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.
vishvak wrote:We can imagine what can happen to rely on war machine that has given free fighter jets to pakis under excuse of terrorism that too within Pakistan! It is out in open not even a game. With allies like saudi that indulge in competitive jihadism in other's countries.
Well brace yourself because we already rely on that 'war machine' - C-130J, C-17, P-8I, AH-64D, F404/414IN, M777.
As for supplying fighter jets, we've discussed this canard, but again, what makes you think that they were 'free'? Pakistan paid a heavy price in terms of its sovereignty and was just the beginning. The US has no choice but to deal with Pakistan to support its war effort in Afghanistan (a country that India is heavily invested in). That said, the fact that the man who masterminded the deaths of over 3000 of its citizens, was vacationing in Abbottabad is not lost on the Americans.
Over the long term, the US knows that the Chinese will equal them in economic heft and probably in military terms as well within the Asian theatre. And with China continuing to outpace India economically, the regional balance of power has conclusively tipped its way. Its inevitable that the US and India (and most of E/SE Asia) will forge closer ties over next two decades. US sanctions on India aren't anymore likely than sanctions on the EU or Japan.
vishvak wrote:MMRCA was a competition and all contenders were 4th Gen. Rafale won it fair. Whether some companies are going underwater should not weaken ground for competition itself.
Costing part clearly is separate and should not mix here.
We're not talking about the MMRCA being arbitrarily awarded to some other entity. We're talking about scrapping it altogether while re-examining our options.
Yes the Rafale won it fair and square. But at what cost? Is it justified given the alternatives available today, as well as those around the corner?
Last edited by Viv S on 19 Oct 2013 14:53, edited 1 time in total.
Austin wrote:I doubt more MKI or LCA is a substitute for Rafale as the "M" in MMRCA stands for medium fighter and IAF has categorised the former and latter as Heavy and Light.
Trouble is that the Tejas and JF-17 are only 'light' fighters left in production. Which would make India and Pakistan the only countries inducting 'light' fighters.
The ubiquitous F-16 was a product of the 'Light Weight Fighter' program, but both the F-16 and the Gripen were apparently eligible to compete for the MMRCA contract.
The Tejas is not so far off the MMRCA requirements to disqualify it as a substitute altogether. The Mk2 variant will certainly meet most requirements. The point is the choice of aircraft needs to be capability-specific and not contingent on its weight.
Viv S wrote: The point is the choice of aircraft needs to be capability-specific and not contingent on its weight.
My understanding was weight did matter to the extent that economy of operation was important. Operating an all-heavy fighter fleet would be cost prohibitive even if they could afford the initial capital expenses. Larger fighters typically cost more to maintain and certainly require more fuel to run.
Austin wrote:I doubt more MKI or LCA is a substitute for Rafale as the "M" in MMRCA stands for medium fighter and IAF has categorised the former and latter as Heavy and Light.
And exactly what is the Rafale replacing in the first place? The MRCA RPF went to almost every company except Sukhoi. We were ready to consider the original Saab Gripen which is analogous to the LCA. Is there really any merit in this neither-too-big-nor-too-small "Goldilocks" argument?
Austin wrote:I doubt more MKI or LCA is a substitute for Rafale as the "M" in MMRCA stands for medium fighter and IAF has categorised the former and latter as Heavy and Light.
And exactly what is the Rafale replacing in the first place? The MRCA RPF went to almost every company except Sukhoi. We were ready to consider the original Saab Gripen which is analogous to the LCA. Is there really any merit in this neither-too-big-nor-too-small "Goldilocks" argument?
Well if it's too small it simply can't be capable enough. A large enough fuel tank to have a useful range, space to carry a wide assortment of armaments and sensor pods, a reasonable radar plus an engine big enough to haul it all at good speed, there is a certain size required to be a capable multi-role fighter in today's environment.
On the other hand, larger planes are more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain and more expensive to operate (fuel), so it makes sense that you want the bulk of your fleet to be something more reasonably sized that you can actually afford to operate.
Now how those general principles translate into hard numbers is always debatable . . .
I get the feeling that the 'medium' was to signal that they were looking for a 'value' fighter, something that was capable but still affordable. Of course that's difficult to reconcile how cost was not considering at all until after the final cutdown . . .
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 19 Oct 2013 14:08, edited 2 times in total.
Philip wrote:For Dassault to lose the MMRCA deal after winning the competition ,would spell a death-knell to its future in the global combat aircraft stakes.
Therefore,for the French defence industry,as it is not just the aircraft but the sensors and weaponry that comes with it,it cannot afford to snatch defeat from the "jaws of victory".It will impact badly on the health of many French companies who have long-established defence ties with India.
I don't agree completely - the French have other programs to sustain their industry, like the nEUron and its derivates for example. That said, the health of French companies should be primarily a French concern, not our business. What is worrisome though is that the French projections for the Rafale have fallen from some 320, originally envisioned, to 286 which has now been capped at 225. I wouldn't be altogether surprised if they stop production after 180 units and focus on their UCAV program instead. Come time for upgrades, India being the only customer for an aircraft with a relatively small production run, would be looking at a very expensive ordeal with no alternatives.
alternative offers in case the Rafale crashlands,MKIs and MIGs already being the mainstay of our air fleet.
If I recall, you were proposing India place a smaller number of Rafales on order to tide the IAF over. On the same note, an alternative is a modest order of the Great-Satanic-Craft providing the IAF with a specialized SEAD and deep strike capability, roles that were being identified for the Rafale to excel in.
GeorgeWelch wrote:My understanding was weight did matter to the extent that economy of operation was important. Operating an all-heavy fighter fleet would be cost prohibitive even if they could afford the initial capital expenses. Larger fighters typically cost more to maintain and certainly require more fuel to run.
That's true but at the same time that has be balanced by the intended role performed by the aircraft. The Russians will have an all 'heavy' force - Su-30SM, Su-34, PAK FA, which is understandable for obvious reasons. The Swiss on the other hand will be best served by their choice of the Gripen because its fits SAF's profile.
GeorgeWelch wrote:[Well if it's too small it simply can't be capable enough. A large enough fuel tank to have a useful range, space to carry a wide assortment of armaments and sensor pods, a reasonable radar plus an engine big enough to haul it all at good speed, there is a certain size required to be a capable multi-role fighter in today's environment.
'Useful' range depends to a large extent on the role its being employed in. The IAF adversaries are right across the border/LoC/LAC. And the Tejas' radar dish is ironically larger than the Rafale's. Given the proliferation of heavies in the fleet, the Tejas will do just fine, particularly when data-linked to the Bars, not to mention the Phalcons and the like.
GeorgeWelch wrote:I get the feeling that the 'medium' was to signal that they were looking for a 'value' fighter, something that was capable but still affordable. Of course that's difficult to reconcile how cost was not considering at all until after the final cutdown . . .
In the Indian context, the MMRCA was derived from the IAF's intention to induct a large number of Mirage 2000s. The Eurofighter and Rafale were not originally in the running, the former having to negotiate its way in, and the latter ending up as a replacement for the Mirage. I think their arrival itself, coinciding as it did with an economic boom, led the IAF to reconsider just how much it could get while the going was good. The revision would explain the six year gap between the first RFI and the final RFP.
The Tejas is broadly speaking comparable to the Mirage 2000-5, while offering better value. Its weight itself shouldn't be a factor, that is to say, its capability is not necessarily proportional to its weight. It certainly offers good value for money.
for its worth.. had a talk with someone who actually was part of the trials in India as well as native nations, Eurofighter was the no. 1 choice. Why it was not selected, I just got a smile and I didn't push it with the person.
Atleast the pilots who experienced all these fighters, were in awe of Eurofighter.
There is a thinking that if Rafael doesn't come through, there might be a quick linkup with Euro fighter. There have been some back door consultations.
abhik wrote:And exactly what is the Rafale replacing in the first place? The MRCA RPF went to almost every company except Sukhoi. We were ready to consider the original Saab Gripen which is analogous to the LCA. Is there really any merit in this neither-too-big-nor-too-small "Goldilocks" argument?
Rafale will primarily replace the Mig-27 and Jags a lot of these will see end of squadron life .... and over all it will also add numbers to the Mig-21 thats slated to retire.
It also a hedge against Tejas Mk2 should it be delayed for some reason the Rafale number would go up.
^^^
IIRC all the Mig-27s were to be retired by ~2017, we won't get even one Rafale by then. Also the jags are stated to continue till ~2030. And why exactly can't the LCA Mk1/Mk2 replace the Mig21, Mig27 and Jaguars?.
That you agree to pay up ~20 Billion USD for the "hedge", the plan B while giving only pittance to the plan A LCA is a joke.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Well if it's too small it simply can't be capable enough. A large enough fuel tank to have a useful range, space to carry a wide assortment of armaments and sensor pods, a reasonable radar plus an engine big enough to haul it all at good speed, there is a certain size required to be a capable multi-role fighter in today's environment.
...
As stated by others there is no proof of the notion that IAF requires exceptional combat range in all its fighters. The range of the LCA is quite reasonable, is it not? And in the electronics department too it is not greatly lacking, in fact as pointed out it can house a larger radar than the Rafale. As far as payload is concerned, I don't think I have seen it carrying any more than 2t of air to ground munitions in its entire "illustrious" combat record.
- Last year you won an exclusive tender in India Procurement fighter Rafale. However, the contract with the Indian Ministry of Defence is still not signed. Does your company have time to sign him before the presidential elections in India, scheduled for July 2014?
- (Laughs.) And that Russian is so well versed in what is happening in India?
- This theme is very interested in Russian ?
- Prepares a huge contract. Rafale sale to India - it is for us something very important. Negotiations began last year, they continue, all is going well. It is always difficult to predict the date of the end of negotiations and the signing of the contract. But we are seeing more activity on the part of our team and the Indian authorities. On such a huge deal to a lot of the time. Everything is complicated by the fact that the Rafale will be manufactured in India - requires a detailed agreement with the Indian . I am confident that this contract will be signed. And what will happen next year in connection with the Indian elections, I do not presume to comment.
- What is the total amount of the contract?
- That's confidential information, you must ask this from the Indian government.
- As far as the estimate of $ 20 billion?
- No, it's much more.
- Tell us about the cooperation with the Russian company KRTV. Will come with her Indian Rafale aircraft weapons?
- I can not comment on it. Rafale equipment is entirely dependent on the contract with the Government of India, it must address these. This is the first. And second, if the Indian authorities decide to equip their aircraft by Russian rockets and if the French authorities will give this good, I do not see any problem in having to work with the Russian manufacturers and integrate their product.
- Could you confirm the information Saab that the Rafale flight hour costs 16 000 euros?
- That's not true. One hour flight Rafale costs about 13,000 euros. But the question is, how much is flight hour Saab aircraft in the same class!
- They claim that their flight hour Gripen fighter is $ 4,000 ?
- I should note that $ 13,000 per flight hour Rafale - a figure provided by the French Air Force, which themselves use the Rafale, fighting on it and know all the operating conditions of the aircraft. And is not that Dassault Aviation itself alone called such data. I'm not sure that the figure provided by Saab regarding Gripen, is correct. This commercial information for marketing purposes. While it is clear that the Gripen flying hour to be cheaper than the Rafale, - it's a completely different aircraft. It's like comparing a little car with a big BMW . In single-engine Gripen, an American, I Rafale - the two French. This is a different category of aircraft, all comparisons are flawed.
- Why are your negotiations with India before entering into a contract for the supply of Rafale took a few years?
- The contract is huge and affects the interests of a large group of industrialists, since we are talking about an assembly in India. In India, we have a company with which we are working on this contract. To settle all takes time. But, in my opinion, for India, it is even very fast! (Laughs.) I know India and I can say that for a contract of this importance our discussion moved soon enough.
vishvak wrote:It is good enough for defensive role. A well defined role is a plus by itself.
It's good enough for the LCA, but not the MRCA, which is the point.
And how exactly can you say this? Are you privy to the actual requirements in the MRCA tender?
GeorgeWelch wrote:
abhik wrote:
That is the combat radius without external fuel tanks(?), what is the corresponding figure for the Rafale?
The specifics of how such things are calculated is always lacking, but the Rafale is quoted as having a combat radius of over 1150 miles.
That figure is with Rafale with external fuel tanks(+ conformal fuel tanks?). It won't get much further than the LCA does without them. So please do an apples to apples comparison before passing judgement.
GeorgeWelch wrote:A combat radius of 190 miles? No, not really.
190 miles is indeed a low figure.
Wherever did you find it?
All I can say is, the Mirage 2000 with an empty weight of 7,500 kg, carrying 3,150 kg of fuel and powered by the Snecma M53 (SFC 90/210 kg/kN.h) is claimed to have a combat radius in excess of 1300km (700-800 nm).
So the claim that a Tejas Mk1 with an empty weight of 6,500 kg carrying over 3000 kg fuel and powered by the GE F404 (80/170 kg/kN.h) has a combat radius of 300km (190 mi), deserves to be treated skeptically, to say the least.
Marten wrote:George, you included the Grippen as well! In which case "can't even begin to approach" is pure BS.
No, I included the Gripen NG, whose combat radius is quoted as 810 mi.
But even the Gripen has a combat radius of 500 mi.
Marten wrote:Do you have numbers for range, combat radius for internal fuel alone?
No, but so what? The Rafale can haul the necessary fuel and the LCA can't.
(By which I mean the amount of fuel needed to get that range. Even with no weapons, the LCA simply can't lift that much fuel.)
Marten wrote:Post your references or edit/ retract the statement.
I said "I believe you are wrong."
I still believe it, so no retraction necessary. If you can provide figures showing that the Rafale's combat radius without external tanks is similar to the LCA's without external tanks, then I'll retract. But you can't so I won't.
GeorgeWelch wrote:A combat radius of 190 miles? No, not really.
190 miles is indeed a low figure.
Wherever did you find it?
Wikipedia which references a subscriber's-only Jane's site.
If you have a different source, please share.
Viv S wrote:All I can say is, the Mirage 2000 with an empty weight of 7,500 kg, carrying 3,150 kg of fuel and powered by the Snecma M53 (SFC 90/210 kg/kN.h) is claimed to have a combat radius in excess of 1300km (700-800 nm).
So the claim that a Tejas Mk1 with an empty weight of 6,500 kg carrying over 3000 kg fuel and powered by the GE F404 (80/170 kg/kN.h) has a combat radius of 300km (190 mi), deserves to be treated skeptically, to say the least.
Well first of all the Tejas only has 2,458 kg of internal fuel. Secondly the Mirage 2000 only has a RANGE of 960mi, so combat radius is going to be under 500mi.
Also the drop tanks on the Mirage 2000 are bigger.
M2K: 1,300 litre center + (2) 1,700 litre under wing = 4,700 litre external
LCA: 725 litre center + (2) 1,200 litre under wing = 3,125 litre external
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 20 Oct 2013 01:39, edited 2 times in total.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Wikipedia which references a subscriber's-only Jane's site.
If you have a different source, please share.
I have found no source. No claims.
Viv S wrote:All I can say is, the Mirage 2000 with an empty weight of 7,500 kg, carrying 3,150 kg of fuel and powered by the Snecma M53 (SFC 90/210 kg/kN.h) is claimed to have a combat radius in excess of 1300km (700-800 nm).
So the claim that a Tejas Mk1 with an empty weight of 6,500 kg carrying over 3000 kg fuel and powered by the GE F404 (80/170 kg/kN.h) has a combat radius of 300km (190 mi), deserves to be treated skeptically, to say the least.
Well first of all the Tejas only has 2,458 kg of internal fuel. Secondly the Mirage 2000 only has a RANGE of 900mi, so combat radius is going to be closer to 450mi
Do you have a source on the fuel capacity? Most places that mention that figure have lifted it from Wikipedia, which has no citation (though to be fair neither does the 3000kg figure).
Also you're probably right about combat radius; my figures must have factored in EFTs. That said, the same source i.e. Jane's puts the Tejas' range at 850km, half the Mirage 2000's 1550km range. That's a sizeable discrepancy, even if you factor a lower fuel load. I'd prefer to wait until Tarmak or someone else familiar with the program at the first person level weighs in.
Also the drop tanks on the Mirage 2000 are bigger.
M2K: 1,300 litre center + (2) 1,700 litre under wing = 4,700 litre external
LCA: 725 litre center + (2) 1,200 litre under wing = 3,125 litre external
Well I've never seen a Mirage 2000H with a 1,700L tank, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Victor wrote:Here is where we need to make a quick decision on whether we make more MKIs or buy a few squadrons of the Super Hornets off the shelf or both. This is the immediate and most urgent requirement. The SH gives us access to the most advanced avionics and a path to the Prowler version. The LCA will come after 10 years and the AMCA after 20. Let's not rush it and fnck it up as we usually do.
If there's any proposal for acquiring a 'few squadrons' off-the-shelf, the F-35A becomes a very strong contender. Its now in same broad price range as its 4th gen competitors. Probably cheaper than the EF and Rafale, in terms of flyaway cost, maybe even comparable to the Super Hornet; with SH deliveries to the USN concluded and those to the RAAF soon to conclude, unit costs will probably rise due to falling production volume.
More importantly, while its performance in air combat when pitted against the PAK FA and the like is a matter of (often visceral) debate, there's little doubt that will remain unmatched in the strike role particularly at SEAD/DEAD in heavily defended airspace. A sort of fusion of the F-16CJ (Wild Weasel) and the F-117.
I was skeptical when deep strike was being touted as the Rafale's strengths; its one thing over Libya and a very different prospect when the adversary is the PLAAF. The F-35 on the other hand will retain its responsibility for carrying out those 'first-day' strikes even after the induction of the PAK FA (higher degree of LO, EOTS, superior ESM systems), as well as its utility as a Growler-type EW aircraft.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Well first of all the Tejas only has 2,458 kg of internal fuel. Secondly the Mirage 2000 only has a RANGE of 900mi, so combat radius is going to be closer to 450mi
Do you have a source on the fuel capacity? Most places that mention that figure have lifted it from Wikipedia, which has no citation (though to be fair neither does the 3000kg figure).
F-35s "off the shelf"? No way Jose! The aircraft is 7 years behind schedule for the US and its allies,who have first pecking order.The Israelis will probably be the first non-US nation to actually operate them.A few LRIP aircraft are being delivered to allies for them to familiarise them selves with this exceptionally complex aircraft that will require an extensive maintenance regime,series production to stabilise itself by 2020.Add to this years of babu negotiations about TOT,costs,etc.A positive nightmare.
There is no way in which the LCA and Rafale can be compared.There is an 8 page feature on the Rafale in VAYU that describes its complexity and capabilities in full.It has been stated that just 2 sqds. of Rafales in the air defence role ,with top cover by the MKIs equipped with a 400KM AAM (Indo-Russian JV for the R-172) to destroy enemy AWACS,can cover our whole airspace and can carry out N-strike ops and defend itself as well.This N-capability appears to be the key factor in choosing it.VAYU hints that there may have been some assistance from the French earlier in converting our M-2000s for the N-role.The Rafale is expected to have conformal fuel tanks,hardwired for N-delivery,carry our desi LACM,plus a range of Russian weaponry carried by the MKIs,like the KH-31 ,negotiations on for the same.There are a host of features explained,AREOS recce pod,super-cruising ability,navigation systems,holographic HUD,DVI (direct voice input) system with a 300 vocab. dictionary,low RCS which US carrier aircraft Tomcats and Hornets found v.difficult to pick up in exercises,Link 16 capable,advanced engines and eng-components,SPECTRA self-protection and EW (active cancellation devices hinted),Damocles or even Litening-3 navigation/targeting pods.G-4 offered to the IAF will allow a host of US/Israeli/French PGMs carried,which will overshadow any Paki F-16C/D capability.Missiles like Scalp/Storm Shadow (250km) or even the Taurus 350 (100km+) tandem warhead 1400kg missile meant to destroy hardened UG bunkers /facilities,glide bombs,MICA,METEOR,et al.The French have 60 yrs. of collaborating with the IAF successfully and will be extremely careful not to lose out on this prize ,the most valuable export order thus far.
One doesn't expect the French to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory",nevertheless,for argument's sake let's examine the other options.Neither the JSF nor the Light Combat Aircraft are available "off the shelf".The only aircraft other than the Rafales are the losers in the competition and the pecking order would be first the Typhoon,runner-up,and then the MIG-35 and Gripen.The Typhoon's capability excellent,costs are likely to be a worrying factor,the MIG-35 because we have the aircraft in 29-UG service,a cost-effective solution in times of scarce cash (but again too much dependence upon Russia where the FGFA is meant to be the top priority), and the Gripen ,affordable and also insurance against the pace of LCA induction due to developmental and production labour pangs.The F-18SH and F-16 come with CISMOA baggage and are both at the end of their upgrade lifespans,advanced SHs being ordered/considered/ only by existing users as an interim,"gap" solution until the F-35 arrives.
There is too much at stake with the LCA,but how fast HAL can get its production act together after the FOC is another matter.It is clear that the IAF will buy whatever is available to keep numbers happy,but the aircraft earmarked for the serious business will be the MKIs,MMRCAs ,plus upgraded M-2000s and MIG-29s and in the future the FGFA.With the FGFA likely to arrive in operational form only by the decade's end,the IAF sees the Rafale as the bird in the hand,in stead of the two in the bush (LCA,FGFA).
The problems that could torpedo the Rafale will likely do the same to Typhoon as well--unwillingness to take responsibility for HAL's performance and the finer details of ToT. Eurofighter will likely be more tight@ssed about these than Dassault in fact. The one thing that could untangle this Gordian's Knot is if we forget about ToT and just buy off the shelf from Dassault. We'll get the planes faster, cheaper and quality should not be an issue. We'll have more leverage with offsets in which HAL can get involved along with other companies.
Rafale wont be torpedoed as MOD and IAF are heavily invested into it and came after painstaking process and flight evaluation.
Now we know officially that the deal is valued for more than $20 Billion and for such a huge there involving TOT and Offsets there is bound to be tough negotiations and delays.
From past experience we know even deals involving no TOT or Offset and simple off the shelf purchase has been beset by delays thats the problem with Indian system that cannot be fixed.
In best case scenario IAF can hope the Rafale deal will be signed by EOF March 2014 and in worst case the next year by new government.
Let us guess at least $25 billion. Divided across 126 aircraft that comes to nearly $200 million per plane.
As a point of comparison, the F-15SE 'won' (before it lost) the South Korean FX-III competition with a bid of $7.2 billion for 60 aircraft, or $120 million per plane.
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 20 Oct 2013 06:19, edited 1 time in total.
Rafale wont be torpedoed as MOD and IAF are heavily invested into it and came after painstaking process and flight evaluation.
Now we know officially that the deal is valued for more than $20 Billion and for such a huge there involving TOT and Offsets there is bound to be tough negotiations and delays.
I agree. The Rafale is, very unfortunately, coming.
{JSF is a different topic, too complex as a replacement for the MMRCA.}
Let us guess at least $25 billion. Divided across 126 aircraft that comes to nearly $200 million per plane.
What I am perplexed about is that they are now talking of integrating Russian missiles with the Rafale. So, what ever happened to life-cycle costs? IF the IAF/MoD really meant life-cycle cost, this known quantity should have been included in that estimate. My fear now is that there will be more such incidences that will bloat the costs way beyond $30 billion. And this estimate does NOT include missiles, bombs, etc - which is another $10-15 billion.
50 % will be Ofset for MMRCA for Indian industry so what ever they spend 50 % will directly benefit the Indian industry ...the rest would be TOT cost , lic production cost , training and things like that.
Costs galloping at the speed of light--just a year or so ago we were talking a "massive" $10 billion and it doubled in less than 2 years. Lord knows what it will be when it is finally nailed down next year. It is even more painful for us in Rupee terms.
Integration of Russian missiles with the Rafale and vice-versa,French missiles with the Sukhois appears to be part of a larger IAF masterplan synergising the Rafale and MKIs along with AWACS as a combined air dominance/strike/N-strike force.Having a large qty. of the same stand-off missiles would not only be more cost-effective but also help NCW.The synergy between these two aircraft principally appears to be the IAF's solution to dominating the subcontinent's skies for the next decade until the FGFA arrives.The US has also made a significant inroad into the IAF's scheme of things,with GE engines for the LCA and Raytheon for the Jaguar upgrade,plus dominating the transport and attack helo acquisitions.There appears to be a subtle decision not to allow US access to the combat,cutting edge assets of the IAF.Remember the grouse when the two US birds were eliminated? India has gone in for a technical acquisition instead of a "relationship".
Costs Vic.leave the decision to wallow in the shallows of babudom,like the Scorpenes,and we can safely add another $10B to the current estimate! However,there is one aspect which many members are agreeing upon.We cannot afford all 3 programmes,LCA,FGFA and MMRCA.The LCA development is vital for our indigenous industry and self-reliance.The FGFA represents the future,the MMRCA the present.Is it worth going the whole hog for the Rafale or cherry-picking key items? What is there in the LCA experience that can be used in Rafale production if at all? Secondly,how many aircraft do we actually need for the first lot? LCA MK-2 matures (big unknown A)? If we just go in for a straightforward buy as we did with the M-2000s ,cherrypick a few key components,the costs may come down significantly.Any money saved could go into LCA and FGFA development.
Let us guess at least $25 billion. Divided across 126 aircraft that comes to nearly $200 million per plane.
As a point of comparison, the F-15SE 'won' (before it lost) the South Korean FX-III competition with a bid of $7.2 billion for 60 aircraft, or $120 million per plane.[/quote]
There are persuasive reasons against your logic of cost comparison.
1. The F 15 SE was not on offer - so whats the point of comparing with a product that was not on offer?
2. The F15 has been around for 30 years now and more than a 1000 have been produced so production costs will be significantly lower and production will have matured by now.
The payment is staggered payment across the full cycle of Rafale production which will go for a decade for 126 fighter and option for 64 ...then there are TOT cost , Lic Production cost , IP transfer etc ......Military inflation runs almost double to that of civil inflation and every year cost rises the stagerred payment will include all these any other unknowns.
$10 billion would be the cost had we signed this deal about a decade back or so but that to our very effecient process of purchasing military equipment almost all the weapons purchases cost more due to delayed decisions.
Hopefully they wriggle it over soon and sign the deal ASAP would give IAF the breathing space it desperately needs.
Let us guess at least $25 billion. Divided across 126 aircraft that comes to nearly $200 million per plane.
As a point of comparison, the F-15SE 'won' (before it lost) the South Korean FX-III competition with a bid of $7.2 billion for 60 aircraft, or $120 million per plane.
There are persuasive reasons against your logic of cost comparison.
1. The F 15 SE was not on offer - so whats the point of comparing with a product that was not on offer?
1. Because it helps illustrate how expensive this deal is getting. Is the Rafale better than the F-15SE? Is it 66% better? (As in, would you rather have 9 Rafales or 15 F-15SEs?)
2. It helps set an upper bound on what other planes in the competition would go for. For instance we know the SH, Gripen and Mig-35 are cheaper than the F-15.
3. The other tidbit is that the EF actually submitted a bid that came in at the same price, but it was rejected because they didn't offer enough of the more-expensive 2-seaters for that price. This offer also included local production. So whatever the IAF is asking for is inflating the price considerably, and it's worth asking if you're getting proper value for the extra money.
arijitsengupta wrote:2. The F15 has been around for 30 years now and more than a 1000 have been produced so production costs will be significantly lower and production will have matured by now.
Actually, it tends to work the other way as the F-15 uses old, inefficient manufacturing techniques that require more manual labor.
The SH is significantly cheaper to manufacture because it uses more modern methods.
The MRCA RFP went to every reputable fighter manufacture(other than the Chinese etc.) except the Sukhoi. That included Saab which was expected to offer the original Gripen.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
No, I included the Gripen NG, whose combat radius is quoted as 810 mi.
But even the Gripen has a combat radius of 500 mi.
Under what conditions does the Gripen achieve this range? It in fact carries less internal fuel while having the same engine as the LCA. They both have similar ferry range with EFTs (3000/3200 km) according to wiki. As far as the Rafale is concerned it carries 4.7t fuel internally 2X 50/75 kn (dry/wet) engines compared to the LCA Mk1 with a 54/85 kn engine carries ~2.5t of fuel. So they carry roughly the same amount of fuel internally as a proportional to their engine thrust. The Rafale's supposed 1000+ mile combat range comes after adding a buttload of EFT+CFTs. That the LCA is a gimped range fighter is a load of bull.
There are persuasive reasons against your logic of cost comparison.
1. The F 15 SE was not on offer - so whats the point of comparing with a product that was not on offer?[/quote]
1. Because it helps illustrate how expensive this deal is getting. Is the Rafale better than the F-15SE? Is it 66% better? (As in, would you rather have 9 Rafales or 15 F-15SEs?)
The F 15 was designed to be an air superiority fighter and evolved to be somewhat of a ground attack fighter towards the later stages of life - this was to offset delays in the F 35 programme as well as to offset the loss of F111 as a mid sized bomber for an interim period at least that is what the Pentagon was talking about.
The Rafale on the other side was designed from day one as a swing role fighter and also to replace both the Mirage 2000 and the Super Entard. In that it is both a fighter and a bomber and and is not the best in either role but as a swing role fighter from inception it would be significantly superior to the F 15 in the ground attack role. In the air offense role, the F 15 will win, but then the Rafale is never used in this but rather as fleet protection or point defense and ground offensive. So cannot be compared as a measurement of the F 15. Thats my opinion
2. It helps set an upper bound on what other planes in the competition would go for. For instance we know the SH, Gripen and Mig-35 are cheaper than the F-15.
3. The other tidbit is that the EF actually submitted a bid that came in at the same price, but it was rejected because they didn't offer enough of the more-expensive 2-seaters for that price. This offer also included local production. So whatever the IAF is asking for is inflating the price considerably, and it's worth asking if you're getting proper value for the extra money.
arijitsengupta wrote:2. The F15 has been around for 30 years now and more than a 1000 have been produced so production costs will be significantly lower and production will have matured by now.
Actually, it tends to work the other way as the F-15 uses old, inefficient manufacturing techniques that require more manual labor.
The SH is significantly cheaper to manufacture because it uses more modern methods.[/quote]
Even if we use inefficient manufacturing techniques, the total life cycle costs will be lower simply over a period of time as production would have been optimised over a longer period. While the French jet may be using newer manf tech, it will still take a significant more number of orders to actually optmise costs.