IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 13 Jan 2016 10:34

ramana wrote:Shiv and Philip other things are linked.
France is reluctant. Will eventually come around.

Tech transfer?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Jan 2016 03:40

Google translation of Reuters article in French. Possible that the contract may include an option for 18 more Rafales for a total of 54 Rafales..approximately similar size as the Mirages that were purchased as part of the original contracts signed in the 1980s.

link to article in French

PARIS, Jan. 13 (Reuters) - India negotiates the addition of an option to its firm order for 36 Rafale combat aircraft expected to be finalized during the visit of Francois Hollande in late January, a-t- it was learned source close to the matter.

"The contract should be signed at the end of January and there's an option," the source said.

The contract for 36 aircraft manufactured in France, valued at $ 9.1 billion, is "politically ready" to be signed during the visit to India of Francois Hollande scheduled January 25 to 27, stated Indian government sources.

The agreement provides for 30% of "offsets" (part of the contract value produced in India, common request in arms contracts), had said one of these sources.

A spokesman for Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale, declined to comment.

The talks had stalled last summer on the unit price of the planes and the willingness of India to obtain these "offsets" had been learned in the Indian sector of defense, before the situation is released early September allowing the negotiations to entering the home straight.

Ajit Doval, counsel the Indian national security and personal representative for the strategic dialogue Narendra Modi, was received on Wednesday afternoon at the Elysee.

Asked to confirm information from Bloomberg that the option could involve additional 18 Rafale, the source close to the dossier said: "No negotiations are still ongoing.".

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 14 Jan 2016 04:23

I am so sick of Rafale this, Rafale that. This is one colossal ****** that India did not need to get into. All IAF wanted was more Mirages 2000s but no the saintly but short end of straw Anthony had to go for Rafales and demand honest and most strict bidding, accounting, and negotiating. If we had sign the deal back in 2010, the price would have been vastly lower and would have gotten 126 at a price we could all live with. Or buy that Mirage 2000 line and get 200 more of those and the IAF fleet strength would not be an issue. MoD has no freaking clue how to run a military.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Jan 2016 05:09

RoyG wrote:
ramana wrote:Shiv and Philip other things are linked.
France is reluctant. Will eventually come around.
Tech transfer?

Nuke sub Tech & colorful codes for verifying few Jugaads capable of doing Narsanghar on scale of Sansar .

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 14 Jan 2016 06:27

Govt said to expand-Rafale warplane deal before Francois Hollande's visit.

India is expanding a long-delayed deal to purchase 36 Dassault Aviation SA Rafale fighter jets from France ahead of a visit by president Francois Hollande later this month.

The two sides agreed on an option for India to buy an additional 18 warplanes on the same terms at a future date, a senior Indian defence official said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public yet. The nations have also resolved what equipment, systems and weapons would go into the jet, the official said.

The biggest stumbling block remaining is the price that would apply to all 54 jets. That’s very unlikely to be resolved by the time Hollande attends India’s Republic Day festivities in New Delhi on 26 January, the official said.

India defence ministry spokesman Nitin Wakankar didn’t immediately respond to messages sent to his mobile phone.

India first sought bids in 2007 for what was then the world’s biggest fighter jet deal. Five years later, it picked Dassault to build 126 warplanes at an estimated cost of about $11 billion. The deal languished for years until last April, when Modi asked for a scaled-down order of 36 planes during a trip to France.

The cost of the 36 jets is expected to exceed Rs.60,000 crore, the Economic Times reported on Wednesday, citing unidentified “authoritative sources.” The final price would depend on the package to service the jets, it said.

Modi is expected to receive Hollande when he arrives on 24 January in Chandigarh, India’s first planned city designed by French architect Le Corbusier. The two leaders will then head to the capital to sign bilateral agreements the next day, according to local media reports.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 14 Jan 2016 06:49

60,000 crores for 36 planes? I can only shake my head and hope that GoI knows what they are doing.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 14 Jan 2016 08:01

$250 million per plane???!!!! That is F-22 prices and Rafale doesn't even come close to F-22!

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 14 Jan 2016 08:05

^^^^

french must be laughing at us

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 14 Jan 2016 08:14

It will consume huge amount of resources for a long time at other cost.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jan 2016 09:06

the mr hollow land is told, stop joking with us on the price on clear terms. we can agree on a jump of 15% for quality of the build and spares, lower maintenance but Rafale is not like said above a Raptor.

we should get it at 80M max a pop.. put that money into developing our own AMCA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Jan 2016 09:41

^^^

Will be the other way round ... French will use this cash windfall from the Rafale deal to fund its Neuron UCAV program ... which India will want to acquire in say 20-years time

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 10:18

Those numbers are Life Cycle Cost number and not unit cost which might well be around $80 million or so.

Moreever ET reports it wants Rafale to have 90 % uptime which means IAF will have to pay for advanced spare and support and maintain a warehouse for these near its bases to provide high uptime , all these will add up to the over all cost.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Jan 2016 11:33

Are they paying this life cycle cost upfront? That would be a huge mistake. Where does it say that this is lifecycle costs? Can you share more details of where you found this?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jan 2016 12:07

Austin wrote:Those numbers are Life Cycle Cost number and not unit cost which might well be around $80 million or so.

Moreever ET reports it wants Rafale to have 90 % uptime which means IAF will have to pay for advanced spare and support and maintain a warehouse for these near its bases to provide high uptime , all these will add up to the over all cost.

That's not the life-cycle cost. The price the MoD negotiates is never the life-cycle cost (which is only used to determine the L1 entry).

The only figure negotiated with the OEM, is for the goods and services provided by the OEM. It does not, for example, include fuel (that's paid out of the IAF's revenue budget).

Also, the value of offsets being pledged with the deal is pegged at upto $4.5 billion. Offsets obviously would not apply to the aircraft's operating expenses, only its purchase cost.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 14 Jan 2016 12:50

What a terrible waste of money.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 12:51

Viv S wrote:That's not the life-cycle cost. The price the MoD negotiates is never the life-cycle cost (which is only used to determine the L1 entry).

The only figure negotiated with the OEM, is for the goods and services provided by the OEM. It does not, for example, include fuel (that's paid out of the IAF's revenue budget).

Also, the value of offsets being pledged with the deal is pegged at upto $4.5 billion. Offsets obviously would not apply to the aircraft's operating expenses, only its purchase cost.

MMRCA was always about life cycle cost for about 6000 hours of life of aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 12:56

Cybaru wrote:Are they paying this life cycle cost upfront? That would be a huge mistake. Where does it say that this is lifecycle costs? Can you share more details of where you found this?

No body pays upfront , the payment is always staggered agreed by both parties.

LifeCycle link I posted in BRF , cant find now but check the latest news in ET about IAF wanting 90 % uptime from Rafale.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Jan 2016 13:34

I think IAF - GOI are 'in a real tight mess:

The IAF desperately needs some silver bullet type birds to counter Cheen menace - and I have a sickening feeling that the Russian types, be they MKI or Pakfa, are not working out for the foll reasons:

1) There is huge trust deficit between Russia and India reg. Pakfa so the deal is unlikely to happen anytime soon
2) The MKI serviceability rates and assorted ammo is not reliable nor good enough for what the PLAAF is fielding or likely to field in numbers in the near future (Su-35 variants).....

Hence the Rafale...I doubt any other Euro jet of similar capability to Rafale is going to come any cheaper. The Shornet might but it is simply not good enough for the threat faced nor is it going to be much cheaper, nor is the establishment too willing to put such a huge investment with what is still considered an unreliable relationship in defence matters.

IOWs, GOI is going to grin and bear it. Pay the ungodly price for a few silver bullets (Rafale, performance wise - A2A and A2G is probably the best out there after the 5G birds that can compete against Chinese Su-35 flanker variants, and possibly 5G Chinese birds with doubtful capability).

In the meanwhile, one hopes that sense prevails and Parrikar loads up on Tejas to meet the numbers.

Prediction IMVHO (and this is not out of GOI/IAF choice - circumstances will push them):
MKI - great when available - high capability, large numbers but unreliable = 272
Rafale - excellent and available - v. high capability and reliable but low numbers = 36 + 18 - piecemeal
Tejas - Good enough and available - competent, reliable and high numbers = 200 plus

India is going to have to feed the proper resources and come up with their own 5-6Gen bird for the near future.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jan 2016 14:01

You calculate LCC and find out what will be the most affordable, or what is the better value using LCC calculations. No one however pays LCC at the time of signing a contract since its based on internal and OEM aided models on utilization rates etc. If you want to enter into a PBL then its a seperate thing but even then, you work out annual utilization and sign up for spares. That however does not cover a lot of the LCC cost such as that of manpower, or fuel_and weapons. There isn't a major weapons system acquisition project in the west now-days that doesn't use LCC as a means to find out best value. Its become a fairly standard practice. The IAF was absolutely right to look at LCC data for each bid since you cannot ignore your largest cost-component for a weapons system at the time of buying.

I however haven't read that the IAF was/is interested in signing a PBL for the Rafale or the MMRCA. I always thought it would have been a JV like deal between the OEM or HAL to help create local O&S capability and regular spare part supply through multi--year contracts as is the case for most programs.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Jan 2016 14:06

It might not be such a surprise if GOI actually announces a bigger than expected deal with France imho....lack of $$s spent in Russia might translate to more for Rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2016 16:37

$200M per Raffy? Ye Gods!
For that price you can get:
6 MIG-29Ks (216 aircraft) or 8 LCAs (288 aircraft),or 3 MKIs (108 aircraft).
What a total F'UP in capital letters. At these prices,Bofors was a free gift.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 17:22

Why India's Deal For 36 Rafale Fighter Jets Is Still Being Negotiated
Vishnu Som

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-indi ... eststories

New Delhi: With just days to go before French President Francois Hollande arrives in India, a crucial deal for Delhi to buy 36 French-built Rafale warplanes has not yet been decided.

Speaking to Reuters today, the French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that the deal remains evasive, underscoring the considerable differences between negotiators for both sides, nearly nine months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Paris and announced the plans to buy the fighter jets directly from the French government following the collapse of a larger commercial deal with Dassault Aviation.

NDTV has learned that the all-in price is likely to be in the range of 65,000 crores or nearly $10 billion, which includes the cost of 36 fighter jets in fly-away condition, weapon systems, and a support maintenance package. India still needs to decide whether it will immediately fund a large order of all spare parts that the aircraft will need for a period of either five or ten years. Both sides are also in talks on the financial penalties the French manufacturer of the jet would incur for unsatisfactory performance - that is, if the Rafale is not available at least 90 per cent of the time that it is required to fly a sortie. This is a key concern for the Indian Air Force since its frontline Russian-designed Sukhoi 30 MKI jet has an abysmal availability rate of under 60 per cent, which means the air force doesn't have enough Sukhois operational when it needs them. India has also still not finalized the total number and exact type of weapon systems that would come with the Rafale - a key component of the overall cost of the package.

President Hollande arrives will be in India from January 25 to 27 (he lands in Chandigarh and will be the Chief Guest at the Republic Day parade).

New rules in India state that defence deals over 300 crores must be accompanied by investing 30 per cent of the value of the contract in manufacturing in India. France has reportedly agreed in principle to that stipulation "in the future", a move that has helped both sides side-step this potentially contentious requirement for the moment.

Indian military officials have warned their air force risks a major capability gap with China and Pakistan without new western warplanes, or if local defence contractors cannot produce what the military needs in a timely manner. In October, the government turned down the military's request to expand the acquisition of 36 Dassault-built fighter planes to plug vital gaps, nudging it to accept an indigenous combat plane.

It could take more than a year for India to actually start acquiring the Rafale jets once the contract is signed since manufacturer Dassault is already constructing the state-of-the-art fighter for the French Air Force and Egypt and Qatar which have recently signed contracts to acquire the planes. However, France has reportedly offered to help India, a strategic partner, acquire the jets as early as possible though it is unclear whether that would mean the French Air Force deferring acquisition of its own Rafale fighters or, alternately, loaning India a handful of fighters it already has in service till Dassault is ready to deliver the Rafales ordered by Delhi.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jan 2016 17:26

Austin wrote:MMRCA was always about life cycle cost for about 6000 hours of life of aircraft.

The selection of the MMRCA was based on life-cycle cost. The figure negotiated with the OEM for procurement & after-sales support is a different figure.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 17:33

Viv, Check Vishnus article , he clarifies what it is.

If IAF wants 90 % availability then it has to pay for spares etc which will cost a lot for 5-10 years.

I suspect though IAF small fleet of 36 fighter would be hardwired for Nuclear Role considering the money and availability rates they are looking for such small number

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2016 17:35

Both sides are also in talks on the financial penalties the French manufacturer of the jet would incur for unsatisfactory performance - that is, if the Rafale is not available at least 90 per cent of the time that it is required to fly a sortie.

This is a very tricky point.How can one guarantee that the maintenance regimen of the IAF will be such that a "90%" availability is guaranteed? Most of the reasons why aircraft availability has been low has been the dreaded procurement course that babudom has put in place.IT (Sandeep Unnithan) had an issue a few months ago where it showed that there were 10 hurdles that required clearance to getting anything eventually passed.Therefore,when it came to spares,only when the final Ok was signed on would the OEM start manufacturing spares.That problem is now being resolved,MKIs ,etc., by setting up local Indian entities to support/manufacture spares at home.Tatas supposedly for Sukhois.

Therefore ,unless a huge qty of spares are available,snd one never knows what component will require replacing in an emergency,a fig of 90% will be impossible for the IAF. It would be most interesting to see the best availability figs for any western air force for its frontline fighters in comparison and get a realistic fig. for the the Rafale.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 17:39

Philip wrote:Therefore ,unless a huge qty of spares are available,snd one never knows what component will require replacing in an emergency,a fig of 90% will be impossible for the IAF. It would be most interesting to see the best availability figs for any western air force for its frontline fighters in comparison and get a realistic fig. for the the Rafale.

Philip , Aircraft uptime is a function of spares and support thats what they are trying to mitigate keeping huge quantity of spares which means getting a warehouse of spares which will be used for 5-10 years certified by Dassult to be used for that period , Also that means spending huge amount to not just procure these spares but also maintain them over longer period with its own upkeeping.

Any ways it should be good for IAF and Strategic Command

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jan 2016 17:44

Austin wrote:Viv, Check Vishnus article , he clarifies what it is.

If IAF wants 90 % availability then it has to pay for spares etc which will cost a lot for 5-10 years.

I suspect though IAF small fleet of 36 fighter would be hardwired for Nuclear Role considering the money and availability rates they are looking for such small number

To quote Vishnu -

NDTV has learned that the all-in price is likely to be in the range of 65,000 crores or nearly $10 billion, which includes the cost of 36 fighter jets in fly-away condition, weapon systems, and a support maintenance package.

Pretty standard with the addition of some type of Performance Based Logistics contract. But that's not equivalent to the 'life-cycle cost'.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 17:52

Viv S wrote: To quote Vishnu -

NDTV has learned that the all-in price is likely to be in the range of 65,000 crores or nearly $10 billion, which includes the cost of 36 fighter jets in fly-away condition, weapon systems, and a support maintenance package.

Pretty standard with the addition of some type of Performance Based Logistics contract. But that's not equivalent to the 'life-cycle cost'.

Dont forget to add the 5-10 years spares support , I am 100 % its life cycle support as I have confirmed with few other people in the know , If you are on keypubs you can ask vishnu he posts there

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jan 2016 17:57

Austin wrote:Dont forget to add the 5-10 years spares support , I am 100 % its life cycle support as I have confirmed with few other people in the know , If you are on keypubs you can ask vishnu he posts there

Austin, even with 5-10 years spares support, it doesn't equate to 'life-cycle' cost. It cannot. Not unless Dassault also starts supplying aviation fuel to the IAF and Dassault employees take up residence on IAF bases to carry out the maintenance.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jan 2016 18:02

Viv S wrote:Austin, even with 5-10 years spares support, it doesn't equate to 'life-cycle' cost. It cannot. Not unless Dassault also starts supplying aviation fuel to the IAF and Dassault employees take up residence on IAF bases to carry out the maintenance.

The procurement of rafale includes Life Cycle Cost thats what I am told , you can check with Vishnu at keyupubs

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Jan 2016 21:58

^^^

I think you two have different understanding of of what LCC means. Viv S is saying LCC to be inclusive of operating costs as well like fuel whereas Austin's definition is more limited as in supplies of spares.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jan 2016 22:23

srai wrote:^^^

I think you two have different understanding of of what LCC means. Viv S is saying LCC to be inclusive of operating costs as well like fuel whereas Austin's definition is more limited as in supplies of spares.

Life Cycle cost is essentially that i.e. all the cost of an aircraft over its life-cycle. You don't pay it in one go, nor do you pay it to the seller since it involves hardware specific manpower, fuel etc. What the NDTV article is reffering to is a PBL like arrangement where the IAF wants Dassault to commit to one i.e. provide all the spares required to maintain a contract-defined availability rate at a fixed per annum cost irrespective of spare utilization. Essentially, if the reliability is low for whatever reason Dassault makes a loss. If reliability is high, they make a handsome profit. Competitive PBL's are based on developing accurate baselines for utilization based on fleet-operational data. I am not aware of dassault offering a PBL to any other customer but it would defintly make sense as most OEM's now days are willing to do that. They do have a fairly small global fleet to base their calculations on and that could be one potential source of hard-bargaining since Dassault would most likely like to build in a comfort margin or cushion to cover for higher than predicted spare utilization given the different operational conditions in India. What this is not paying LCC value. LCC calculations are done so that all data are included for operating an aircraft over its life-time. The reason why all data are required and why manpower cost is important in these calculations is because one system may offer 10% better performance, but may require a huge investment in training manpower to handle its technology etc. Additionally one program may consume significantly less manpower on account of it being more modern and technologically advance even though its acquisition cost may be more up-front. The B-2 is an example of that where large amount of work-force had to be trained in new processes to make sure it was supported properly. You obviously don't ever pay that to an OEM or pay it all at once EVER. Its an analytical process/tool where you sit and see which aircraft is going to be affordable given the 3 to four decade life cycle of these products.

Philip wrote:This is a very tricky point.How can one guarantee that the maintenance regimen of the IAF will be such that a "90%" availability is guaranteed?

Its standard practice in the commercial side of aerospace, and has been standard in many components of defense sector as well. Its based on confidence of the OEM in reliability of its most expensive components. Once you have that confidence you can guage what the supply side would be for a given utilization rate. Once that is done you work in a risk margin and offer a guarantee. The reason why operators like this is because OEM's can maintain logistics for global fleets, thereby signing bulk contracts with component suppliers and negotiating discounts. Additionally, private sector generally does a far better job of absorbing commercial best logistics practices faster into its system and lowering cost. Another advantage is that you negotiate a contact once in 5 or 10 years and its generally a fixed amount so negotiations are non-recurring. If an operator wants to do the logistics itself it generally has to take a significantly long path through an acquisition process to order timely supply of spares and other services and this is where the best services fall behind since the bean counters sometime cherish making decisions that may appear to have short term benefits but are harmful to fleet health in the long term.

PBL's are fueled by big-data analytics and this is where the OEM's that exist in both the commercial-side and defense-side of the business bring tremendous capability and experience in handling, analyzing data and developing business solutions using it. We have all read how GE collects an insanely high amount of data from its engines around the world. This data drives component reliability that ultimately gives them the ability to offer such things in mature products. High - confidence in the system and strong data ability allows you to do this much earlier. Where PBL's get expensive and a potential loosing proposition is if your global fleet data lacks certain elements that can help you gauge performance parameters in some cases, or if your big data capabilities are not up to the mark. IN this case a PBL contract won't look as attractive to a potential operator sine the OEM would likely have built significant risk margin into its offer.

The IAF has commercial PBL's signed with OEM's in their last few purchases such as the C-17 GSP, and the C-130 support program. I believe a similar arrangement was also being considered for the AH-64E's and CH-47's.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... nders-c-17

ALIS - That tricky and development nightmare in the F-35 you have loved to bring up over the years is essentially an enabler of end to end PBL on steroids and as a product and system would define the fleet health management systems that follow in the defense industry over the next few decades...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2016 00:10

Austin, How does a French aircraft work with Indian delivery of nukes?
Its not just tossing some dumb thing.

It has to have all sorts of electronic signals passing which means knowing the inner working of the package.

Lets be realistic.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jan 2016 00:34

^ Correct and you would have to conduct an entire test and evaluation program to clear the envelope with a new weapon. How is Dassault going to do that?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Jan 2016 01:14

The Rafale has never been integrated with a free-fall nuclear weapon. The last French nuclear bomb in service was the AN-52 which was retired back in 1992. The French tactical nuclear capability is vested solely in the ASMP-A, which is not available for export. So functionally, the IAF's Rafales will not be nuclear capable.

Of course, it is possible that India will transfer plans for the software architecture and arming codes for its tactical weapons over to France, which in turn will run a clandestine program to modify the Rafales earmarked for the IAF, but I think we can all agree that that's quite unlikely, to say the least.

We could arm them with nuclear weapons that are devoid of complex safeties, to be 'armed' while on the ground and thereafter entrusted to the pilot with the aircraft 'recognizing' it as a conventional free-fall bomb (assuming the interfaces & drag-form are similar). But then again, we can carry out that exercise with any aircraft with minimal effort.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2016 02:38

With Inspector Clouseau types in charge!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Jan 2016 03:46

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/Xak3Zj ... s-Hol.html

The nations have also resolved what equipment, systems and weapons would go into the jet

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-indi ... eststories

India has also still not finalized the total number and exact type of weapon systems that would come with the Rafale

I wonder which is closer to true.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Jan 2016 04:48

Its all speculation..that's all. Not worth us speculating on which is the more accurate of the two..

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 15 Jan 2016 06:16

I would like to buy a Rafale

May be we should stop and put that money also into Tejas and order another 120 taking the total to 240 Tejas-1A.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jan 2016 10:53

"Tech transfer" for the LCA,which is about to fly at Bahrain! Nameplate sticker tech or screwdriver tech at this late stage? This is a bogus point meant to justify the inexcusable cost. Even if you look at the issue of MKI reliability ,from the worst figures,surely 2 out of 3 MKIs will be available from stats for the cost of 1 Rafale! Was the MKI deal also similarly negotiated as the Raffy is with so many inputs for spares,LCC,etc? I doubt it.

When one looks at the prices of exports of some western weapon systems to other nations like India,why is it that their prices are less? Some have been posted in earlier posts.They too would expect the same availability stds as the nation of origin. What is wrong with exports /supplies to us? Do we have lower maintenance standards as some OEMs claim?