India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Dec 2011 23:49

staggering the procurement is better imho. at least, we could go on squadron a year or at least squadron per 2 year strategy, and review the cost based on inflation rates.

by that, ToT takes places. local setup increase their chance of establishing better engineering models for home grown aircraft.

still, one would think the offer of 40 Rafale sometime back for some 70odd k would have made some remarks on this deal. and you all know what? when the rupee value hits the fan! 60 bucks per $, the maulers will think harder.. and to do any process within in 6 months flat.

having gone all the way, it speaks volume of our stupidity to prolong prolong and prolong. unless, the strategy is only that.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 29 Dec 2011 01:03

arthuro wrote:From Janes :

SaiK wrote:staggering the procurement is better imho. at least, we could go on squadron a year or at least squadron per 2 year strategy, and review the cost based on inflation rates.

by that, ToT takes places. local setup increase their chance of establishing better engineering models for home grown aircraft.

still, one would think the offer of 40 Rafale sometime back for some 70odd k would have made some remarks on this deal. and you all know what? when the rupee value hits the fan! 60 bucks per $, the maulers will think harder.. and to do any process within in 6 months flat.

having gone all the way, it speaks volume of our stupidity to prolong prolong and prolong. unless, the strategy is only that.

one more option can be going for super hornet international roadmap via FMS route.will be much cheaper at 57 million dollar a piece and will pack a punch with newer cockpit like f-35 and high thrust powerplants ge-f414 epe.great jet indeed. it can more or less do the job of rafale or typhi.

but for now its typhi/raffy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Dec 2011 02:29

The latest news report echoes what a report said during the MAKS show in Moscow,that the enormous expense of the deal,whichever winner was chosen would see it in difficulties.Even perhaps scrapped.While I personally think that it would be futile to scrap the deal,as so much of time and energy has been spent in as transparent a procedure as possible,serious doubts exist regarding the expected pricing in today's financial difficulties.So what does one do with the winner...of a "pyrrhic" victory?

I would prefer to acquire less numbers of such a hugely expensive aircraft,esp. when we need to pour in much money for that deal,and buy the remaining of a type in service to make up numbers.If the costs are going to be so prohibitive as the report predicts,then the butcher's knife has to be brought out and the IAF give a whole holistic rethink to what it really needs in assets and numbers for the future.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 03:04

Lower the order would mean again increase of price on economies of scale. And said rightly, we can't cancel this deal nor look at unkill to supply the wears at balls chewing dependencies, it is better to pay extra and get this going. Yes it is pricey,but then you get the freedom as well.

Now, should we do french or dutch?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Dec 2011 03:55

arthuro wrote:That’s not what I am saying: if India shall become a full member and manufacture some parts of the typhoon then one the partner will have to make some sacrifices. Till here no problem as it is in the logic of the Indian deal. The issue is how you will share these sacrifices? There could be some tensions among partners and some part of the Indian contract could end at risk. This scenario is hypothetical although plausible, but this was just an example to highlight the higher degree of political uncertainty dealing with a consortium of nations than with a single country : France.

So in the event that India gets workshare for a third party contract (say Oman or Malaysia), there might be some degree of protest from workers in Europe (the same ones who've benefited from Indian contracts and have not opposed the proposal to include India in the consortium)?

And its preferable to go with the single party France who has not in fact offered India any workshare for potential export orders?

They don’t have the same stance as far as international affairs are concerned (remember UK & Germany for Iraq) so you will have four time more risk to run into trouble than with France. At least with France you know its political stance and over the years it proved to be a reliable partner.

I don't anyone who's been studying the growth of India's geopolitical weight in the world is truly worried about sanctions or anything. Particularly not when the countries in question have shouting themselves hoarse with governmental guarantees.

Dealing with one country is also easier for ToT, offsets...Basically everything. Don't forget that if there is a lead negociator you have four shareholders who hold the true power behind ! It is already a mess so I can't imagine with five if india joins !

For all practical purposes its a British-German project and the sheer scale of the program makes placing a superior offsets proposal an inevitability.

And those sharolders are not individuals but sovereign countries with changing governments. So if one of the shareholder is not happy anymore at one point all your written contract that you have carefully negociated is irrelevant.

Unhappy with what? There is no carefully negotiated contract - there's the Indian MoD's way and then there's the highway. The winning company is to setup a production line in the country and then sit back. So why exactly will those shareholders have a problem and what do you expect them to do about it?

It is just a confidence from an industrial close to the contract. What the big news?

Recently an article talked about the MMRCA being decided in early 2012. Why was it not published everywhere in all press? You can find plenty of information that is exclusive to one news paper. A confidence reported does not necessarily need to hit the headlines on the whole planet. The notoriety of La tribune is such that you can be sure that this “confidence” was not merely invented.

This deal is such that countries behind want that deal (almost) at all costs and is it more than the short term profits who are at stake but the viability of a knowhow and an industry. There is nothing shocking that a company can sell with no profit or a loss when a deal is deemed strategic. In my professional life I’ve seen many deals signed with a loss at completion with full knowledge of this situation. Often it was link to a strategic move and viewed as an entry cost on a given market. Here the strategic aspect is to retain high skill engineers and an advanced aeronautic industry.
That’s why I said you can interpret the “confidence” as a sign of weakness for the French if you feel more comfortable. I.e.: Typhoon partner will do whatever they can to win the deal, even selling with no profit or a loss while Dassault could lose because it was too conservative in its pricing. Or you could view it the other way: Typhoon partners have no margin left and will lose on cost of ownership. Actually the interpretation is really opened.

Umm first off.. what does 'a confidence' mean? Secondly, several news reports mentioned that the MRCA decision would come out in early 2012.

And finally, its a huge contract worth $12-20 billion with four countries, a dozen major companies, hundreds of thousands of shareholders and huge media interest in the proceedings. You're telling me that Eurofighter is not only selling the aircraft at a loss, its simply giving away expensive technology and only La Tribune knows about it. Of course its a big deal.

France will retire some of its mirage but that has nothing to do with airframe fatigue. France cannot afford acquiring the rafale and modernizing its large mirage 2000 fleet at the same time and as a consequence older mirage are of little operational interest. We are talking here of the mirage 2000C RDI and the Mirage 2000N.

The mirage 2000-5 and 2000 D will remain into service till early 2030’s…And while the 2000D are more recent airframes the 2000-5 are the first operational mirage ever manufactured: they are even older than Indian ones.

Really? Mid 2030s? Do have a link or something? I'd really like to confirm that France intends to retire Mirages when they turn 50 years old.

And you will not find a 40 million dollar per airframe upgrade plus a dedicated weapon stock that have remained in service for only 10-15 years so your references are just irrelevant. Or it would make the case for rafale even more conspicuous…Just think a second: you are investing in stockpiles of missiles with all the associated know-how, facilities and tactics, you are getting advanced electronics compatible with the rafale for billions and in about 10-15 years everything is to be scraped? You better have the rafale to amortize those costs and beneficiate from the initial investment.

First off the avionics aren't really comparable to the Rafale let alone the PAKFA, J-20 and F-35 that will be in full production by 2025. No AESA, limited radar range (relative to radars 15 years from today), and even retrofitted EW/ESM systems aren't likely to match the DASS or SPECTRA.

The same applies to the MICA stocks - how useful is a missile that was modern 15 years ago (the Aim-7 Sparrow or Super 530D) in today's environment. Carrying on that argument the MICA should be obsolescent by the end of this decade and functionally obsolete well before 2030.

Also, as far as switching those stocks to the Rafale goes - one could make the same argument about the Eurofighter as well. The Jaguars will be retiring in the next decade and their ASRAAM stocks would presumably be transferred to EF squadrons.

I’ve read plenty of praises on the mirage 2000 fleet in India as well as dassault after sale support and they are even upgrading it heavily with cutting edge avionics for a significant price. Never heard such praises for the Jaguar fleet nor I’ve heard it is getting an upgrade in the magnitude (cost, technology) of the mirage 2000. You may bring the argument of the number but quantity and quality is two different things although some will argue that quantity is a quality of its own.

If india is massively investing in its mirage 2000 fleet must say something about its opinion about the aircraft and its supplier? Especially if they are spending all that money for just 10 to 15 years as you want to believe…The issue is that you are trying to find rapidly whatever ideas to make your point but that often goes against another of your arguments.
The fact that you can find many articles/interviews praising the quality of Dassault after sale support is not innocent…Never read such thing about BAE.

There two major fallacies in your argument -

- You're trying to judge how much an air force values an aircraft by the degree of paeans sungs in its honour. To be honest that's a lot like folks estimating an aircraft's performance limits from airshow videos on youtube. Just because the Jaguars role isn't as glamorous as the Mirages doesn't mean it isn't valued highly.

- You're drawing an faulty parallel between the aircraft's value to the air force and the company's reputation with the MoD/IAF. The company is required to carry out deliveries within the required schedule and provide satisfactory after-sales support, and you'd be hard pressed to prove that Dassault performed that task better than BAE. If the IAF likes the C-130J that's the selection committee's achievement, but its when the contractor delivers the aircraft 6 months ahead of the due date, that you sing Lockheed Martin's praises.

Also, you're wrong about Jaguar modernization not being a priority - right from the initial DARIN upgrades, integration of the EL/M-2032 radar and Harpoon, to the re-engining and Derby/ASRAAM/Python-5 integration in the works, the IAF has consistently strived to ensure that its sizeable Jaguar fleet remains as potent as possible. And yes most of those upgrades were relatively cheap because the BAE aircraft was acquired under an agreement that allowed HAL not only to build it, but to 'indigenize' it extensively with domestically developed systems.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Dec 2011 04:02

Jaybhatt wrote:If he is a Limey or a Kraut, he should be told to take his anti - French crusade to some other place

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Dec 2011 10:32

Look,the EF is coming in for the RAF at a very heavily inflated price,UK parliament's report which I posted some time ago.Th service is not getting its "bang for the buck" for the price it is paying was in essence the crux of the report.If we are going to review our options here is one I would like taken if the Rafale is chosen:

Drop the "deep" upgrade of M-2000s and adopt a simpler "LUSH" style Sea Harrrier upgrade with French/Israeli input at not more than half the price $20M per aircraft.This will give us about $1.5 B saved ,which we use to buy new Rafales,buy the entire first lot of 126 now when prices are known (with incremental upgrade options just like the SU-30s),which will definitely be vastly more 5-10 years down the line.When we have produced 75% of the Rafales we will have had a good experience of operating them and can decide whether to push ahead with production of more aircraft once the 126 are finished,or begin upgrades of earlier Rafales produced as well.This option is particular to the French only as we possess no aircraft from the EF consortium in service.If "quotas" as mentioned earlier,are in force,is the news that 3 more Scorpenes are to be acquired,as a "payoff" for the French,while we plump for the Typhoon and the EU for the MMRCA?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Dec 2011 11:43

Jaybhatt wrote:I am writing on an issue that must have also struck other contributors to this panel. I am referring to the nature of the posts of Septimus S, specifically the language that he uses and the vituperative nature of most of his posts.

He is nothing short of a gutter language afficionado. His frequent use of expletives is barely disguised by liberal splashings of dots and crosses. What is really insufferable is his anti - French bias that he makes no effort to disguise.

Surely, the BR moderators should step in and stop this misuse of the BR site by a person who has a definite personal agenda. If he is a Limey or a Kraut, he should be told to take his anti - French crusade to some other place in his own little island / country. India is not the place to air his obnoxious and xenophobic outbursts, and that too in an Indian defence affairs forum. If he is an Indian agent of EF, that, too, is no excuse for his lamentable behaviour.

The whole scenario reeks of irregularity - the fellow joins in November 2011 and writes as many as 66 posts on this Rafale - Typhoon topic, almost all of them crudely plugging the Typhoon. Not kosher at all.

BR Moderators / Site Officials - surely, you cannot let this continue.

Jaybhatt, I agree. I've reported his trash posts to the mods and hopefully some sort of action will be taken. After all, this isn't the first time his posts have reduced the level of discussion on this forum to its lowest level. Arthuro's patience is to be appreciated.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 29 Dec 2011 12:25

^^^ Septimus P is neither a Brit nor a German. Someone who is as consistently anti-French and as base and vulgar as is Septimus P, can only be an American.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 29 Dec 2011 14:09

Arthuro's patience?? hahaha he is the one who floods this topic full with post after post of gibberish. Reduce the level of discussion...this topic had entered the gutter way before I ever got here. A lot of dassault paid agents here. I never really disliked the french aircraft or the company till I started reading arthuro's hyped up raffy posts. Facts are facts, the aircraft hasn't sold anything, they are literally begging for orders every where they go, they flood the internet with paid agents, there are a few more on other indian defence forums. I actually like the Rafale, I am just saying that their campaign is full of lies and the people trying to selling using such cheap methods need to be fired.

Raffy is a beautiful bird, always was and always will be. Its weight to range ratio is unparalleled. The thing can fly, fast and long distances. It is not entirely french and there is no such thing as ITAR free, as long as certain parts come from the US, I have shown cable leaks that show DTSA's simple words; raffy has sensitive radar components, targeting systems and safety systems coming from the US. I never said the Spectra is'tn manufactured in France, what I say is core components for certain systems come from the US, UK, Germany etc.

I have shown you a decent list, may be a few suppliers changed, can't confirm that but no one can. You can find the same list for EF and Gripen as well, the list makes sense. For the french to claim it is independent is pure bs. They can claim it to be able to carry the highest payload after the F-15, they can claim it to have extended range, they can claim to have a ready to fly AESA, they could even claim engine upgrades, they can claim flexibility of weapons and operations and other raffy key advantages. What they simly shouldn't do is claim it to be entirely french when its clear its not. Its the similar marketing that Gripen was trying to pull as well. The truth will ge them far.

Due to all the lies they are trying to sell, no one has yet acquired the bird which is capable in every sense of the word.

EF is a safer option, always was.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 29 Dec 2011 14:53

^^ which component of rafale comes from US ? Or shall I say which tiny bit of spectra comes from US ? Else your talk is utter nonsense.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Dec 2011 15:37

So in the event that India gets workshare for a third party contract (say Oman or Malaysia), there might be some degree of protest from workers in Europe (the same ones who've benefited from Indian contracts and have not opposed the proposal to include India in the consortium)?

Not from the workers directly but from the partner countries that don’t necessarily want to make more sacrifices for India than their neighbor. The case is sensitive when Europe is facing de-industrialization. It would be interesting to learn more about this so called partnership:

-What can be actually offered when there are already four partners with a baroque organization?
- Is it not an elegant and polite way to invite India making the investment that the four partner nations are unwilling to do?

There is a strong chance that behind this PR speech the situation is not as rosy as one would think, especially when you are looking where the Typhoon program stands: underfunded, underdeveloped and partner nations looking for some naïve enough to jump on that program so they can quickly cut their own orders.

None of the Typhoon proposed upgrades that are offered have reached any significant milestones: AESA? Not a single prototype. ATG weapons integration? Not a single flight test achieved and nothing in the pipe. CFT to make the typhoon a practicable multirole platform? Absolutely nothing.

What’s going on is that the longer India wait for its decision, the less likely the Typhoon will be ready for its 2015 objective as partner nations are obviously waiting for India to pay the bill. That's why I believe time is playing against Typhoon.

And its preferable to go with the single party France who has not in fact offered India any workshare for potential export orders?

That’s where you’re wrong: simply because Dassault has not communicated on this issue does not mean that they are behind. In fact with the full control of the program (Thales main shareholder is Dassault) they have much more room and leeway to propose extended partnership than with Typhoon Gmbh which have to cope with four different countries that are not necessarily happy to sacrifice too much compared to their neighbor.

Rafale program is sound with almost all the main features proposed in the Indian tender developed (AESA, new engines, new optronics) so that the deal is completely transparent, low risk and quickly available for Indian forces.
The cherry on the cake is that it offers synergies with the mirage 2000 fleet and that Dassault is already a well know and appreciated supplier of the IAF.

I don't anyone who's been studying the growth of India's geopolitical weight in the world is truly worried about sanctions or anything. Particularly not when the countries in question have shouting themselves hoarse with governmental guarantees.

That’s the “wishful thinking” view of things…Governments are changing and in case of a conflict with Pakistan or China you better pray that Germany will not have a “green-socialist” government…Because in Germany the green party has a much greater influence than in the rest of Europe and oppose anything military. So yes in case of a conflict you will have four times more chances to have issues in supporting/procuring the Typhoon.

At least with France everyone knows its “Gaullist” political stance which is shared by all the main political parties are they from right or left. France is much more strategically readable than a consortium.

For all practical purposes its a British-German project and the sheer scale of the program makes placing a superior offsets proposal an inevitability.

You are right and wrong at the same time:
-Wrong because there is much more things to share on the rafale program than with the Typhoon program with already four partners.
-Right because as far as collateral offsets are concerned BAE and EADS have more reach than the rafale team due to their vast portfolio of activities. That's probably Typhoon's main and only card to play against the Rafale.

Really? Mid 2030s? Do have a link or something? I'd really like to confirm that France intends to retire Mirages when they turn 50 years old.

http://www.armees.com/-armee-de-l-air-387-.html

I did not say mid-2030 but 2030. I’ve checked and the big bulk of the mirage 2000 will retire between 2025 and 2030. First the non upgraded models and then the 2000D and 2000-5 so for the later it will be closer to 2030.

First off the avionics aren't really comparable to the Rafale let alone the PAKFA, J-20 and F-35 that will be in full production by 2025. No AESA, limited radar range (relative to radars 15 years from today), and even retrofitted EW/ESM systems aren't likely to match the DASS or SPECTRA.
The same applies to the MICA stocks - how useful is a missile that was modern 15 years ago (the Aim-7 Sparrow or Super 530D) in today's environment. Carrying on that argument the MICA should be obsolescent by the end of this decade and functionally obsolete well before 2030.
Also, as far as switching those stocks to the Rafale goes - one could make the same argument about the Eurofighter as well. The Jaguars will be retiring in the next decade and their ASRAAM stocks would presumably be transferred to EF squadrons.

The upgraded Indian mirage will share many common types of equipment with the rafale like the central processor or gyro-inertial navigation devices.

As for the mica with its data link it is harder to integrate than any short range IR missiles (and more expensive) so the case for synergies is much stronger. The mica is still a modern missile and you can bet the electronic part has been updated. It is still being sold to other countries like Oman who use it as a GtA missile for its navy. It should be noted that Meteor seeker as well as Aster 15 and 30 are using a derived version of mica’s ADA4 seeker.

You are also forgetting that the AASM is being seriously considered by the IAF for the mirage 2000…A weapon compatible with the rafale. Even if they have not decided yet the potential synergy is a strong incentive by itself.

There two major fallacies in your argument -
- You're trying to judge how much an air force values an aircraft by the degree of paeans sungs in its honour. To be honest that's a lot like folks estimating an aircraft's performance limits from airshow videos on youtube. Just because the Jaguars role isn't as glamorous as the Mirages doesn't mean it isn't valued highly.
- You're drawing an faulty parallel between the aircraft's value to the air force and the company's reputation with the MoD/IAF. The company is required to carry out deliveries within the required schedule and provide satisfactory after-sales support, and you'd be hard pressed to prove that Dassault performed that task better than BAE. If the IAF likes the C-130J that's the selection committee's achievement, but its when the contractor delivers the aircraft 6 months ahead of the due date, that you sing Lockheed Martin's praises.
Also, you're wrong about Jaguar modernization not being a priority - right from the initial DARIN upgrades, integration of the EL/M-2032 radar and Harpoon, to the re-engining and Derby/ASRAAM/Python-5 integration in the works, the IAF has consistently strived to ensure that its sizeable Jaguar fleet remains as potent as possible. And yes most of those upgrades were relatively cheap because the BAE aircraft was acquired under an agreement that allowed HAL not only to build it, but to 'indigenize' it extensively with domestically developed systems.

The IAF praised the mirage 2000 not only for its performance but also for the quality of the after sale support from dassault. There is no fallacy about that at all! What a customer says about a product does have its weight, especially when it was assessed after a critical war period.

For me the fallacy comes from the fact that you are unable to find a coherent reason for the IAF to upgrade the mirage 2000 at such of cost when they had many other options. If the mirage 2000 did not enjoy the reputation it has and if dassault was not perceived as a reliable supplier why would they pay so much for that upgrade and why with Dassault ? There is obviously something lacking in your story…Also investing such a price for only ten to fifteen years is absurd…Unless you go with the rafale to capitalize on the initial investment. So you can’t have it both ways.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Dec 2011 15:59

Septimus P. wrote:....

2nd and 3rd warning issued for abusive behaviour and thread disruption. banned for a month.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Dec 2011 16:17

I hope this will be proved wrong :

12/29/2011, 10:11:37
Indian fighter tender was in jeopardy

Announcement of the winner of Indian MMRCA tender to supply 126 medium multi-role fighters regularly postponed, if earlier planned to bring up the contest until the end of 2011, this is now not expected until January 2012. According to the newspaper "Vedomosti" quoted a source close to the "Rosoboronexport", the Ministry of Defence of India may cancel the tender, as none of the planes reached the final does not fit into the budget, scheduled for the purchase of fighter aircraft.

If the tender is canceled, the MiG-35 again has a chance to buy the Indian Air Force.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/12/29/tender/ ... um=twitter

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 29 Dec 2011 16:53

arthuro wrote:I hope this will be proved wrong :

12/29/2011, 10:11:37
Indian fighter tender was in jeopardy

If the tender is canceled, the MiG-35 again has a chance to buy the Indian Air Force.

mig-35 wants to buy iaf,

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2011 17:01

India will likely do what home buyers do to get into a big house - stretch out the period of buy for longer, buy less furniture and appliances , skip the new bmw planned for the driveway....in short focus on the house and getting into the right school district.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Dec 2011 17:08

Philip wrote:Look,the EF is coming in for the RAF at a very heavily inflated price,UK parliament's report which I posted some time ago.Th service is not getting its "bang for the buck" for the price it is paying was in essence the crux of the report.If we are going to review our options here is one I would like taken if the Rafale is chosen:

The one that didn't take the receipts from the Saudi sale into account? The fly away price quoted is nearly the same for both aircraft (though the Rafale may have a smaller operating cost due to a a lower fuel consumption).

Drop the "deep" upgrade of M-2000s and adopt a simpler "LUSH" style Sea Harrrier upgrade with French/Israeli input at not more than half the price $20M per aircraft.This will give us about $1.5 B saved ,which we use to buy new Rafales,buy the entire first lot of 126 now when prices are known (with incremental upgrade options just like the SU-30s),which will definitely be vastly more 5-10 years down the line.When we have produced 75% of the Rafales we will have had a good experience of operating them and can decide whether to push ahead with production of more aircraft once the 126 are finished,or begin upgrades of earlier Rafales produced as well.This option is particular to the French only as we possess no aircraft from the EF consortium in service.

Don't see why those savings can't be invested into the Eurofighter instead. Though personally, I'd like to see that invested to expand the Tejas production line at HAL and accelerate the development of the Mk2.

Jaybhatt · Post by **Jaybhatt** » 29 Dec 2011 18:48

Septimus P banned : for 1 month.

Thank you, Rahul M, the moderator.

Kartik, Ravi Karumanchiri and Ashish Raval have also written today about the awful conduct of this
SP person. Thanks.

The action of the BR administration should be welcomed. Better late than never, though many other BR commentators may agree with my feeling that a ban of 1 month is way too mild for this person's numerous offences and aberrations.

Bharat Rakshak is a portal that is internationally respected and admired. It takes enormous effort and dedication to reach this level. Surely, this cannot be allowed to be compromised by unbecoming conduct on the part of just one Forum member - particularly, a person who, clearly, has major psychological problems.

Let's have some serious debate and discourse from now on.

Best wishes to all BR members for 2012.

Jai Hind.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Dec 2011 18:50

Frankly,either one would serve the IAF fine,the big Q is at what price? We are also operating a number of other arcraft ,from lower tech MIGs and Jags as well as the top-end Su-30MKIs.It would be worthwhile if the IAF after taking the decision whch of the two birds suits us best,review the entire IAF perspective plan,in the light of costs of acquiring the MMRCA, either in full number, or part,or in part with cheaper in-service "extras",whatever.I seriously feel that the M-2000 cost of upgrade is profligate and the money ($2.4B) used better elsewhere .As almost all have said,the success of the LCA MK-2 asap is of prime importance as it will give us an equivalent of the Gripen at lower cost and make up the much needed numbers toi deal with 4+ gen. new aircraft that Pak is acquiring from China.This will release the higher-end aircraft for more offensive ops which are needed to mesh with the IA's battle plans.

In fact,we have missed an opportunity with the MMRCA deal as we could've also demanded from the manufactuirer,TOT to speed up the LCA project to make it a "light" version of the MMRCA.We could've easily gotten an EJ TVC engine or SNECMA too for the LCA MK-2,fixing responsibility for integrating the same with the winner.This way,the MMRCA deal would be a double-whammy,getting us a medium multi-role 4++ gen aircraft with its tech,plus getting its tech to also give us a lightweight 4++ LCA in the bargainmat accelerated speed! Pity this wasn't thought of earlier.We are now stuck with a GE engine,radar from elsewhere and weaponry and avionics and India from other sources.A fine kichidi.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 19:18

This is where I am seeing the calculation fear.. there should be weighted average and then chosen. For example cost of fuel should have a lower weight than MTBF (direct impact on ops) and stores. ToT should have the highest weight.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Dec 2011 19:31

Jaybhatt, it helps us find errant posts if people report them (click the ! button beside a post to report it). it's not possible for mods to read everything.
secondly, forum moderation can't be ad hoc, warnings pile up for each violation and eventually, accumulation of 5 warnings leads to a permanent ban.

arthuro wrote:I hope this will be proved wrong :
.........
If the tender is canceled, the MiG-35 again has a chance to buy the Indian Air Force.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/12/29/tender/ ... um=twitter

I assure you mig-35 has no chance of buying the IAF !!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Dec 2011 19:57

arthuro wrote:Not from the workers directly but from the partner countries that don’t necessarily want to make more sacrifices for India than their neighbor. The case is sensitive when Europe is facing de-industrialization. It would be interesting to learn more about this so called partnership:

-What can be actually offered when there are already four partners with a baroque organization?
- Is it not an elegant and polite way to invite India making the investment that the four partner nations are unwilling to do?

So its only in the event of an export order being signed that frictions will arise? Disregarding the fact that the workshare will be allotted as soon as India joins the consortium (not when an order in the offing).

There is a strong chance that behind this PR speech the situation is not as rosy as one would think, especially when you are looking where the Typhoon program stands: underfunded, underdeveloped and partner nations looking for some naïve enough to jump on that program so they can quickly cut their own orders.

Well its your opinion that the EF is underfunded and underdeveloped. I don't see any capability that the IAF wants which it wouldn't have.

None of the Typhoon proposed upgrades that are offered have reached any significant milestones: AESA? Not a single prototype. ATG weapons integration? Not a single flight test achieved and nothing in the pipe. CFT to make the typhoon a practicable multirole platform? Absolutely nothing.

The CAESAR was a Captor-E prototype. Full scale development just started last year, there's still a good three to four years before its expected. According to ER they'll have a production variant available in 2014 and operational the year after. You may choose not to believe that, but the IAF/MoD did scrutinize the proposal and they found it viable. In addition I'm sure the IAF would much rather have a 1425 T/R Captor-E a year later, than a 850-1000 T/R RBE-2AA (depending on who you ask) delivered earlier.

Air to ground weapons - Paveway II/III/IV integrated, LJDAM, HARM in the pipeline. Rafale's early integration of the Storm Shadow is unlikely to give it an edge especially given the cost effectiveness of American alternatives.

The Eurofighter doesn't need CFTs to turn it into a 'practicable multirole platform', they're needed to convert it to a long range cruise missile platform. Its far from an urgent for the IAF and a requirement that UK and Germany will address as well as their Tornados start to retire.

What’s going on is that the longer India wait for its decision, the less likely the Typhoon will be ready for its 2015 objective as partner nations are obviously waiting for India to pay the bill. That's why I believe time is playing against Typhoon.

The financial terms of the contract are being decided right now through the competitive bidding process, not sometime in the near future. And the integration of IAF approved munitions and the AESA will be accounted for right away. Yes, an Indian order will speed up progress if ordered, but no it will not cost India extra for the same.

That’s where you’re wrong: simply because Dassault has not communicated on this issue does not mean that they are behind. In fact with the full control of the program (Thales main shareholder is Dassault) they have much more room and leeway to propose extended partnership than with Typhoon Gmbh which have to cope with four different countries that are not necessarily happy to sacrifice too much compared to their neighbor.

There is no evidence of Dassault having offered India any participation in future upgrades or exports and any assertions of there being such an offer are in the realm of speculation.

Rafale program is sound with almost all the main features proposed in the Indian tender developed (AESA, new engines, new optronics) so that the deal is completely transparent, low risk and quickly available for Indian forces.

AESA is available earlier yes but deliveries are not required tomorrow (and the radar itself is unfortunately undersized - one of my main gripes with the Rafale).

New engines and optronics??? What difference does that make? Its like the Eurofighter offer of an upgraded DASS - meaningless without an established baseline.

The cherry on the cake is that it offers synergies with the mirage 2000 fleet and that Dassault is already a well know and appreciated supplier of the IAF.

They're all well known and appreciated suppliers. Except that BAE, EADS, Rolls Royce etc. have strong industrial ties with HAL, in addition to the IAF.

That’s the “wishful thinking” view of things…Governments are changing and in case of a conflict with Pakistan or China you better pray that Germany will not have a “green-socialist” government…Because in Germany the green party has a much greater influence than in the rest of Europe and oppose anything military. So yes in case of a conflict you will have four times more chances to have issues in supporting/procuring the Typhoon.

At least with France everyone knows its “Gaullist” political stance which is shared by all the main political parties are they from right or left. France is much more strategically readable than a consortium.

The MMRCA program is designed to completely indigenize the program like the Jaguar and Su-30MKI, to eliminate all major dependence on a foreign supplier (even if its France) while establishing a network of domestic suppliers, which can feed into other HAL/DRDO programs. Call if wishful thinking if you like but no one is really worried about political pressures in Europe, or else even the Eurocopter or A-330 acquisition wouldn't have gained traction.

You are right and wrong at the same time:
-Wrong because there is much more things to share on the rafale program than with the Typhoon program with already four partners.
-Right because as far as collateral offsets are concerned BAE and EADS have more reach than the rafale team due to their vast portfolio of activities. That's probably Typhoon's main and only card to play against the Rafale.

There's everything to share on the EF program with fewer apprehensions about the technology being sovereign property. And offsets proposal is no mere card (like the availability of CFTs or TVN), its a massive advantage especially given Dassault's relative disinterest in becoming a major player in India vis-a-vis BAE and EADS.

Really? Mid 2030s? Do have a link or something? I'd really like to confirm that France intends to retire Mirages when they turn 50 years old.
http://www.armees.com/-armee-de-l-air-387-.html

I did not say mid-2030 but 2030. I’ve checked and the big bulk of the mirage 2000 will retire between 2025 and 2030. First the non upgraded models and then the 2000D and 2000-5 so for the later it will be closer to 2030.

Could you please point me towards the specific section which says the Mirage 2000-5 will be retiring only by 2030? I went through your link, didn't find the reference.

The upgraded Indian mirage will share many common types of equipment with the rafale like the central processor or gyro-inertial navigation devices.

How much savings in maintenance are likely from having a common mission computer and INS module?

As for the mica with its data link it is harder to integrate than any short range IR missiles (and more expensive) so the case for synergies is much stronger. The mica is still a modern missile and you can bet the electronic part has been updated. It is still being sold to other countries like Oman who use it as a GtA missile for its navy. It should be noted that Meteor seeker as well as Aster 15 and 30 are using a derived version of mica’s ADA4 seeker.

Why would the IAF require a datalink on a dogfighting missile? And how does the existence of the MICA's datalink improve the case for the Rafale? The EF will ship with the Meteor or AMRAAM which are both equipped with datalinks, as well as the ASRAAM (or possibly IRIS-T) which it will presumably share with the Jaguar.

You are also forgetting that the AASM is being seriously considered by the IAF for the mirage 2000…A weapon compatible with the rafale. Even if they have not decided yet the potential synergy is a strong incentive by itself.

You aren't likely to see a munitions package ordered for the Mirage 2000 or Jaguar until the MMRCA is selected. And the most important consideration will be cost effectiveness not pre-compatibility. There is no doubt that the US companies offer unmatched value for money.

The IAF praised the mirage 2000 not only for its performance but also for the quality of the after sale support from dassault. There is no fallacy about that at all! What a customer says about a product does have its weight, especially when it was assessed after a critical war period.

No one is claiming that Dassault support was unsatisfactory. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that it was better than BAE's dealings with the IAF. Also, you're underestimating the influence HAL has on the selection process. Like I said before, EF companies like BAE and EADS have stronger ties with it than Dassault does.

For me the fallacy comes from the fact that you are unable to find a coherent reason for the IAF to upgrade the mirage 2000 at such of cost when they had many other options. If the mirage 2000 did not enjoy the reputation it has and if dassault was not perceived as a reliable supplier why would they pay so much for that upgrade and why with Dassault ? There is obviously something lacking in your story…Also investing such a price for only ten to fifteen years is absurd…Unless you go with the rafale to capitalize on the initial investment. So you can’t have it both ways.

Its a good aircraft, that's why it was upgraded. The choice was between opting for the more cost effective option (Tejas, second hand Mirages or an Israeli upgrade) and the safer option in the Dassault led upgrade. After fruitlessly negotiating with Dassault for nearly five years, the MoD decided to accede to the demanded price. Just because they accepted it doesn't mean they were delighted with it. The upgrade lived up to the Mirage's reputation of being technically excellent but pricey.

Regarding the shelf life - the upgrade is expensive, to keep the aircraft current for another dozen years, but not absurdly so. By 2025, the airframe will be 40 years old and the avionics and munitions obsolete (just like the Super-530D and unguided rockets are today). New aircraft entering service right now like the Su-30MKI and Tejas will be going through a MLU which wouldn't be an option for the Mirage at that stage.

The argument about acquiring the Rafale to switch MICA stocks to it, also applies to the Eurofighter vis-a-vis the Jaguar. Not that the ASRAAM or MICA will be current at that point. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't UK and France currently studying a joint project to build a close-in missile to replace both the ASRAAM and MICA - a Mach 6 missile with a 50km range to enter service around 2020.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 29 Dec 2011 21:09

Viv, you often selectively answer to what I post without addressing all my previous post. Just an example:

I said:

That’s where you’re wrong: simply because Dassault has not communicated on this issue does not mean that they are behind. In fact with the full control of the program (Thales main shareholder is Dassault) they have much more room and leeway to propose extended partnership than with Typhoon Gmbh which have to cope with four different countries that are not necessarily happy to sacrifice too much compared to their neighbor.

And you answered:

There is no evidence of Dassault having offered India any participation in future upgrades and any assertions of it being so is pure speculation.

Either you have not properly read was I have written either you are arguing for the sake of arguing which is time consuming and not very respectful. I just answered to your speculation that Dassault did not offer any partnership to India. I told you that nobody knows as they did not communicate about their commercial offer and that Dassault should have more leeway and more room to propose cooperation if they wanted to. Then you accuse me of saying that Dassault have proposed a better partnership. That’s not a very honest way of arguing.

Same goes for:

“So its only in the event of an export order being signed that frictions will arise? Disregarding the fact that the workshare will be allotted as soon as India joins the consortium (not when an order in the offing).”

You can disagree which is you very right but you should avoid distorting my previous answers to make your point. I also mentioned friction due to the necessary investment that partner nations are unwilling to pay and I also mentioned potential risk due to government changes of some of the partner nations. So if you want to debate you are welcome but you have to do it in a transparent way. I consider that you have not fully addressed my previous points.

For the rest I am ok with your answers and here are my points:

Typhoon developments:

CAESAR is not a prototype it is a demonstrator that flew a few series of flight in 2007 if I remember well and is not flying anymore since a longtime. CAESAR is similar to rafale DRAAMA AESA demonstrator was. Besides there is no such thing as full scale development for the CAPTOR-E, they attributed Selex with a 6 million pounds envelop a few weeks ago which is clearly not enough to start any meaningful development. There is still not a single prototype flying and it is not even close being tested in a lab.

-As for AtG weapons apart from one type of 1000 pound LgB and the GBU-49 to come there is absolutely nothing in the pipeline except vague claims. Not a single penny has been officially attributed to integrate further AtG weaponry. I would be curious if you bring me the official press release stating a Raytheon Harm integration and so on…

-As for CFTs it is not even about turning Typhoon in a deep strike aircraft it more urgently giving it a meaningful endurance with a heavy war load. Typhoon is limited with 1000L drop tanks and it is bigger and heavier than the rafale. Given it size and its cost it would be hard to accept an endurance of the magnitude of a Tejas or a mig-21.

Rafale upgrades:

To answer you on rafale upgrades : a ready AESA radar, a new engine called M88-4E which offer better costs of ownership (less fuel consumption, less maintenance), a new enhanced frontal sector optronic (OSF-IT for Improved Technologies) and a new Missile warning receiver called DDM-NG which has an angular accuracy compatible with DIRCM.
All these capabilities are already fully developed. First aircraft with these upgrades will be delivered to French air force in 2012 and the first squadron will be operational as soon as 2014. So that makes a rafale deal transparent, low risk and easier to induct.

mirage 2000 upgrade :

As for mirage 2000 upgrade we have to disagree: no one forced the IAF to sign this deal and there were other options. You are also downplaying synergies with the rafale fleet and you are wrong on the remained life span of the mirages as they will undergo an airframe modification to increase their potential for another 20 years if too much fatigue is found during the upgrade. You also did not provide anything about BAE enjoying the reputation Dassault enjoy. I am not saying the relation between BAE and India is not good just that it is not at the same level, especially after Dassault/mirage performance during the Kargil conflict.

Well a source close to idrw.org from Indian air force ,puts some thought into the whole upgrade dilemma which Indian air force had to go through ,it all begun at the start of the decade when Indian air force and French air force were having air exercise over Gwalior ,where IAF pitched their Mirage-2000H against French Mirage-2000-V .

Air exercise led to discovery of short fall of the BVR (Beyond visual range) limitation on the current fleet of Mirage 2000’s operated by the Indian air force against highly upgraded French Mirage 2000-V fleet .

Process and recommendation for advancing and upgrading Mirage-2000H fleet was taken. French price was too high and still is, Israel Aircraft Industries which had made illegal copies of Mirage-V jets known has “Kfir “ ,had proposed a Israeli avionics upgrade package ,which IAF found not much to their interest .

Source told idrw.org, that good serviceability of the aircraft and high mission availability of the Mirage-2000 in IAF fleet has lead to go with the French upgrade package, Mirage 2000 in last two decade in IAF fleet was the best weapons delivery aircraft and had an enviable safety record, and even Su-30MKI doesn’t have such a distinguished record.

Mirage-2000H was the best aircraft in the IAF Fleet, when Kargil War happened , even do IAF had a small fleet of Su-30K at that time , but it was not used in high Mountain warfare in Kargil ,since Su-30K were more of a air superiority fighter aircraft ,based on Su-27 airframe which lacked Ground attack capability ,until Su-30MKI joined IAF in 2001 .

Dassault Aviation which is the OEM of the Mirage-2000 was not able to reduce the cost, since the production line for the Mirage-2000 had already been closed, and all the upgrade packages for converting Mirage-2000 to Dash V standard, had all ready been carried out by French air force by the time negotiation for IAF fleet came out.

Other factors which might have worked in favour for the French aircraft manufacture. Dassault Aviation was superior after sales support and good supply chain of spares for the fleet in IAF, which when compared to Russian jets was far better. IAF also wanted to keep one of its most trusted fighter aircraft in good shape to meet future challenges ,which IAF might have to face in future conflicts

Last point about mirage 2000 retirement: the time frame is 2025-2030 when the rafale will become the only type in the French airforce and I assumed 2000D and 2000-5 will be the last out as they are the most potent one which is a reasonable bet. I’ll look if I find a specific source on the 2000-5 and 2000D.

Next answer will be for the next day.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 21:16

I agree, the assault on dassault
is septimus fault.

Hope he is back on track
with evidence to back.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 29 Dec 2011 22:30

SaiK wrote:I agree, the assault on dassault
is septimus fault.

Hope he is back on track
with evidence to back.

You are poetically reducing his banishment stress.

The longer it takes means it is because of the following things, knowing that the L1 calculations would be very complex:

a) MMRCA is too expensive, so a lot of negotiations/rethink.
b) The L1 and L2 pricing difference maybe very thin so political considerations to ensure best bang for the military, ToT and political buck. The vendors should have dropped their pants on this deal, particularly Dassault knowing that this would be their first export sale, a veritable "lost leader sale". Reports and the posts here indicate that EADS did drop so as to make the difference marginal, at least for the flyaway component. And Dassault?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 22:38

Kat has blemish from a rut of failures in securing international orders. The arguments are reasonable though, but MMRCA is unique, and it can only be established by a stringent process and rule based evaluations. If we have gone professional for the technical selection, I demand a similar process for the final selection, perhaps aided by a select group of economist, statisticians, mil experts, industrialists, and not to exclude DRDO labs and future students from our prestigious institutions. They should get this ratified without any bad politics, and totally process oriented.

Else, hell will break lose.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 29 Dec 2011 23:03

^^^ I give zero marks to both the contenders in the export sales part. We know, that for e.g. if Unkil fails in selling its warbirds, it will push for the next warbird which has more components/assemblies made in their country.

I do believe that with the Gnat experience, the IAF thinks the same way about export track records. It is upto the political leadership to back the IAF for what it needs (not wants). However ToT and T&Cs will tilt the scales in the favour of the better offer.

There is where I speculate that Dassault may have done a boo boo.

Now, if I was the negotiator (and thinking like an IAF guy), I would definitely get both vendors to agree to a "sudden death" round. Point out to them why they disappoint us in terms of meeting our expectations and ask them to give their last and best bid. Or say no to the sudden death offer.

Of course, I am assuming that all risk factors in delivery of the contracted terms have been accounted for.

There are a lot of assumptions in my approach, the main one being the weak rupee. But the MoF may turn around and say that within a year the Rupee will be back to 44 per $. In which case the delay maybe only in the complexity of the calculations of L1 which need necessarily to be agreed upon by the bidder as the right interpretation by the MoD. And here, the vendors may use it as an opportunity and say to the MoD that you have calculated too high, or it is too low. The former would be the rejoinder from the vendor who wants to reduce their price even lower. Provided they can justify where the MoDs calculation was wrong.

So I guess we have to have patience. The CoAF maybe pushing for it, but the bean counters have to be creative and correct.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2011 00:10

I liked the soccer analogy of getting extended time and sudden death rounds. Till the top secretes are out, we can play foot ball with these two teams. I am beginning to think, it is still 1:1 draw after two extension of time. Penalty kick goals is ideal if both of them fail to lower down the price, and the winner walks away with a staggered deal., and the base price adjusted based on some adjusted GDP indicator and $ value + a combination of ToT values makes the total investments.

Getting the production line started by year end 2012 is what we should aim for.

saip · Post by **saip** » 30 Dec 2011 00:34

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:^^^ Septimus P is neither a Brit nor a German. Someone who is as consistently anti-French and as base and vulgar as is Septimus P, can only be an American.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Stop stereo typing. I am an american too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2011 00:55

^^you will be reported soon!

saip · Post by **saip** » 30 Dec 2011 01:46

Saudi Arabia is reportedly paying $30 billion for 84 F15s and modernization of 70 old aircraft. So what do these include besides the aircraft to be so expensive?

Link

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 30 Dec 2011 06:30

I think the MMRCA contract will go to Eurofighter, on political considerations.

The other possibility is the cancellation of the MMRCA tender, because both alternatives are too expensive.

Maybe we should start a vote on what the possible outcomes of the MMRCA contract will be:

1. Eurofighter wins
2. Rafale wins
3. MMRCA purchase is cancelled by the GOI

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 30 Dec 2011 07:06

saip wrote:Saudi Arabia is reportedly paying $30 billion for 84 F15s and modernization of 70 old aircraft. So what do these include besides the aircraft to be so expensive?

Link

MMRCA was long held up as the biggest int'l fighter deal in the world etc. With the above, that claim can now safely RIP, I guess.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2011 09:28

why do the saudies need them?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 30 Dec 2011 09:51

Saudis could have bought 300 more Typhoons for that money which tells us what they think about it. And the Rafale by extension.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2011 10:18

mutual scratch back.. I was listening to radio, that talks about ops difficulties in af-pak region. masan mil is focusing algae technology for defense related fuel supplies.. they are concerned at chewing dependency on foreign oil supplies that costed them $1b in the last year change in oil prices.

greener technology from masan defense labs, mean ton of money into green technologies. I like that.. in the sense it is going to fuel a race for aviation fuel as well.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 30 Dec 2011 15:36

bhai log .. read carefully before

The $29.4 billion deal -- announced against the backdrop of rising tensions with Iran -- calls for the production of up to 84 new F-15SA aircraft and the modernization of 70 current F-15s, along with "munitions, spare parts, training, maintenance and logistics," Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro told reporters.

I am quite sure (if this deal goes through) with everything included we will be paying around $40 billion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Dec 2011 16:04

Saik,you have left out the great nuclear expert from Koodankulam,"Dr." Udaykumar,and his band of cassocked nuclear experts of the church,Catholic ,Protestant,EJ-whatever denomination they might come from,ex-I-ASSes like Dvasahayam,"nuclear families",NGOs,etc.Without consulting them,the entire exercise will be fraudulent.After all,they know how to produce-"fast breeder" ,like the Biblical "fishes and loaves" ,how to prouce biryani and banknotes out of thin air to feed the tens of thousands!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2011 23:17

you see, it is not called leaving it out, but it focusing on a particular scope

of reasoning. now, we could creep a little bit on the boundaries so that loops and leaps back in the ideas like you have said here.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 31 Dec 2011 01:15

saip wrote:Saudi Arabia is reportedly paying $30 billion for 84 F15s and modernization of 70 old aircraft. So what do these include besides the aircraft to be so expensive?

Link

Try 4000+ precision bombs, 600 HARMs, and 400 Harpoons for starters.

And only about 800 air-to-air missiles.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... _10-43.pdf

Read the whole list. That kit would make any jingo drool...