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
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

Viv

Large production volumes only mean lower net cost per piece for the MANUFACTURER it does not necessarily translate into lower costs for the end consumer (very real world example is the iPhone). So we should not bring that point up, unless you know that JSF is going to cost India 'x' per piece and Rafale more than that in fly away condition we are in no position to consider these points at this moment.

First things first JSF is a single engine AC while Rafale is a twin engine AC , VLO, LPI are nice to have but I don't want to be in a machine where even during peace time I take off from say any of our airbases with a bird problem (thanks to our garbage disposal) and be on a constant lookout for a birdhit , what happens to all those gizmos on board such an expensive piece of machinery when a crow or a vulture gets sucked into it's only engine ? Can I bring that plane back safely , what are my chances with a twin engine plane which costs me almost the SAME ? One could argue about LCA/Mirage and other being single engined but COST is a limiting factor there , JSF although single engined allegedly costs us pretty much the same as the Rafale.

M2K is our designated delivery platform for free fall type nukes (or at least was until the MKi arrived) it follows that Rafale will have that capability we MIGHT not
have that with JSF.

We have dealt with Ru and the French for decades for spares be it M2K or the Migs and Sus , during day to day operations even if a panel comes out and gets twisted it needs to be replaced we do not make them here at least not for the M2K they are bought from the OEM . My apprehensions are with regards to cost of spares for the JSF it has more moving parts than a 4th Generation AC, it's panels and moving surfaces built to a far higher degree of tolerance so in theory it has a far higher probability of becoming non-functional because of a bumpy landing or use over a given period of time. Now can I prove it , No but then no one today can for no one is operating it as we speak . So question is should I believe what LM brochure says ? For that kind of money sorry I don't.

Ru has been an unreliable supplier but since they haven't been doing great economically we have been able to bypass a lot of their red tape when it comes to their sub-systems the processors on BARS radar and the upgrades to the Flogger are few such examples, with EUMA in place I am not sure if this would be possible. We have bought stuff from the USA under the FMS stuff like Trenton , P-8I and C-17 are all not nuclear delivery platforms and they all come under the EUMA , for me buying a so called Stealth AC and then allowing someone to have access to monitor is lame and a deal breaker.

PAKFA is a different topic not only because of the platform capability but because of different kind of involvement for us. We are going to have much more to contribute to it than we did in the MKI That in itself is a far better value proposition.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:The point is that the MKI could use its long-range AAMs to take out enemy AEW&C while the Rafales carry out strikes and defend themselves against prowling enemy fighters. Utilizing both platforms in a manner that plays to their strengths makes eminent sense.
Doesn't sound like the Rafale doing a lot of air defence in that scenario (this in context of the original post). It sounds more like the Rafale's particularly weakness i.e. its relatively under-powered radar is being '(top)covered' by the Sukhoi, and passed off as synergy.
All aircraft have weaknesses. The issues with the Rafale's small radar are well known. Likewise, it has its strengths too. The MKI, for example, lacks an internal EW suite. The Rafale's DASS, on the other had, is supposed to be amongst the best out there. The Rafale is unlikely to field a 400 km range AAM. Even if it does, it will be hamstrung by its small radar. The MKI has nothing that can match the MICA IR/RF or the impressive suite of air-to-ground weapons the Rafale can field. And so on and so forth. So what's the big deal with using a tool that is suitable for the task at hand?
Viv S wrote:
Sir, any aircraft in the IAF can by jury-rigged to carry a dumb nuclear bomb and deliver it using toss-bombing techniques. If the French have explicitly mentioned that the IAF's Rafale fleet could be nuclear capable, you can safely assume that they would be willing to export a solution designed to do so. Whether that is the ASMP-A or a SCALP modified for nuclear strike or something else, we don't know yet.
There is no evidence whatsoever of the ASMP-A being on sale, or French assistance with nuclearizing the SCALP (that's if the SCALP is even ordered).
No, there isn't; I thought we were on the same page regarding that. However, there is evidence that the French have said it would be nuclear capable. It would be interesting to find out how they intend to make it so, if the IAF/MoD order it, that is.
Viv S wrote:
Cost estimates from Vanity Fair? Really?
Passing off estimates by the GAO, JPO, and POGO as Vanity Fair's own? Really? Those figures would be just as credible even if they were published in Champak.
Viv S wrote:
- that lacks the capability to carry out any mission properly
- costs have skyrocketed to the point where it makes the whole effort look ridiculous.
- It will be a miracle if it enters front-line service before 2020 with the US armed forces.
Strong vociferous claims. But they need to be justified with more than rhetoric. Specifics please.
It's a seven page article. Read it. I had posted it on the F-35 thread too, but it was ignored. Can't go around upsetting the comfortable equilibrium that took such an effort to set up, can we?
Last edited by Mihir on 23 Oct 2013 21:44, edited 5 times in total.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

negi wrote:Large production volumes only mean lower net cost per piece for the MANUFACTURER it does not necessarily translate into lower costs for the end consumer (very real world example is the iPhone). So we should not bring that point up, unless you know that JSF is going to cost India 'x' per piece and Rafale more than that in fly away condition we are in no position to consider these points at this moment.
Wasn't a certain colonel arguing that the flyaway cost would be $65 million, because a Lockheed rep told him so? :mrgreen:

Even a made-in-India MKI wasn't that cheap at the time!
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

^ Biggest problem is of technology absorption , HAL's hands are full and it admits it. We know we are building a MCA or whatever we will name it that again will be a HAL baby. Our involvement in PAKFA has been confirmed for quite some time so where is the room to induct another stealth fighter with offsets or license manuf. ? I emphasize the offsets or license manufacture part because that is what takes longest to negotiate , ink and then establish on the ground case in point is Scorpene , we needed far higher quality standards to be met for welding steel slabs and it took time to develop and hone that skill. Manufacturing F-35 here might need similar homework to be done i.e. more time and hence more costs.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Mihir wrote:All aircraft have weaknesses. The issues with the Rafale's small radar are well known. Likewise, it has its strengths too. The MKI, for example, lacks an internal EW suite. The Rafale's DASS, on the other had, is supposed to be amongst the best out there. The Rafale is unlikely to field a 400 km range AAM. Even if it does, it will be hamstrung by its small radar. The MKI has nothing that can match the MICA IR/RF or the impressive suite of air-to-ground weapons the Rafale can field. And so on and so forth. So what's the big deal with using a tool that is suitable for the task at hand?
The original post (by Philip) talked about how the MKI and Rafale would gel while defending air space. So far the role being elucidated for the Rafale is limited to self defence while carrying out strikes. As for the munitions complement, it is the most expensive weapons suite available anywhere, and one can only hope we don't get saddled with if the Rafale purchase goes through.

There's no disputing that the Rafale is a nifty package of decent avionics and good performance. What is being questioned is whether its the best value on can get for the taxpayer's money.

No, there isn't; I thought we were on the same page regarding that. However, there is evidence that the French have said it would be nuclear capable. It would be interesting to find out how they intend to make it so, if the IAF/MoD order it, that is.
How did you translate some vague allusions to nuclear capability with the potential export of a specialist nuclear missile, a step that would make waves globally?
Viv S wrote:
Cost estimates from Vanity Fair? Really?
Passing off estimates by the GAO, JPO, and POGO as Vanity Fair's own? Really? Those figures would be just as credible even if they were published in Champak.
The Vanity Fair correspondent can't make up his mind as to the credibility of either or sort through the facts personally. For the purposes of a comparison with the Rafale, its the flyaway cost that's most relevant. The GAO report only analyses figures until the LRIP 4 (Av cost $166 mil/unit). For the LRIP 6 that fell to $126 mil/unit (average not F-35A specific). The LRIP 6 & 7 cost of the F-35 is around $100 mil (+$25 mil for the engine). This is before its gone into full production.

It's a seven page article. Read it. I had posted it on the F-35 thread too, but it was ignored. Can't go around upsetting the comfortable equilibrium that took such an effort to set up, can we?
I read the article well before it was posted on this forum. But it gives far from convincing proof that the F-35, 'lacks the capability to carry out any mission properly' or that 'costs have skyrocketed to the point where it makes the whole effort look ridiculous'.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

Viv S wrote:There's no disputing that the Rafale is a nifty package of decent avionics and good performance. What is being questioned is whether its the best value on can get for the taxpayer's money.
Fair point, and I agree. I have often found myself wondering what it was that the MMRCA could do that a combination of MKIs and LCA Mk.IIs could not.
Viv S wrote:
No, there isn't; I thought we were on the same page regarding that. However, there is evidence that the French have said it would be nuclear capable. It would be interesting to find out how they intend to make it so, if the IAF/MoD order it, that is.
How did you translate some vague allusions to nuclear capability with the potential export of a specialist nuclear missile, a step that would make waves globally?
The French sold UAE the Black Shaheen. Why would it be strange for them to sell something similar to India if we coughed up the dough? They need not sell us a nuclear warhead directly, just the systems, software, and support that we would need to field one of our own. Like I said, it would be interesting to find out.
Viv S wrote:
Passing off estimates by the GAO, JPO, and POGO as Vanity Fair's own? Really? Those figures would be just as credible even if they were published in Champak.
The Vanity Fair correspondent can't make up his mind as to the credibility of either or sort through the facts personally. For the purposes of a comparison with the Rafale, its the flyaway cost that's most relevant. The GAO report only analyses figures until the LRIP 4 (Av cost $166 mil/unit). For the LRIP 6 that fell to $126 mil/unit (average not F-35A specific). The LRIP 6 & 7 cost of the F-35 is around $100 mil (+$25 mil for the engine). This is before its gone into full production.
It is also before it can be considered serviceable. It can't fly properly, it couldn't take on a Sopwith Camel in combat, and has dozens of serious issues that are far from solved. How much will it cost to sort these problems out and then bring these "cheap" aircraft to the point where they can undertake a realistic sortie?
Viv S wrote:
It's a seven page article. Read it. I had posted it on the F-35 thread too, but it was ignored. Can't go around upsetting the comfortable equilibrium that took such an effort to set up, can we?
I read the article well before it was posted on this forum. But it gives far from convincing proof that the F-35, 'lacks the capability to carry out any mission properly' or that 'costs have skyrocketed to the point where it makes the whole effort look ridiculous'.
It cannot fly in bad weather. Cannot fly supersonic. Cannot fire missiles or drop bombs. Cannot fire its guns. Cannot use the advanced HMD. That much touted commonality is a joke. Costs are heavily disputed and some organisations claim that they are higher than 200 million dollars. The proof is there for those who want to see it. Unfortunately, those "firm orders", "projections", and "estimates" that are being spoken and written about so enthusiastically are not solutions.

Maybe they will chip away at problems bit by bit. Perhaps, one day, the F-35 will be fielded as a combat-capable system instead of just posing for pretty pictures. But from where I stand, it looks like a complete disaster that will extract a heavy toll in terms of time and cost before it reaches that stage. I don't see why the IAF should hitch its wagon to such a program, when it's taking significant risk with the AMCA and FGFA as it is.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

It is also before it can be considered serviceable. It can't fly properly, it couldn't take on a Sopwith Camel in combat, and has dozens of serious issues that are far from solved. How much will it cost to sort these problems out and then bring these "cheap" aircraft to the point where they can undertake a realistic sortie?
It really does not matter. Any cost overruns for the F-35 are covered 100% by LM and partners. The users are therefore covered from such costs.

Also, they have another agreement for cost under-run too!!!!!

I do not propose the F-35 for the IAF/IN, but it is really sad that you are using old data/information to make current decision. (But, that does happen when one is not current and has old biases.)

Also, any foreign sales is via FMS. So they too are covered by these negotiations.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

negi wrote:Viv

Large production volumes only mean lower net cost per piece for the MANUFACTURER it does not necessarily translate into lower costs for the end consumer (very real world example is the iPhone). So we should not bring that point up, unless you know that JSF is going to cost India 'x' per piece and Rafale more than that in fly away condition we are in no position to consider these points at this moment.
The most effective comparison you can have on flyaway cost is by examining the cost to the primary customer, in this case the US DoD and French MoD. You'll certainly have all the bells, whistles, customs, service charges, VAT etc. But these figures are sufficient to arrive at a ballpark figure, to get a general idea about X being cheaper/pricier than Y.

One could argue about LCA/Mirage and other being single engined but COST is a limiting factor there , JSF although single engined allegedly costs us pretty much the same as the Rafale.
I didn't understand that part. The Mirage 2000's accident rate hasn't been greater than... say the Jaguar's. Why would the F-35's be higher than the Rafale's?

M2K is our designated delivery platform for free fall type nukes (or at least was until the MKi arrived) it follows that Rafale will have that capability we MIGHT not
have that with JSF.
True. But we're moving past the free-fall delivery method for nuclear strikes, by transitioning to cruise and ballistic missiles, a capability that either wasn't there or wasn't reliable when the Mirage 2000's nuclear role was critical.

My apprehensions are with regards to cost of spares for the JSF it has more moving parts than a 4th Generation AC, it's panels and moving surfaces built to a far higher degree of tolerance so in theory it has a far higher probability of becoming non-functional because of a bumpy landing or use over a given period of time.
But that would imply that fifth generation platforms itself were unviable. Do note that there some 75 F-35s flying today with the production run expected to go past 3000 units. If there are issues, they can be fixed.

Plus, there's the option of having performance standards (availability benchmarks for example) written into the contract wherein the contractor is liable for an issue and has to fix it in a certain time-frame (the C-17 contract being an example).

Ru has been an unreliable supplier but since they haven't been doing great economically we have been able to bypass a lot of their red tape when it comes to their sub-systems the processors on BARS radar and the upgrades to the Flogger are few such examples, with EUMA in place I am not sure if this would be possible. We have bought stuff from the USA under the FMS stuff like Trenton , P-8I and C-17 are all not nuclear delivery platforms and they all come under the EUMA , for me buying a so called Stealth AC and then allowing someone to have access to monitor is lame and a deal breaker.
IIRC as per the EUMA for the equipment that we've acquired from the US, if requested for access, the time and location at which access is to be provided is of India's choosing. No aircraft is monitored during operations or on location. And even the option of examining it has not been exercised in recent history and given that as a rule India respects contractual provisions (notwithstanding exigencies like the the Litening integration in 1999), there's every reason to believe that we'd be able to negotiate an even more benign agreement that can still be sold to the US Congress.

PAKFA is a different topic not only because of the platform capability but because of different kind of involvement for us. We are going to have much more to contribute to it than we did in the MKI That in itself is a far better value proposition.
One would have hoped that would be the case, but with the cancellation of the two-seat variant, reduction of the order to 144 and the disputes regarding work-share, dark clouds on the horizon.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

PAKFA is a different topic not only because of the platform capability but because of different kind of involvement for us. We are going to have much more to contribute to it than we did in the MKI That in itself is a far better value proposition.
Like what?

Furthermore, where does the PAK-FA stand?

The ONLY good thing about the FGFA is that it will be teh best in the IAF stable.

But, just like the Rafale, the question WRT the FGFA is is it worth it for THAT price?

Rafale is a great plane. I expect the FGFA to be a great plane too. But, are either one worth that price? I think our grandkids will be working a few hours over time to pay off these two birds. Not worth it - purely from a price point of view.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Mihir wrote:The French sold UAE the Black Shaheen. Why would it be strange for them to sell something similar to India if we coughed up the dough? They need not sell us a nuclear warhead directly, just the systems, software, and support that we would need to field one of our own. Like I said, it would be interesting to find out.
We could certain cough up the dough, question is, would we want to? Why give away the contract to the French instead of having a competition for the IAF's Long Range Standoff Weapon, with the Scalp-EG, KEPD 350 as well as the JASSM? Plus there's always the Nirbhay. Even ground launched, with a 1000 km range, it can strike almost any target that you'd hit with a Scalp EG. And you can equip it with a nuclear warhead, without the hassle.

It is also before it can be considered serviceable. It can't fly properly, it couldn't take on a Sopwith Camel in combat, and has dozens of serious issues that are far from solved. How much will it cost to sort these problems out and then bring these "cheap" aircraft to the point where they can undertake a realistic sortie?
Weapons tests have already begun - the first AMRAAM launch took place this year. And basic combat capability will be available with the Block 2B, currently under testing. No problem, serious or minor is being overlooked.
It cannot fly in bad weather. Cannot fly supersonic. Cannot fire missiles or drop bombs. Cannot fire its guns. Cannot use the advanced HMD. That much touted commonality is a joke. Costs are heavily disputed and some organisations claim that they are higher than 200 million dollars. The proof is there for those who want to see it. Unfortunately, those "firm orders", "projections", and "estimates" that are being spoken and written about so enthusiastically are not solutions.
The F-35A has been flown to Mach 1.61 and touched 9.9G. The F-35B and F-35C have also been tested upto Mach 1.6.

Its fired missiles and dropped bombs.

The advanced HMD is being used and the jitter issue is expected to be addressed with the next software iteration.

The flyway cost for the F-35A has already dropped below $100 million and will fall much further once production ramps up.

Maybe they will chip away at problems bit by bit. Perhaps, one day, the F-35 will be fielded as a combat-capable system instead of just posing for pretty pictures. But from where I stand, it looks like a complete disaster that will extract a heavy toll in terms of time and cost before it reaches that stage. I don't see why the IAF should hitch its wagon to such a program, when it's taking significant risk with the AMCA and FGFA as it is.
A lot of your information is out of date. I think you need to catch up with the latest developments.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

NRao sir

The MKI program today means that we do not have to send a AL31 engine to Ru for overhauls; IN on the other hand sends the IL-38s and Tu-142s to RU every six months for an overhaul. It is now being made in India right from the scratch (obviously like always we might have dropped a ball on an area here or there) the FCS and Bars processors have been replaced along with the firmware. We were no where there even for first couple of iterations of the Flanker family , FGFA on the other hand is in nascent stages we as a participant have a far bigger say in the program than we had in the MKI.

As for the cost well that is another topic; can we do without importing another fighter ? Answer to that lies in our ability to ramp up and come up with a medium/large 4 generation fighter . If HAL could do that say in next 10 years then may be we would have never said yes to the FGFA ah but then you see the problem is we are SLOW, the MRCA was to be acquired at least 5 if not 10 years ago , FGFA has been in the talks for 5 years now so even a good decision often seems like a bad one if not executed in right time, in hindsight all these look like a waste of public exchequer .
Last edited by negi on 24 Oct 2013 01:04, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

I would NOT depend on that Vanity Fair article on the F-35. Data is valid, but badly outdated. So also another article of the watch dog agency that tagged LM with some 1500 problems - true, there were 1500 problems, BUT that was 18 months ago and MOST (not all) problems have been addressed.
The proof is there for those who want to see it
Where? And please provide dates along with it too. Thx.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

negi ji,

NP. Understand.

However,
We are going to have much more to contribute to it than we did in the MKI That in itself is a far better value proposition.
causes indigestion.

Recall that the estimated (oh I hate that word) $11 billion - to be "shared" between the two "partners" - was meant *initially* for a dual seat plane. The idea was that India would be involved in designing this plane - since it actually meant a dramatic change in the plane (bigger wings, etc, etc, etc) (perhaps it would have required a bigger engine too).

Now, the current FGFA is: PAK-FA frame, PAK-FA engine, PAK-FA radar - the entire main assembly is PAk-FA - note: NO change in teh design AT LL.

So, what is India's value proposition here is my question (specifically for the FGFA)?

(It is pure, distilled, DNA, MKI. That is what we did with the Su-27 - with a major diff. The MKI actually was a cool two ton heavier - but teh Russians conducted all the tests. The value prop for the dual seater FGFA was Indian design involvement + testing of a next gen product (in which India has 0 experience). ALL that was valued at $11 billion.)

So, my question, sir, still stands. What will India add to the FGFA? (I am not trying to be cute here - it is a very serious question - I may not know something.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

Viv S wrote: The most effective comparison you can have on flyaway cost is by examining the cost to the primary customer, in this case the US DoD and French MoD. You'll certainly have all the bells, whistles, customs, service charges, VAT etc. But these figures are sufficient to arrive at a ballpark figure, to get a general idea about X being cheaper/pricier than Y.
No that does not work , what matters is what is the cost to us because the seller gets to put a fat figure against the offsets/ToT/setting up assembly etc .
Even there so what is the price of a F-35 today ?

This is the latest I could get a handle on

Dated Sept 27 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 8720130927
The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine, from $103 million in the sixth lot. It marks the first time the price of the jet will have dipped below $100 million.
So 98 million USD that too to the biggest buyer and mai baap of project without the engine. By the way do we know what does without the engine mean ? Does it mean without the powerplant + AGB + APU ? Or is without the engine western DDM's understanding of airframe only?
The Mirage 2000's accident rate hasn't been greater than... say the Jaguar's. Why would the F-35's be higher than the Rafale's?
I hope you do realize SAFETY!= only REDUNDANCY . Former is a sum total of lot of variables of which redundancy is one, 2 engines provide that i.e. redundancy by eliminating single engine as only point of failure. Your point about M2k vs Jag is not only irrelevant but a attempt at fitting a statistic to your pov. Jag and M2k have different flight envelopes , different mission profiles and hence different design specs ,in those days there was no concept of a omi/multi role fighter.

M2K and Jag are not even from the same time frame in terms of development . I mean leave everything else unless you tabulate their number of flight hours and cause of aircrash where engine was the culprit you cannot even bring up that point here.

My point was about a design consideration i.e. 2 engined versus 1 engined , safety is a big word your AC can even crash due to a faulty FBW or due to going into an irrecoverable spin after getting into a jet wash. Eg. one of the Jags crashed in Pokharan weapons trials because of faulty separation of a weapon.

Just like F-35 has an undeniable upper hand over the Rafale in terms of stealth and LPI the latter has an undeniable edge in terms of redundancy when it comes to the powerplant and it has a direct bearing on the probability of survival or bringing back an aircraft in case an engine flames out.

The JSF has been able to keep costs low despite inclusion of 5th gen features because of opting for a single engine. That is one major factor which separates it from the F-22 .

True. But we're moving past the free-fall delivery method for nuclear strikes, by transitioning to cruise and ballistic missiles, a capability that either wasn't there or wasn't reliable when the Mirage 2000's nuclear role was critical.
Is this even an argument ? Firstly who said that fighter AC will only deliver nuclear munitions via free fall bombs , stand off missiles are a real possibility and exist. What is the point in then buying a stealth aircraft ? I mean why am I even arguing over this we have a well established policy of maintaining a nuclear TRIAD and fighter aircrafts are still part of that equation.
But that would imply that fifth generation platforms itself were unviable. Do note that there some 75 F-35s flying today with the production run expected to go past 3000 units. If there are issues, they can be fixed.
Fixed , yeah at the end of the day everything can be fixed who is denying that , if numbers are to go by then over 100 Rafales are out there and then Rafale has served in AfPak and even Syria so in the PPT slide deck I even get to add a nice bullet point claiming proven in the battle-field.
Plus, there's the option of having performance standards (availability benchmarks for example) written into the contract wherein the contractor is liable for an issue and has to fix it in a certain time-frame (the C-17 contract being an example).
I think after working in the real world for these many years we all know what these contracts are about, lets not even go there. My point was not even about performance bench marks but more fundamental issues i.e. stuff like cost of replacing parts which are to be replaced due to normal wear and tear and no no contract covers those.

IIRC as per the EUMA for the equipment that we've acquired from the US, if requested for access, the time and location at which access is to be provided is of India's choosing. No aircraft is monitored during operations or on location. And even the option of examining it has not been exercised in recent history and given that as a rule India respects contractual provisions (notwithstanding exigencies like the the Litening integration in 1999), there's every reason to believe that we'd be able to negotiate an even more benign agreement that can still be sold to the US Congress.
Why not just talk about the things and the AC the way they are not the way they could be in terms of Ifs and buts ? EUMA is a reality and a genuine concern there is a reason why we replaced the comm modules on C-130J because of CISMOA so whatever plumbing or rigging we have to do is an additional cost.
One would have hoped that would be the case, but with the cancellation of the two-seat variant, reduction of the order to 144 and the disputes regarding work-share, dark clouds on the horizon.
144 is not a small order for IAF like ours , what did you guys expect that we will design the PAKFA ? AMCA /MCA is for that. Anyways PAKFA is a topic for another thread.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Philip »

There appears to be some misunderstanding about the "omni-role" Rafale's air-superiority capability.The VAYU feature had it that just two flights of Rafales were capable of sanitising the airspace of France,thereby arguing that just two sqds. of them would do the business for us,with AWACS in attendence.The "top cover" by the Sukhois mentioned was when used in a strike role,the Sukhois taking care of AWACS with their LR R-172 AAMs.It has a,very low RCS,was able usually to get off the first shot at USN aircraft with its BVR missiles in exercises,hints at "active cancellation devices" with SPECTRA,plus the AESA radar has "50%" moore detection range ,the IRST sensor has a 90Km range,MICA AAM 60KM,Meteor 80+KM.These ops would be under the MFCC (mixed fighter force concept),the flavour of the day for BVR warfare,where one aircraft illuminates and another sneakily prosecutes an enemy contact. In any case,what were the IAF's radar parameters for the contract and what capabilities superior to the Rafale did the other contestants offer if at all?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

negi wrote:No that does not work , what matters is what is the cost to us because the seller gets to put a fat figure against the offsets/ToT/setting up assembly etc .
Applies to both aircraft. That way you'll never be able to compare any aircraft. It certainly didn't prevent us on the forum from drawing up cost estimates of the EF and Rafale based on their flyaway costs. Shouldn't be a hurdle in this case either.

Even there so what is the price of a F-35 today ?

So 98 million USD that too to the biggest buyer and mai baap of project without the engine. By the way do we know what does without the engine mean ? Does it mean without the powerplant + AGB + APU ? Or is without the engine western DDM's understanding of airframe only?
Engines are budgeted for separately (P&W contract). Conventional F135 is priced at $16 mil, VTOL at $38 mil.

F-35A flyaway cost is therefore $114 million. During LRIP. When its not in full production.

Compare it to the flyaway cost of the Rafale - $140 mil/unit (2011). Lets say $130 mil for the Rafale C.

I hope you do realize SAFETY!= only REDUNDANCY . Former is a sum total of lot of variables of which redundancy is one, 2 engines provide that i.e. redundancy by eliminating single engine as only point of failure. Your point about M2k vs Jag is not only irrelevant but a attempt at fitting a statistic to your pov. Jag and M2k have different flight envelopes , different mission profiles and hence different design specs ,in those days there was no concept of a omi/multi role fighter.
I'd imagine the majority of bird hits would take place on take-off or landing i.e. similar flight profiles. But lets say that the Rafale being twin engined is somewhat safer to fly.

Is this even an argument ? Firstly who said that fighter AC will only deliver nuclear munitions via free fall bombs , stand off missiles are a real possibility and exist. What is the point in then buying a stealth aircraft ? I mean why am I even arguing over this we have a well established policy of maintaining a nuclear TRIAD and fighter aircrafts are still part of that equation.
I'm talking about free-fall delivery being obsolete. And if stand off missiles are the preferred means of delivering a nuclear payload (as they should be), the utility of the Rafale's 'nuclear capability' fades away.

Fixed , yeah at the end of the day everything can be fixed who is denying that , if numbers are to go by then over 100 Rafales are out there and then Rafale has served in AfPak and even Syria so in the PPT slide deck I even get to add a nice bullet point claiming proven in the battle-field.
I mentioned the number of aircraft served to illustrate the fact that any problem identified during operations isn't just India's problem, its a problem for each of the 15+ operators of the F-35.

I think after working in the real world for these many years we all know what these contracts are about, lets not even go there. My point was not even about performance bench marks but more fundamental issues i.e. stuff like cost of replacing parts which are to be replaced due to normal wear and tear and no no contract covers those.
Applies to the Rafale as well.

Why not just talk about the things and the AC the way they are not the way they could be in terms of Ifs and buts ? EUMA is a reality and a genuine concern there is a reason why we replaced the comm modules on C-130J because of CISMOA so whatever plumbing or rigging we have to do is an additional cost.
We don't have to give access to military installations or interrupt regular military operations. And as long as we haven't transferred an aircraft to another country or conducted modifications that weren't agreed upon in the contract, its hardly an overbearing concern. That's if the US wants to inspect it, which it doesn't. Plus in all likelihood, they'd be LM/PW support staff attached to the IAF, at least during the initial years. Yes, you'd have to integrate India specific add-on equipment - data-link, IFF. There will be some cost incurred of course, as it will be even in the case of the Rafale.

144 is not a small order for IAF like ours , what did you guys expect that we will design the PAKFA ? AMCA /MCA is for that. Anyways PAKFA is a topic for another thread.
We can discuss in the PAK FA thread if you like, but at $5.5 billion, that's an expensive brushoff.
Last edited by Viv S on 24 Oct 2013 03:56, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:There appears to be some misunderstanding about the "omni-role" Rafale's air-superiority capability.The VAYU feature had it that just two flights of Rafales were capable of sanitising the airspace of France,thereby arguing that just two sqds. of them would do the business for us,with AWACS in attendence.


Sounds like air policing. ??
It has a,very low RCS,was able usually to get off the first shot at USN aircraft with its BVR missiles in exercises,hints at "active cancellation devices" with SPECTRA,plus the AESA radar has "50%" moore detection range ,
So its claimed.
the IRST sensor has a 90Km range,
Perfect weather conditions, tail-on aspect, afterburner on, painted against the cold sky, from a lower altitude. In real world conditions; 20-30km.
MICA AAM 60KM,Meteor 80+KM.
$2.5 mil for the MICA. More for the Meteor.
These ops would be under the MFCC (mixed fighter force concept),the flavour of the day for BVR warfare,where one aircraft illuminates and another sneakily prosecutes an enemy contact. In any case,what were the IAF's radar parameters for the contract and what capabilities superior to the Rafale did the other contestants offer if at all?
True. But you could carry out the same operation with the Tejas (and Su-30MKI) at a fraction of the cost.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

Viv S wrote: Applies to both aircraft. That way you'll never be able to compare any aircraft. It certainly didn't prevent us on the forum from drawing up cost estimates of the EF and Rafale based on their flyaway costs. Shouldn't be a hurdle in this case either.
Even there so what is the price of a F-35 today ?
That is why I am not the one who is emphasizing on the fly away cost price unless we have bought the two or have been made an offer. The cost of 126 Rafales to us is being pegged at ~11 billion USD and this includes offsets so a significant amount of that figure will be against helping HAL setup facilities here.
Engines are budgeted for separately (P&W contract). Conventional F135 is priced at $16 mil, VTOL at $38 mil.
F-35A flyaway cost is therefore $114 million. During LRIP. When its not in full production.
Compare it to the flyaway cost of the Rafale - $140 mil/unit (2011). Lets say $130 mil for the Rafale C.
:) Now that F-35 consortium has recently made in fresh orders you get to play with numbers , koi nahin will concede this point for time being.

I'd imagine the majority of bird hits would take place on take-off or landing i.e. similar flight profiles. But lets say that the Rafale being twin engined is somewhat safer to fly.
Bird hit is just one of the incidents which cause an engine flameout, it could be anything from a FOD to say sharpnel caught in the inlet or just a failure of one of those hudreds of moving parts inside an engine. As I said there is no arguing on aspects like these there is a reason why all USN jets are 2 engined.

I'm talking about free-fall delivery being obsolete. And if stand off missiles are the preferred means of delivering a nuclear payload (as they should be), the utility of the Rafale's 'nuclear capability' fades away.
This is an absurd line of argument because stand off by definition implies that you will never be in enemy's range so why F-35 or even Rafale , I will might as well fire a 500km range ASM from a Tu-95 bomber and head home we are going no where with such arguments. Point is not about fitting a platform to your scenario it is about what capabilities that platform offers and to that end F-35's ability to serve as a platform for our nukes is questionable and hence it falls short there.
I mentioned the number of aircraft served to illustrate the fact that any problem identified during operations isn't just India's problem, its a problem for each of the 15+ operators of the F-35.
No that is not how things work in the real world, BMW runs far better in Germany's autobahns and US freeways it will not run in similar fashion on India's roads.
If you visit are airfields even the IN's main aviation hub in Dabolim has a pretty bumpy airfield. F-35 hangars in the US look like some state of the art facility we will have to invest huge money for the kind of facilities which are taken for granted in the west.

Applies to the Rafale as well.
Yes it does but then these are relative; a panel with a RAM coating built and shaped for F-35 will not cost the same as a panel on the Rafale which is a 4th gen AC. The weapons bay doors and actuators are a very complex sub-system they are supposed to open>eject a weapon at all points in an AC's flight envelope this in itself means as a complete system it too will have a MTBO such things are simply not existent on a 4th gen AC like the Rafale , if a weapon does not separate from the pylon we just bring it back and since the AC is designed to fly with weapons hung from the wings it is not a huge problem but is that the case with Acs like the F-35 when a weapon's bay gets stuck midway ? That huge gaping hole on the underside will simply fck up the entire aerodynamics of the AC.

We don't have to give access to military installations or interrupt regular military operations.And as long as we haven't transferred an aircraft to another country or conducted modifications that weren't agreed upon in the contract, its hardly an overbearing concern. That's if the US wants to inspect it, which it doesn't. Plus in all likelihood, they'd be LM/PW support staff attached to the IAF, at least during the initial years. Yes, you'd have to integrate India specific add-on equipment - data-link, IFF. There will be some cost incurred of course, as it will be even in the case of the Rafale.
CISMOA is not just IFF and Data bus it is much more than that entire DAS is replaced.
As for your bolded part you must be kidding me; these things are not even negotiable at least forces in India don't do any such business.
You are being wishful here. Again this is one of those areas where F-35 falls short.


Oh by the way since now that F-35 prices have come down, LM has done some heavy lifting and people are writing good stuff about it and we are witnessing a support for F-35 against an already shortlisted platform like Rafale, I would like to just highlight one key point from the MMRCA trails which the IAF conducted.
Only the Rafale and EF cleared the high altitude tests in Leh and it goes without saying that T/W ratio of the two AC was a key performance spec responsible for that where does the F-35 stand in that department ? This is one more area where it cannot keep up with the Rafale (btw leh trials were with EFTs).
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:The French sold UAE the Black Shaheen. Why would it be strange for them to sell something similar to India if we coughed up the dough? They need not sell us a nuclear warhead directly, just the systems, software, and support that we would need to field one of our own. Like I said, it would be interesting to find out.
We could certain cough up the dough, question is, would we want to? Why give away the contract to the French instead of having a competition for the IAF's Long Range Standoff Weapon, with the Scalp-EG, KEPD 350 as well as the JASSM? Plus there's always the Nirbhay. Even ground launched, with a 1000 km range, it can strike almost any target that you'd hit with a Scalp EG. And you can equip it with a nuclear warhead, without the hassle.
So now we're talking about whether we would want to exercise the capability or not? Sorry, I have no comments to offer on that topic. The debate was about the nuclear strike capability being available, not about whether the IAF would actually choose to pay for such an option.
Viv S wrote:
It is also before it can be considered serviceable. It can't fly properly, it couldn't take on a Sopwith Camel in combat, and has dozens of serious issues that are far from solved. How much will it cost to sort these problems out and then bring these "cheap" aircraft to the point where they can undertake a realistic sortie?
Weapons tests have already begun - the first AMRAAM launch took place this year. And basic combat capability will be available with the Block 2B, currently under testing. No problem, serious or minor is being overlooked.
Weapons tests have begun ≠ it can fire weapons. As it stands, the F-35 is prohibited from firing weapons. I have no idea when the tests will be completed and weapons certified to fly on regular sorties. We might see more problems crop up here as well.
Viv S wrote:
It cannot fly in bad weather. Cannot fly supersonic. Cannot fire missiles or drop bombs. Cannot fire its guns. Cannot use the advanced HMD. That much touted commonality is a joke. Costs are heavily disputed and some organisations claim that they are higher than 200 million dollars. The proof is there for those who want to see it. Unfortunately, those "firm orders", "projections", and "estimates" that are being spoken and written about so enthusiastically are not solutions.
The F-35A has been flown to Mach 1.61 and touched 9.9G. The F-35B and F-35C have also been tested upto Mach 1.6.
That's your counter-argument? Seriously? That it was once flown at Mach 1.6? How does this in any way change the fact that the airframes produced till date are prohibited from flying at supersonic speed because the radar-absorbing skin peels off?
Viv S wrote:Its fired missiles and dropped bombs.
See previous. It has fired missiles and dropped bombs in a few tests. Goody. It just can't do that regularly because, guess what? More problems.
Viv S wrote:The advanced HMD is being used and the jitter issue is expected to be addressed with the next software iteration.
Thank you for helping me make my point.
"The jitter issue is expected to be addressed"
When?
"The next software iteration"
And pray, when would that be ready?
"Don't ask us, we're still struggling to get the first iteration up and running"
Viv S wrote:The flyway cost for the F-35A has already dropped below $100 million and will fall much further once production ramps up.
The fly-away cost, according to one body, has apparently dropped below $125 million. It may possibly drop below $100 million per airframe (minus the engine, which I assume is an optional extra), but that hasn't yet happened. Others still claim that the real cost has soared past $200 million. All this money for an aircraft that can barely fly and the sum total of whose combat capability is that it could ram an enemy Zeppelin. On a clear, sunny day.
Viv S wrote:
Maybe they will chip away at problems bit by bit. Perhaps, one day, the F-35 will be fielded as a combat-capable system instead of just posing for pretty pictures. But from where I stand, it looks like a complete disaster that will extract a heavy toll in terms of time and cost before it reaches that stage. I don't see why the IAF should hitch its wagon to such a program, when it's taking significant risk with the AMCA and FGFA as it is.
A lot of your information is out of date. I think you need to catch up with the latest developments.
And what developments would those be? Firm orders? Estimates? Expectations that long-standing problems will be addressed in the next iteration?
Last edited by Mihir on 24 Oct 2013 08:15, edited 1 time in total.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

NRao wrote:I would NOT depend on that Vanity Fair article on the F-35. Data is valid, but badly outdated.
Okay, you say that the data presented in that article is outdated. Where is the evidence of the same? Can the F-35 fly in inclement weather? Can it go supersonic? Fire weapons? Use that fancy HMD? Inquiring minds want to know. Let's see some solid data from authentic sources debunk all of those claims instead of the usual hand-waving for once.
NRao wrote:
The proof is there for those who want to see it
Where? And please provide dates along with it too. Thx.
Read the Vanity Fair article please. There are many others to be found in magazines and web articles. Few of them have been countered with real data. What we get in response are more estimates and expectations that this time, things will be different.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

I say do NOT read that Vanity Fair article and you come back and ask me to read it?

I can provide you with more current info, which is why I asked you to provide me with URLs and DATES.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

OK, here is a partial list of tests conducted in 2013:

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/testing
As of April 30, 2013 flight test totals for 2013, are:

F-35A Flight Sciences: 86 flights
F-35B Flight Sciences: 53 flights
F-35C Flight Sciences: 73 flights
Mission Systems test aircraft: 117 flights
Total: 329

Key flight test accomplishments to-date in the program include:
F-35 Mission Systems

Night Instrument Meteorological Conditions
Link-16 Communication for tactical data exchange between the F-35 and supporting forces with Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and multiple support aircraft
Countermeasures Separations
Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) Combat Laser Testing
Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Night Vision Camera testing, including operation during F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing mode night missions

F-35A

Completed clean wing flutter testing reaching speeds of 1.6 Mach and 700 knots with weapon bay doors open and closed
Night flight and night aerial refueling
Completed high angle of attack testing with external stores
Completed intentional departure testing with symmetric external air-to-air stores
Accomplished first high alpha tail slides

Inert weapon releases: GBU-31, AIM-120, GBU-12

F-35B

Flown at maximum speed of 1.6 Mach
Night flight and night vertical landing
Slow landing in short takeoff/vertical landing mode with external stores and 25mm gun pod
First developmental test of ship suitability testing with 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings on the USS Wasp
Inert weapon releases: GBU-32, GBU-12, AIM-120

F-35C

Flown at maximum speed of 1.6 Mach
Night flight
Land-based steam and electromagnetic catapult launches
Land-based fly-in arrestments
Carrier approach and bolter handling qualities
Completed initial pit weapon drop testing ground trials
Let me know if you do not trust this web site.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

negi wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 8720130927
The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine, from $103 million in the sixth lot.
So this would be the tow-away cost, and not the fly-away cost, ja?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Karan M »

Mihir wrote:So this would be the tow-away cost, and not the fly-away cost, ja?
I see what you did there. :wink:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

Can the F-35 fly in inclement weather?
Late at night, will get back to you in the AM. (Found out that it was grounded due to leaks in the fuel tank - have not foudn anything to do with skin. But, will get back.)
Can it go supersonic?
2010 ::
F-35B STOVL Fighter Goes Supersonic

Fire weapons?
Jan 2013 :: F-35 fighter jet conducts first in-flight missile launch near L.A.
An F-35 fighter jet launched a missile in mid-flight from its internal weapons bay for the first time in a test flight for the Air Force.

The missile firing took place last week about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles at the Navy’s Point Mugu Sea Test Range after the plane took off from Edwards Air Force Base. It is a milestone that paves the way for targeted launches later this year.
Use that fancy HMD?
Elbit is working on it (will find the article I posted on the F-35 thread.) should be available in the next software upgrade. However,

Oct, 2013 :: F-35 Fighter Helmets Now Made in Israel


BUT, I am extremely surprised (YOU are Mihir Shah right - of Shiv Arror fame?) that someone like you would not do enough donkey work by yourself.

The F-35 WAS a Turkey. It could still slide back into being one, but I doubt it.

Also, as I posted above, here on out, there is NO financial risk for the clients!!!!! So please stop this nonsense about cost over run. They expect it to cost $85 mil per F-35A (A) adn LM will hit that price point. They have to.

Please let me know if I can be of any more help so you can go and post on a web site.
Last edited by NRao on 24 Oct 2013 08:40, edited 1 time in total.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

NRao wrote:I say do NOT read that Vanity Fair article and you come back and ask me to read it?
And why is that? Because it brings inconvenient facts to the fore?
NRao wrote:Let me know if you do not trust this web site.
Regardless of whether I trust it or not, it doesn't address the problems mentioned in the Vanity Fair article (and several others) in any way. The aircraft can achieve a top speed on Mach 1.6. Good to know. One day, they may even stop the skin from peeling off when it does so. Let me know when the get that problem fixed.

The link just says "Night Instrument Meteorological Conditions". What does that even mean? That the instrumentation for night flying was tested? Was the test successful? Even assuming that the instruments work just fine, can the aircraft as a whole fly in bad weather? The truth is that it can't.

It dropped a few inert bombs. Is it certified to carry and release live ordnance yet? Can it fire it's guns? The answer is no.

Put simply, the data on this site could be 400% accurate and still not counter what Vanity Fair published in September.
Last edited by Mihir on 24 Oct 2013 08:46, edited 2 times in total.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

Please see my replies to Viv S. I have addressed these points already?
NRao wrote:BUT, I am extremely surprised (YOU are Mihir Shah right - of Shiv Arror fame?) that someone like you would not do enough donkey work by yourself.
What fame saar? I wrote a handful of articles on a few defence blogs. I'm surprised that someone still remembers those :oops:


Anyway, my last series of posts on the topic. We're repeating ourselves already, and further discussion would just lead to acrimony without bringing any new info to the fore. Let's just agree to disagree :)
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Philip »

The twin-seat MKI yes,but not the Tejas ,not yet,which still has many years before it becomes a weapon system that the IAF has in its order of battle.

The JSF is being built in so many 3-tier variables for allies,depending upon bum-chum status,that negotiating a version acceptable to the IAF and "exportable" by the US is going to be a very demanding task,infinitely more than finalising the Rafale.In any case having gone down some considerable way in the FGFA road,there is no going back for us there.The Q is at what speed of acquisition and affordable numbers.But till 2020 or thereabouts,with the retirement of hundreds of legacy aircraft,there is no alternative /Plan B according to the IAF.Costs of aircraft in service Super Sukhois too,are all going up.Somewhere the bullet has to be bitten.The IAF have to undertake a crisis plan in case the Rafale deal becomes unworkable-the local manufacture/TOT part and have options ready.
Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Sancho »

Viv S wrote: The Su-30MKI complements every fighter aircraft out there, not just the Rafale. One of the advantages of being a gargantuan mini-AWACS. You could combine the MKI's long range radar with the Tejas (which has a low RCS of its own) and achieve a near comparable result.
Not really, since the long range radar is only one part, the passiv sensor and attack capabilities of Rafale the other! Tejas can be guided by MKI or Rafale (AESA has similar range like BARS), but don't have own passiv sensor or attack capabilities. So you can use the Tejas like the Mig 21s today, guided by external sensor infos, but to attack, it has to turn active again.

Viv S wrote:With regard to passive detection, IRSTs have a very limited range (particularly in the frontal hemisphere) and need LRFs for tracking (which makes the idea of 'passive' detection redundant). ESM has its utility but is limited by the fact that its useful only against an emitting adversary and is blind to any and all silent aircraft in the skies.
The usual points stated on forums, but when you look at it from an Indian scenario, where most PAF fighters for example don't have laser warners (which can detect in very close ranges only anyway), or that they are dependent on their active radar for the most part (by the lack of passiv sensors), you will see that having such passiv sensors is a huge advantage.

Btw, why these useless discussions about F35 wrt MMRCA, when it didn't suited even the basic needs of the competition?
It is not available under a licence production deal, no ToT, the flight performance is below IAF requirements and is not available according to the MMRCA timelines.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Mihir wrote:So now we're talking about whether we would want to exercise the capability or not? Sorry, I have no comments to offer on that topic. The debate was about the nuclear strike capability being available, not about whether the IAF would actually choose to pay for such an option.
Well lets break it down. We've already established that free-fall is an obsolete means of delivering a nuclear payload. Therefore, if a target has to be hit, a missile will be employed.

The sum of an aircraft's 'nuclear capability' is therefore the ability of carry that missile and launch it. How many aircraft in the IAF's fleet can do that? 270 Su-30MKIs and 49 Mirage 2000s for starters. And any and every aircraft that has a hard-point that can take the weight of a cruise missile (incl the PAKFA and F-35).

The preferred means will still remain the ground launched Nirbhay missile, with at least twice the range of the typical air-launched cruise missile. And being an entirely Indian missile, it can be customized for a nuclear payload without requiring any outside assistance.

So the Rafale's ability to carry a cruise missile is well and good, but hardly noteworthy.

Weapons tests have begun ≠ it can fire weapons. As it stands, the F-35 is prohibited from firing weapons. I have no idea when the tests will be completed and weapons certified to fly on regular sorties. We might see more problems crop up here as well.
It has fired weapons = it can fire weapons. They'll be cleared for operational use with the Block 3B in 2015.

That's your counter-argument? Seriously? That it was once flown at Mach 1.6? How does this in any way change the fact that the airframes produced till date are prohibited from flying at supersonic speed because the radar-absorbing skin peels off?
^^^ gives the impression that the aircraft's entire skin is liable to peel off on going supersonic, rather than the occurrence of bubbling on the skin near the exhaust.

See previous. It has fired missiles and dropped bombs in a few tests. Goody. It just can't do that regularly because, guess what? More problems.

Thank you for helping me make my point.
"The jitter issue is expected to be addressed"
When?
"The next software iteration"
And pray, when would that be ready?
"Don't ask us, we're still struggling to get the first iteration up and running"
You do realise that the F-35 isn't expected to go into combat tomorrow and has a few years to work out these problems. Unless your case is that the problem are unsolvable or prohibitively expensive to address, it is a less than damning indictment.

The fly-away cost, according to one body, has apparently dropped below $125 million. It may possibly drop below $100 million per airframe (minus the engine, which I assume is an optional extra), but that hasn't yet happened. Others still claim that the real cost has soared past $200 million. All this money for an aircraft that can barely fly and the sum total of whose combat capability is that it could ram an enemy Zeppelin. On a clear, sunny day.
Its dropped below $100 mil as per the LRIP contracts awarded to LM for the upcoming batch of F-35s. And despite the element of repetition, stating that an under-development aircraft is not combat-capable is hardly going to raise eyebrows.

And what developments would those be? Firm orders? Estimates? Expectations that long-standing problems will be addressed in the next iteration?
Firing of missiles, dropping of bombs, going supersonic, falling unit costs...
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

Viv S wrote: Well lets break it down. We've already established that free-fall is an obsolete means of delivering a nuclear payload. Therefore, if a target has to be hit, a missile will be employed.
Hello ? Who is we ? Just go back to kargil we were using WWII vintage bombs rigged with M2K , ever wondered why ? Scenario building on forums and arm chair planning for top of the line equipment is fine and dandy but our procurement planning and methodology is not . Armed forces know that we cannot rule out some of the very basic and elementary requirements just because they are deemed obsolete to suit a pov. Classic example is usefulness of a canon on a fighter AC. Why does F-22 a uber top of the line 5th generation AC have a canon nested in it's wing shoulder ? What were the lessons learnt from the F-4 phantom ?

So the Rafale's ability to carry a cruise missile is well and good, but hardly noteworthy.
Hain ? The only reason I can guess for such a statement is err umm because F-35 cannot carry a Nirbhay/Scalp class CM ? And if it does it will loose the only advantage it has over the Rafale i.e. stealth.

It has fired weapons = it can fire weapons. They'll be cleared for operational use with the Block 3B in 2015.
You want MMRCA to be delayed until what 2020 ? Because if it is cleared for weapons by 2015-16 it takes time for us to issue RFP , conduct trials, negotiate, ink the deal and then be able to make jasmine garlands to welcome new planes.
You do realise that the F-35 isn't expected to go into combat tomorrow and has a few years to work out these problems. Unless your case is that the problem are unsolvable or prohibitively expensive to address, it is a less than damning indictment.
So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by member_20292 »

negi wrote: So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.
To be fair to the IAF, the should not have to care about the scope of work of all other development agencies in the world. Their scope is specifically limited to fighting wars to the best of their ability. Thats it.


Having said that, why this argument is about going to Walmart, looking for a can of soda, then not buying one. In the meantime, one is wishing for this futuristic can of soda that has just been tested in Atlanta, Georgia, which will be coming soon to a store near you.

In the shallowest of terms, the IAF is an end user. Its beyond their scope to project. They want their planes yesterday. That's it.

And as a citizen of India, who are dependent on the IAF to possess their cans of soda in time, such that they can do their job of protecting me....it worries me no end, that they or their colleagues in the government are (may I use this term , mods?) w*nking away and not hurrying matters to completion.

Let's be very clear here. My taxes pay the IAF and MoD's salary. If I were to hypothetically influence this situation a little bit, more, I would say, enough is enough. Out with the Rafa, however good it is. Lets get the next best. And if that doesn't work, then next best.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

negi wrote:That is why I am not the one who is emphasizing on the fly away cost price unless we have bought the two or have been made an offer. The cost of 126 Rafales to us is being pegged at ~11 billion USD and this includes offsets so a significant amount of that figure will be against helping HAL setup facilities here.
126 Rafales for $11 billion is $87 million per aircraft, all inclusive.


This is the Rafale's cost to the French state -



'Unit cost of Production' - €101.1 million. ($145 million in 2010 dollars)



Court of Auditors - Annual Public Report 2010.


This is distinct from the program cost which is €142 million ($203 million) per unit.



NOTE 1: This cost may include VAT. Disregarding VAT (which will not be passed to export customers) we get a unit cost of $121 million (still 50% higher than the supposed cost to India).

NOTE 2: The above is the cost in 2010. Cost for an aircraft delivered in 2017 will not be the same, to the say the least. Just for reference between 2005 and 2010, the Rafale's unit cost rose by over 100%.

NOTE 3: The expected build order for the Rafale was consistently pegged at 286 units throughout. Now in 2013, that number has apparently been reduced by about 60 aircraft to a figure of 225. At the same time export prospects have more or less dried up. The result; higher program cost, higher production cost and higher support cost (particularly with regard to upgrades).




BOTTOM-LINE: Any figure under $15 billion for the MMRCA contract needs to be discarded altogether. Whether it'll cross $20 billion remains to be seen. And this is not including the follow-on order for 89 aircraft.
Last edited by Viv S on 25 Oct 2013 01:22, edited 1 time in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Manish_Sharma »

negi wrote: Is this even an argument ? Firstly who said that fighter AC will only deliver nuclear munitions via free fall bombs , stand off missiles are a real possibility and exist. What is the point in then buying a stealth aircraft ? I mean why am I even arguing over this we have a well established policy of maintaining a nuclear TRIAD and fighter aircrafts are still part of that equation.
Exactly:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 99141.aspx
Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters
PTI New Delhi, September 12, 2010

The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.

The aircraft planned to be procured are part of efforts to strengthen the nuclear delivery system which right now is based on land-based ballistic missiles such as the Agni and Prithvi and nuclear-capable fighters such as the Mirage 2000, Su-30 MKI and Jaguars.

Created in January 2003, the SFC is part of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and is responsible for the management and administration of the country's tactical and strategic nuclear weapons stockpile.

Attempts are underway to complete the nuclear triad by developing the indigenous Arihant class nuclear submarine and under-sea launched versions of the existing ballistic missile systems.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by negi »

We will do that in 2016/17 when F-35 is READY only then we can talk about it's unit price; as I said why are you comparing them when one is not even there , yet ?

One compares costs of two commodities when they are available . Where is F-35 available for induction in the IAF ? If an aircraft undergoing weapons integration is what would have made the cut then IAF would might as well considered Tejas instead of a platform like Gripen ? You could argue that F-35 is in may be much more advanced stages of development than the Tejas but at the end of the day you cannot deny the FACT that it is far from complete and ready and that is where this debate between F-35 and Rafale needs to end because MMRCA requirement was not for a new type of an AC requirement it originated as what was supposed to be a follow on order for M2k which did not materialize and our dilly dallying for all these years made it look like a completely new acquisition of a unique kind . The ones shortlisted were all READY and OPERATIONAL (you could argue about the Mig 35 but then it is more of a Mig 29 evolution and it did not make the cut).

This pitching of F-35 for India's MMRCA never happened for all these years because that program was in rough waters , suddenly GOTUS pulls strings gets the munnas in control and orders start flowing and we are discussing it as a option to Rafale ? This is absurd.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

negi wrote:Hello ? Who is we ? Just go back to kargil we were using WWII vintage bombs rigged with M2K , ever wondered why ? Scenario building on forums and arm chair planning for top of the line equipment is fine and dandy but our procurement planning and methodology is not . Armed forces know that we cannot rule out some of the very basic and elementary requirements just because they are deemed obsolete to suit a pov. Classic example is usefulness of a canon on a fighter AC. Why does F-22 a uber top of the line 5th generation AC have a canon nested in it's wing shoulder ? What were the lessons learnt from the F-4 phantom ?
Fine. Lets say free-fall delivery is very critical and an absolute must. Proceeding under those conditions; any aircraft can drop a dumb bomb (which is what gravity bomb is).

Hain ? The only reason I can guess for such a statement is err umm because F-35 cannot carry a Nirbhay/Scalp class CM ? And if it does it will loose the only advantage it has over the Rafale i.e. stealth.
The RAF/RN's F-35s will be equipped with the Storm Shadow/Scalp EG. And yes, an air-launched Nirbhay can be adapted for it as well. And since its presumably being launched at standoff ranges, stealth is not a concern. Nothing unique about the Rafale's 'nuclear capability'.

You want MMRCA to be delayed until what 2020 ? Because if it is cleared for weapons by 2015-16 it takes time for us to issue RFP , conduct trials, negotiate, ink the deal and then be able to make jasmine garlands to welcome new planes.
Whichever aircraft is inducted will be operational well past 2050. The choice of entire platform shouldn't hinge on wanting to avoid a period of negotiation.

So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.
Its no more non-existent than the HAL Tejas. Less so than the Tejas Mk2. In the next two years it'll surpass the Rafale in terms of total units produced. We're the only export customer for the Rafale and they're cutting their (already minimal) orders to pass on the burden to us.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Sancho wrote:Btw, why these useless discussions about F35 wrt MMRCA, when it didn't suited even the basic needs of the competition?
It is not available under a licence production deal, no ToT, the flight performance is below IAF requirements and is not available according to the MMRCA timelines.
negi wrote:We will do that in 2016/17 when F-35 is READY only then we can talk about it's unit price; as I said why are you comparing them when one is not even there , yet ?

This pitching of F-35 for India's MMRCA never happened for all these years because that program was in rough waters , suddenly GOTUS pulls strings gets the munnas in control and orders start flowing and we are discussing it as a option to Rafale ? This is absurd.
I wouldn't have expressed dissent at this stage, had we awarded the contract to Saab. By most measures, Gripen is good value for money.


The Rafale on the other hand, is painfully expensive and, as is becoming increasingly clear, its prices will only rise given the French state's flagging commitment and the aircraft's fading export prospects. Also the capability it brings to the table is good but not particularly impressive.

And I'm bringing up the F-35, because it can realistically perform, what the Rafale can only claim i.e. the ability to carry out unescorted strikes in hostile/heavily disputed airspace. It will comfortably exceed even the PAKFA in that role. This wouldn't have been relevant if not for the FACT that it costs less than the Rafale, even though its in the LRIP stage and irrespective of whether it achieves the $85 million unit cost target.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Mihir »

I have an idea. We should scrap the MMRCA and FGFA programmes and acquire the AMCA in large numbers. It costs a only few hundred rupees right now, and this is even before a single prototype is ready for trials. For that price, you get a full set of drawings, but it comes without an airframe and engine, and the avionics are still under development. But remember, the FACT is that we could buy hundreds for the price of a single second-hand MiG-21, even though the AMCA is in the conceptual design stage. When it goes into mass production, the price will obviously drop even further.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by Viv S »

Mihir wrote:I have an idea. We should scrap the MMRCA and FGFA programmes and acquire the LCA Mk.II and AMCA in large numbers. The LCA Mk.II costs a few hundred rupees right now, and this is before a single prototype is ready for trials. For the price, you get a full set of drawings, but it comes without an airframe and engine, and the avionics are still under development. But remember, the FACT is that we could buy hundreds for the price of a single second hand MiG-21, even though said aircraft are in the conceptual design/design development stage. When they go into mass production, the price will obviously drop even further.
Amusing. The difference being the LRIP F-35s are production units and in terms of hardware are near identical to units delivered post-FOC. And even assuming the most pessimist estimates for retrofitting them and upgrading the software, its still far cheaper than the Rafale.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Post by NRao »

The difference being the LRIP F-35s are production units and in terms of hardware are near identical to units delivered post-FOC. And even assuming the most pessimist estimates for retrofitting them and upgrading the software, its still far cheaper than the Rafale.
All things equal, the Rafale will turn out to be a lot more expensive in the longer run. It has to.

Also, technically, the rafale does not exist - as far as the MMRCA is concerned. There is a French rafale, but the one for the MMRCA is still a paper plane. IIRC it will need integration with Indian and Russian stuff and perhaps with some Israeli things too. And, as with anything they need to be tested (IOC/FOC) and like some are arguing, things can go wrong. It is further down the development stream, but, there is no MMRCA based rafale (as far as I know).

The MKI took some 5 years to redesign, test, etc.

The F-15 that Singapore bought and got in 2010 took 3 years to achieve FOC.

The rafale presents a lesser risk for the immediate future. But it also presents a far higher risk for the distant future. Of course in-my-humble-opinion.
The Rafale on the other hand, is painfully expensive and, as is becoming increasingly clear, its prices will only rise given the French state's flagging commitment and the aircraft's fading export prospects. Also the capability it brings to the table is good but not particularly impressive.
And, they are ever eager to sell advanced techs to the Chinese too. What a cost multiplier that would be.

India would also be a captive client - and given the M2K, imagine a rafale MLU.
Post Reply