dedicated LR tactical/limited strategic bombers,apart from MKI upgrades.With or without some of the options above. This would satisfy the strike requirement,plug a definite gap in our dedicated bomber capabilities,and being a variant of a type already in service and in series production (approx. 150 for Russia planned/ordered,eventually to replace all SU-24s),would also be a cost-effective alternative to the Rafale,meant for strike.Certainly a cheaper option.Also able to carry B'Mos and poss.Nirbhay (?),which the Rafale cannot do.
Full details at DID (
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rus ... ers-02595/)
RIA Novosti put the plane’s mission simply: “The Su-34 is meant to deliver a sufficiently large ordnance load to a predetermined area, hit the target accurately and take evasive action against pursuing enemy planes.” Other reports have gone further, stating that the plane is also meant to be able to handle enemy fighters in aerial combat. Given its base platform characteristics, it would likely match up well in the air against many of America’s “teen series” aircraft.
Wik gives a low unit cost at just $34M,seems inaccurate.it should be at least the cost of an upgraded SU-30MKI planned for the IAF.AKA told the House in 2012 that upgrade costs (AESA radar,BMos and Nirbhay integration ,Novator K-100 "AWACS killer" local manufactue,An upgrade of earliest 80 Su-30MKIs involves equipping them with stand-off missiles with a range of 300 km.) would be approx. "$2B". $50M an aircraft for the first 40.The Q remains whether the Indian "Super Sukhois" approximate SU-34 capabilities or not (they don't have the loo meant for LR ops!).If they are somewhat similar,acquiring more SS's would be an interim option rather than acquiring/manufacturing the Rafale in the earlier planned concept.
Anyway,these are some of the options I felt that could be debated as we keep our fingers crossed on the Whoopie's health.
