Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 Oct 2013 04:06

I am not even going into world class logistics support because that is subjective to the whims of a government which has never been sensitive to our concerns and interests , enough said


No longer.

No user - who wants good up-time (like the C-17s in India) - will allow a government to interfere in such matters.

Forget logistics (or supply chain), even procurement (one of the things being pushed in the Indo-US "Strategic Partnership" talks) is slowly falling into line.

With supply chain going global and everything pretty much automated, the likes of GoI have no say in such matters. Besides the user selects the level of service they want and is tied into the cost of the product they purchase.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2013 09:58

One wishes it were so simple.Unfortunately in the Indian context,the poor chiefs have to ask permission from lowly babus before they can get an appointment with their political bosses.The days when Sam could meet his PM for a chat are long over.IG was simply fabulous.Another chief personally told me how he had a vexing problem and could not accept a diktat from the PMO.He personally explained the details of the issue to her and she listened and agreed with him,reversing the decision.

From the statements by the chief and one is sure that the sentiment is shared by his senior brass down the line,the IAF wants the Rafale deal signed on.What may come about is a compromise on numbers,but falling numbers will still have to be met with cheaper acquisitions from abroad,until LCA series production runs smoothly.In this issue,the MMRCA deal,proven aircraft that are flying and in service to fight the battles for tomorrow's challenges of today are what's needed,not future fighters for the challenges of tomorrow.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Oct 2013 11:52

One of the reasons we attribute increase in 4th gen fighters in China is due to SU-27 copies, which Russia says is ok as its the older technology. Why can't we produce these or import with some latest weapons?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 31 Oct 2013 14:38

Mihir wrote:
Victor wrote:One of the most daunting hurdles ahead is to convert the "2 days to change engine" situation to a maximum of 2 hours even though comparable jets take 30 minutes or less. I won't hold my breath, even if we spend an arm and a leg for foreign "consultants". Can we fault the IAF for being forced to fall back on ancient MiG-21s for at least another decade? What else can they do?

Oh, that is because the tolerances are too tight. What they should have done was increase the diameters of the "ring-like components" a little. That would have solved the problem. It is a testament to the incompetence of ADA, HAL, HVF Avadhi, Mazgaon Docks, etc. that they didn't do something that simple.


:rotfl:

I got the meaning when I read the "ring-like components" part.. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Mihir » 31 Oct 2013 19:01

Heh heh 8) :P

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

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby negi » 31 Oct 2013 19:10

Cosmo_R if Rafale/EF do not happen then I won't bat an eyelid and just say to the IAF "You know what we fckd up yet again , now that we are already almost 2 decades behind on this procurement might as well wait for just 5 years and order 200 Tejas MK2/3".

The assumption that Rafale/EF will not materialize is a scary one for a start no not because of the platforms in question but because it puts a very big question mark on our system as a whole.

However to answer your question if we actually fck up then I for one will not even bother with another tendering process because what is the guarantee that we won't fck up again , as I said just order for LCA MK2/3 because number of years lost in tendering + trials + negotiations + delivery will be enough for LCA MK2 to clear FOC and even be produced in numbers.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5835
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby vishvak » 31 Oct 2013 20:17

No point in waiting to consider strength of LCA§2 or AMCA as LCA§2/AMCA will be, especially when required already.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 Oct 2013 21:04

This based on chaiwalla, barber info:

nikhil_p wrote: Team LCA you rock!!!


Have faith. Faith is that which allows one to overcome fear.

He also adds:

What he did drop though is that there might be a 1.5 version as well and the first two sqds will probably be that.

arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby arthuro » 01 Nov 2013 00:50

IAF May Day for MMRCA

[...]The IAF's Deputy Chief recently claimed he expected the deal to be pushed through before April 2014, but if the reality in negotiations is anything to go by, there remains a mountain of work ahead and very little time. Serious stumbling blocks linger on three principal accounts, slowing progress and all but nixing the possibility of an early contract signature:
(a) division of responsibilities between Dassault and HAL in terms of workshare and technical collaboration,
(b) costing of the 18 flyaway aircraft that will be produced by Dassault for the first MMRCA squadron, and
(c) offsets.
[...]
"Anyone with the impression that the MMRCA negotiations are simply drifting would have a very different view if they were aware of the complexities of this particular contract. It must be communicated to those interested in such matters that the MMRCA programme has surpassed all previous defence contract negotiations in India in terms of complexity, depth and scale, not just in terms of value and numbers, but in terms of the sheer detail into which each header is being hammered out. When we are talking about such enormous portions of public money, it is a non-negotiable duty to ensure that every Rupee is prudently spent, and that each paisa brings us the very best," a senior MoD official informs SP's.


http://www.spsaviation.net/exclusive/?i ... or%20MMRCA

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Nov 2013 01:09

India Plays Down Prospect Of Early Rafale Fighter Deal

NEW DELHI — India’s defense minister played down on Wednesday the prospects of a speedy conclusion to contract negotiations with France’s Dassault Aviation for the acquisition of 126 Rafale fighter jets.

Asked about recent reported comments from a senior air force figure that the deal might be signed by March, A. K. Antony replied that the contract had to go through numerous stages of scrutiny.

The chances of meeting a target to conclude the huge and complicated production-sharing agreement this year appear to be dwindling, with India expected to hold elections in the first half of next year.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Nov 2013 01:10

pragnya wrote:
Viv S wrote:I don't think you're getting me here.

You want to take an average of the Jane's figures and GAO figures for F-35. Jane says F-16 costs $7,000/hr, GAO says it costs $22,500/hr. Clearly when they talk about cost per hour they're not talking about the same thing. So the Rafale's $16,500 for Jane's will translate to a different cost by the GAO's metric.


When a study compares the cost of two or more aircraft it uses the same assumptions for both. Take the cost of fuel for example; it might say that the aircraft will spend 25% of the median flight in low subsonic speed, 75% in the high subsonic/transonic regime and 25% while supersonic, and calculate fuel consumption from that. Another study might use a ratio of 10:80:10. Both would be correct, but you wouldn't be able to take cost of aircraft A from one study and compare it cost of aircraft B from another study.

I've quoted Jane's findings that you posted, only because it compared both the Rafale and F-35 (and Gripen, EF, SH & F-16) within the same parameters.


i am sorry you are not getting it.

Janes fig of F-35 was wrt RAAF and not USAF.

besides the fig of $24000 that F35 PEO is quoting for the dutch says very clearly it is 10% more then F-16 fig (must be the later blocks with current costs) with USAF. this again is contested by Pentagon Chief who says it is higher than $24000 but less than $31900 which was quoted to the congress earlier. besides the fig for F-16 quoted in Janes is based on a US study material from 2005 (must be referring to earlier blocks and the then costs)!!!

so do you take the latest figs or 'only' Janes fig??


I'm willing to take any figures you provide as long as you provide the equivalent figure for the Rafale. The discrepancy of the F-16's CPFH being $8000/hr in one study and $22000/hr in the other is not because they refer to different blocks of the F-16. There completely different figures - the first is purely the operational cost while the other has support/acquisition costs built in.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Nov 2013 01:26



India’s defense minister played down on Wednesday the prospects of a speedy conclusion to contract negotiations with France’s Dassault Aviation for the acquisition of 126 Rafale fighter jets.

Asked about recent reported comments from a senior air force figure that the deal might be signed by March, A. K. Antony replied that the contract had to go through numerous stages of scrutiny.

“How can I set a deadline?” Antony told reporters. “The process is on.”

He said he could not interfere with the Contract Negotiation Committee, which is reviewing the $12 billion contract designed to bolster India’s aging air defenses.

After this, it will pass through another “four to five mechanisms” before being elevated to the defense and finance ministries and ultimately the cabinet, he explained.

“Each body is interested to scrutinize at various phases. It is up to them,” Antony said, adding that India’s strict procurement process designed to eliminate corruption was being followed.

India chose privately-owned Dassault in January 2012 for exclusive negotiations for the aircraft, but successive deadlines to complete one of the world’s biggest defense contracts have slipped by.

The chances of meeting a target to conclude the huge and complicated production-sharing agreement this year appear to be dwindling, with India expected to hold elections in the first half of next year.

Earlier this month Air Marshal S. Sukumar, deputy chief of air staff, was reported to have said that the deal would be signed within the current financial year.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Nov 2013 01:55

Mihir wrote:Let's try this another way, shall we? Why don't you provide:

- A detailed list of the problems with the F-35
- The proposed solutions
- The schedule to develop, test, and implement each solution
- The costs associated with each fix
- Probability figures outlining how likely they are to stick to those projected costs and timelines? Or better still, a probability distribution that shows a range of possible outcomes and the probability associated with each?


Major problems (req. hardware changes):

1. HMDS
2. Fuel Dump Subsystem
3. Integrated Power Package
4. Transonic buffet

Minor problems

5. Heat damage - horizontal tail surfaces
6. ALIS - immature
7. Lightening protection - uncertified

Program Issues

8. Flight testing behind schedule
9. Software development behind schedule

Solutions -

1. Jitter being fixed with IMU device. Image acuity and latency addressed in VSI Gen 3 helmet (LRIP 7).
2. Solution introduced and tested.
3. Reliability issues raised after a IPP failure in 2011. Malfunctioning valve identified.
4. No fix. Flight performance scaled back by modifying FCS.

5. New coatings developed and currently being implemented.
6. Development proceeding; not critical for export customers.
7. Certification in 2014-16 time-frame.

8. Now running ahead on schedule with over 50% of the flight testing complete. Of the 10000+ hours accumulated to date, over 5000 were clocked in 2013.
9. Still running behind schedule. Block 3F software completion expected only by 2017.


Cost to Retrofit LRIP aircraft:

Total: $1.7 billion - average cost under $6 million per unit. Drops with every new lot -

LRIP 2: $16.6 mil
LRIP 3: $15.7 mil
LRIP 4: $14.6 mil
LRIP 5: $10 mil


I will then give you all the numbers and estimates you want. If the above aren't know then I suggest we avoid engaging in further speculation. The only concrete figure I have is that the program saw a 70% increase in overall costs for 400 fewer fighters; and that is before the F-35 is nowhere near ready. It does not paint a pretty picture.


Trouble is you don't seem to have done the legwork. And if a cut of 400 fighters (original requirement approx 2850) paints a poor picture, what does it say about the cut of Rafale aircraft; 100 aircraft (out of 320)?


Striker? Really? If that's your argument, let us say that the F-35 is similar to the F-16 and be done with it, ja? And yes, I *am* making the case that the HMD is extremely complicated and will take a long time to fix. If the program managers wished to deploy a system of this sort, they should have done so on a less complex project that was largely ready for operations so that the overall program risk could be managed. Or even better, they should have sanctioned the development of the HMD and its associated sensors before the F-35 was conceived, testing it out on something like a T-38 or a modified Phantom/F-16/B-52. But no, they decided to go with brand new, untested systems everywhere.


Are you're going to rebut that argument with "Striker really" ? Basically, you've sidestepped the basic issue, (that a similar albeit less sophisticated system is already operational), with a sermon on how you would have managed the project. Specifically, what part of the solution being implemented to fix the jitter do you think is unfeasible?


Dear sir, if the skin bubbles and peels when the F-35 flies on afterburners, it *is* majorly faulty. The fact that this problem was noticed so late in the program speaks volumes about the mess that program management was. As Spey says, how the hell did they not test the skin by simply putting it in an oven and checking if it maintained integrity at high temperatures?


Dear Sir, what you originally said was that 'when the aircraft goes supersonic its skin starts peeling off'. It had to be pointed out that the peeling and bubbling happened on specific areas near the exhaust and the entire skin didn't have to be replaced.

As for tests, I think you mean why didn't they test it at 2000K inside a supersonic wind tunnel.


As for replacing the panels with a non-stealthy alternative, do you know what area of the tailplane is affected? If the bubbling happens on the elevators or rudders, one can't just replace it with non-stealthy coating for it will compromise stealth all round. In either case, we don't know how Lockheed proposes to solve the problem, so any speculation is meaningless.


They've implemented a different coating for the horizontal tail plane.


Viv S wrote:Ah, I didn't know that China, France, India, Russia, and Pakistan* were F-35 customers. The only proven first-rate air forces I see acquiring F-35s are the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, and Israel. That's five, not "most".


Add Italy, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, plus smaller NATO air forces including Norway, Denmark and Netherlands. The only major western air forces not signed (and therefore 'laughing at concurrency') are the Luftwaffe and AdlA. As it happens, Germany is cutting Eurofighter orders while France cuts Rafale orders.


Viv S wrote:I've posted the concurrency costs as well which as per you are $[bloody expensive]/unit while the US DoD (which has no credibility in your eyes) is $6 mil/unit.

Sir, if you insist, after I narrated all that Ramayan, that Sita was kidnapped by Duryodhan and rescued by the great hero Kartikeya, I have nothing left to say.


Well, you should either come up with a estimate (even a tentative one) of your own, or refrain from vague generalizations like 'bloody expensive', which could mean anything from $5 mil to $50 mil granting you luxury of always claiming you were right.


Those LRIP costs and concurrency costs are meaningless because 719 problems, some of them very serious, remain to be fixed, and we do not know when or at what cost they will be solved.


And how do the 719 problems compare with other fighter programs. Is it a high figure, is it a low figure? What' the figure for the F-22, what's it for the Tejas? What's been the progress between that calculation and present date? Without context, '719 problems' doesn't mean anything.

With regard to the retrofit costs; they've obviously been factored in, or the cost of concurrency would have been zero.


A working, combat capable F-35 that is ready by the time the Rafale enters IAF service is very much a mirage.


Please post specifics not generalizations. Which block qualifies as 'working, combat capable' in your opinion? You need to decide, justify it, and then we'll see whether it'll be operational in 2015 or 2017 or 2019.


So? Do those numbers automatically imply that everything will shortly be hunky-dory? It may just happen that some those European countries that have invested in the F-35 finally decide that it isn't worth the money and purchase Gripens or Rafales or JF-17s (:P) instead.


How many of those countries have picked the Rafale so far? UK, Italy and Turkey are industrially committed to the F-35. Norway and Netherlands have settled on the F-35 (at least partially because falling costs), with only Denmark still considering alternatives, though even its expected to follow suit. What is more likely are order cuts from Europe, and though their size is small relative to the total F-35 acquisition, they're still more than made up thanks to orders from Asia.


Mihir wrote:Nope, they have just decided to focus on fixing the original HMD. They haven't actually fixed anything yet.

... touted a fix ... which officials hope will solve jitter picture and lag time issues ... is expected to fix the jitter ... could fix the lag ...
Don't look now, Viv, but I think you just strengthened my argument. "Hope" indeed. Maybe they should graduate to "prayers" and see if those do any good.


The IMU to fix the jitters has already been implemented on the Gen 2 and as of May 2013, it was being flight trialed along with the software was modified. The fixes are to be fine-tuned for the Gen 3, while improving the night vision.


Viv S wrote:The flip-side is since the early 2000s the Chinese air defences have undergone a rapid and continuing transformation, with the proliferation of S-300 class systems, multiple classes of AEW&C aircraft, modern 4G fighters and vastly improved training standards. At a time when the Russians are working to expand their strike capability (with the PAK DA development), the Rafale can hardly be relied upon to prevail against a larger better equipped PLAAF.

Fair argument. But the Rafales are hardly taking on the PLAAF alone. The IAF plans to acquire the PAK-FA and AMCA as well.


The F-35's time-frame is not concrete enough to warrant a potential Rafale substitution, but its still productive to factor in the AMCA which right now is absolute vaporware and will not be in service before 2035 (extrapolating from the F-35 and PAK FA programs)?

With regard to the PAK FA, while it will excel in the air superiority role, its design trade-offs make it less suited for strike missions than its peers. To add to which it doesn't have any equivalent to the DAS or EOTS, is unlikely to field comparable ESM systems or comparable range of air-to-ground munitions, and the extent to which non-Russian equipment or weaponry can be mated is still unknown.

However (for a change!) lets assume that it all works out fine in this case; fact is the Rafale's USP was it so called omni-role capability, now if the heavy lifting is to be done by the PAK FAs and MKIs, what's the point of blowing billions to merely fill the roster? We may as well stick to the Tejas and save ourselves a bundle.
Last edited by Viv S on 01 Nov 2013 02:19, edited 1 time in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 Nov 2013 02:04

@GeorgeWelch ^^: GW, cand you/would you develop a plausible scenario around the following:

1. Euro has gone up while the INR has gone down relative to USD. Rafale/EF prices contain lots of escape (force majeure, material adverse change etc.) clauses. Time is the enemy of the deal.

2. Ashton Carter gets a brainstorm:

a. SH as gap filler, FMS, lease to reduce budget impact in India
b. Boeing establishes full service MRO for IAF/IN/USN on ground in India as 'offset' which is not usually possible under FMS

Any thoughts?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 01 Nov 2013 02:08

Ashton Carter recently left. :p

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

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby negi » 01 Nov 2013 02:08

^ I have a better tale we should sign the CTBT , de militarize siachin and I can bet that USA will then give away the F18 sh for free or at subsidized munna rates like it does to TSP basically all we have to do is to massage unkil's ego and do some Gubo. I can bet that no one on this thread can come up a better proposition in terms f costs for cost is all that is to buying a fighter AC.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Mihir » 01 Nov 2013 02:19

Viv, have it your way, boss. I'm not going to repeat the same points over and over again. If you insist on treating LRIP costs (minus the engine and what not) as the final number and believe every figure that Lockheed's PR machinery throws out; if you believe that major problems are simply minor difficulties, if you keep thinking that hopes and proposals and estimates are solutions; then there's little I can do. Best we end it here.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby pragnya » 01 Nov 2013 11:03

Viv S wrote:I'm willing to take any figures you provide as long as you provide the equivalent figure for the Rafale.


the issue of 'performance downgrade' and 'artificial lowering of operating costs' of F 35 to make a favourable impression for F 35 survival is well known and has been written by many analysts. no surprises when the Pentagon acquisition chief disagrees with F35 CPFH. i have given many links which range from $24000 - contested from the F 35 PEO, much more than $24000 but less than $31900 by the Pentogon, and USAF target fig of $35200 as per GAO in june 2012. you simply refuse to even consider.

as to Rafale's CPFH you want an 'equivalent' fig and unfortunately i am in no position to give that which can only be given by French Air Force or a french govt source similar to GAO possibly.

however i admit my mistake on one of the fig i gave - $14000. it is Euro 14000 and not $. so the fig in dollars is $19275. so we have 2 figs for Rafale CPFH - $16500 and $19725.

it can be noted the french have stressed on low operating costs from the development stage which Dassault emphasises - less man hours, less moving parts, smaller support group, compact support tools, easily accessible and pluggable LRU, spares etc..

The discrepancy of the F-16's CPFH being $8000/hr in one study and $22000/hr in the other is not because they refer to different blocks of the F-16. There completely different figures - the first is purely the operational cost while the other has support/acquisition costs built in.


the links i gave you clearly mention $22000/22500 as the latest CPFH for F 16 as averred by GAO (2012) and even F 35 PEO. the Janes study was based on US study material of it's fleet in 2005 and not of 2012/13. while support cost is definitely part of CPFH, whether acq. cost is added in the F-16 fig is a guess which can't be proven. i am happy to be corrected by you on this but anyway F 16 is not our focus of discussion so i leave it at that.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby vic » 01 Nov 2013 13:54

Most of these per hour costing models do not fit Indian conditions correctly. In India Interest cost i.e. Capital Cost is high while Manpower cost is low, hence costing will be very different. When I ran my own costing models, I seem to find that Rafale per annum cost is 2 times a Su-30MKI for India while for a developed Western Nation it will be roughly equal.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12030
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Nov 2013 14:11

Further, a western sortie take off get refueled from KC-135 and then enter hostile theatre may be different from Indian missions which are probably much more shorter and more intensive

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby pragnya » 01 Nov 2013 14:30

vic,

Most of these per hour costing models do not fit Indian conditions correctly. In India Interest cost i.e. Capital Cost is high while Manpower cost is low, hence costing will be very different.


i agree that CPFH is variable from region to region. in India, owing to high jet fuel costs, it would be higher. however labour cost, fuel cost being 'variably' constant (over a period) constant for a country rough estimates can be made if a starting metric is available but these are not easily available as the OEMs jealously keep it secret particularly wrt 'not so open' countries.

When I ran my own costing models, I seem to find that Rafale per annum cost is 2 times a Su-30MKI for India while for a developed Western Nation it will be roughly equal.


i was comparing western to western models with availble info from credible sources.

as to SU 30MKI CPFH being less than Rafale for the IAF (as per your calculations) it would be a surprise for me. i posted Vayu MAG ARTICLE excerpts - in the mil aviation thread - which says SU 30MKI guzzles 7.5tons of fuel/hour.

IMHO (a speculation ofc) SU 30MKI CPFH would be easily above $20000 and should be more than Rafale (see the Dassault link above). however i would be happy to look at your estmates and be corrrected.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2013 15:43

pragnya wrote:as to SU 30MKI CPFH being less than Rafale for the IAF (as per your calculations) it would be a surprise for me. i posted Vayu MAG ARTICLE excerpts - in the mil aviation thread - which says SU 30MKI guzzles 7.5tons of fuel/hour.


I doubt those 7.5 T fuel/hour , considering MKI carries 10 T internal fuel , then it will probably stay a little more than an hour in air on internal fuel.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 01 Nov 2013 15:52

vic wrote:When I ran my own costing models, I seem to find that Rafale per annum cost is 2 times a Su-30MKI for India while for a developed Western Nation it will be roughly equal.


Would you mind sharing your model?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 Nov 2013 16:02

Karan M wrote:Ashton Carter recently left. :p


December 15 is his last day.

arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby arthuro » 01 Nov 2013 16:30

About rafale cost per flight hour (14 000 euros), one often quote its costs at maximum operational tempo deployed thousands of kilometers from their original air force bases.

While Dassault is unwilling to talk in detail about the aircraft price for commercial reasons, it is keen to point out that Rafale’s operational costs have been baselined by the operations in Mali. “The French air force has stated that during the Mali operations one hour of combat missions with the Rafale cost €14,000 (around CAD$19,000). That is the cost at its maximum operational tempo flying combat missions. It would be lower for training schedules or for peacetime operations.”

http://vanguardcanada.com/mission-satis ... apability/

You could bet on a "normal" flight hour costs around or slightly below 10 000 euros for france and perhaps even lower for India. That's a massive difference with the F35 in terms of operating costs which should be around three time more expensive to operate than the rafale.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby pragnya » 01 Nov 2013 16:45

Austin wrote:
pragnya wrote:as to SU 30MKI CPFH being less than Rafale for the IAF (as per your calculations) it would be a surprise for me. i posted Vayu MAG ARTICLE excerpts - in the mil aviation thread - which says SU 30MKI guzzles 7.5tons of fuel/hour.


I doubt those 7.5 T fuel/hour , considering MKI carries 10 T internal fuel , then it will probably stay a little more than an hour in air on internal fuel.


Austin, that's a good point and i agree with you. i cross checked to see if there was any 'typo' error on my part but there is none. possibly the error is on the part of Vayu Mag.

also i cross checked with other open sources and came up with this - A normal fuel load of 5270 kg ensures a 4.5 hour combat mission. so a fuel burn of app. 1.5tons/hr is what it seems and either the author or the Vayu errored it as 7.5tons/hr.

thanks for pointing out. :)

gkriish
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby gkriish » 01 Nov 2013 17:01

why not bring the private sector in and share the LCA tech with them and let the govt monitor the company to which they sell the tech it might take time but its worth a try instead of waiting for some foreign company to lay the egg and you sit and wait for it to hatch..............

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2013 17:14

pragnya wrote:also i cross checked with other open sources and came up with this - A normal fuel load of 5270 kg ensures a 4.5 hour combat mission. so a fuel burn of app. 1.5tons/hr is what it seems and either the author or the Vayu errored it as 7.5tons/hr.

thanks for pointing out. :)


Probably a typo by proof reader happens a lot , 1.5 might have got converted to 7.5.

Vayu Sea Tripod figures makes some sense but there would be many variables like weapons load ,altitude of flight , supersonic/subsonic flight regimes etc a combination of these and perhaps even others might affect the fuel burn pattern.

Most certainly fuel is expensive and we import most and pay thorough our nose ....so need to mix/match fleet with Heavy and light fighter.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9800
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 01 Nov 2013 17:35

gkriish wrote:why not bring the private sector in and share the LCA tech with them and let the govt monitor the company to which they sell the tech it might take time but its worth a try instead of waiting for some foreign company to lay the egg and you sit and wait for it to hatch..............

On long term basis this would be best solution. Time to find private alternative to HAL and other DPSU.

Aditya_M
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_M » 01 Nov 2013 20:28

Question here, even if we do buy the JSF, how do we refuel it mid-air? No probe on it and no boom on either the 78MKI or the MRTT.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Nov 2013 20:32

Aditya_M wrote:Question here, even if we do buy the JSF, how do we refuel it mid-air? No probe on it and no boom on either the 78MKI or the MRTT.




The F-35A has the one for the USAF - boom.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 01 Nov 2013 22:03

Aditya_M wrote:Question here, even if we do buy the JSF, how do we refuel it mid-air? No probe on it and no boom on either the 78MKI or the MRTT.


It can be ordered with a probe.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 Nov 2013 01:20

Mihir wrote:Viv, have it your way, boss. I'm not going to repeat the same points over and over again. If you insist on treating LRIP costs (minus the engine and what not) as the final number and believe every figure that Lockheed's PR machinery throws out; if you believe that major problems are simply minor difficulties, if you keep thinking that hopes and proposals and estimates are solutions; then there's little I can do. Best we end it here.


Mihir, the JSF program was sanctioned back in 1996, this isn't an aircraft that has just entered development. Its been in production since 2011 and its been flown for over 10,000hrs. The flight envelope is almost completely open and weapon testing in full swing. Point is, the hardware problems that would have plagued it, whether major or minor, have already been identified and solutions are currently in the process of being implemented. The only major hurdle remaining in terms of hardware is fatigue testing. The delay upto 2017 for the IOTE phase is almost entirely because of software development.

As far as LRIP costs go, the cost of concurrency at $5.8mil/unit is hardly daunting, lower still for aircraft delivered in later lots. The LRIP aircraft are not in fact development aircraft, analogous to say... the Tejas LSPs. The only reason LRIP costs are not final is that the F-35 production rate is still fairly low at 30 units annually (incidently Rafale production stands at a meagre 11/yr), and will not reach full rate until 2019. As production ramps up, costs will fall even further even though it remains to be seen if an URF cost of $80-90 mil is achievable.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 Nov 2013 02:20

pragnya wrote:as to Rafale's CPFH you want an 'equivalent' fig and unfortunately i am in no position to give that which can only be given by French Air Force or a french govt source similar to GAO possibly.


Pragnya, when I say I'd like an equivalent figure, I don't mean a figure from a suitably authoritative body. I mean a figure that calculates the same costs.

Recurring flyaway cost typically accounts for between a quarter and a third of the aircraft's total cost of ownership over several decades. Now what part of the balance, accounts for 'operating cost' varies from study to study, as do the conditions under which they're calculated. US studies for example assume 250 hrs flown annually, while European ones assume about 200 hrs. The same applies to sortie lengths, sortie rate, median flight profile and so on.

Its inevitable that you'll have multiple and widely varying figures for the F-16, Rafale, F-35 and so on. The solution is not a matter of simply averaging them all out.

CPFH by itself doesn't mean anything; for example the German defence ministry calculated the Eurofighter's CPFH to be about €76,000 or $105,000. While probably accurate, it can't be compared with figures from other study studies that focus on different things.

it can be noted the french have stressed on low operating costs from the development stage which Dassault emphasises - less man hours, less moving parts, smaller support group, compact support tools, easily accessible and pluggable LRU, spares etc..


The Rafale's standing strength is barely 125 at the moment, and confirmed orders stand at 180 total, which is expected to rise to 225. On the other hand, 3000+ orders for the F-35 translates into 3000 x spares, 3000 x LRUs and so on. It too was designed to be easily maintainable (albeit not as cheaply as a 4G fighter) but where its breaking new ground is in terms of self diagnostics coupled with a revolutionary system to manage logistics.


the links i gave you clearly mention $22000/22500 as the latest CPFH for F 16 as averred by GAO (2012) and even F 35 PEO. the Janes study was based on US study material of it's fleet in 2005 and not of 2012/13.


The F-16's operating cost can hardly have increased nearly three fold, in just over five years. Also, there's only one model of F-16 in production i.e. Block 52+ it entered service before 2005. In any case, even accounting for the changes vis a vis rest of the fleet i.e. dorsal spine, OBOGS, and APG-68 V(9), the operating cost wouldn't be affected.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 Nov 2013 02:36

Aditya_M wrote:Question here, even if we do buy the JSF, how do we refuel it mid-air? No probe on it and no boom on either the 78MKI or the MRTT.


Canada and UK operate probe-and-drogue systems as well, so they have the same issues.

According to LM VP Steve O'Brian - “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”


That aside, there is still the option of equipping the Airbus 330 MRTT with a boom -

One of the A330 MRTT’s advanced technology features is its all-electric Aerial Refuelling Boom System, which provides highly accurate, reliable in-flight refuelling. Developed by Airbus Military specifically for the A330 MRTT, the under-fuselage centreline ARBS is the only new-generation boom, and allows the fastest fuel transfer (4,600 litres per minute) – greatly reducing the refuelling operation time.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... a330-mrtt/

Its operational with the RAAF, UAEAF and RSAF.

Given the fact that we'll be operating 10 to 20 C-17s, over 12 C-130Js and 8 to 12 P-8Is, its worth looking into.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Nov 2013 09:13

I don't know why the F-35 is being discussed in this thread,the IAF have said repeatedly that they do not want the F-35.Other more realistic alternatives to the MMRCA/Rafale if the deal collapses need to be debated.In any case,even if the negotiations drag on,the French would not like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and at some point in time next year,the deal should go through ,but perhaps in modified form.Having waited patiently for years for the LCA and still waiting,another year's delay in the Rafale would be acceptable to the IAF,as long as they get the bird.The French could sweeten the deal by transferring a couple of its sqds. in the interim,until new-built fighters arrive.Remember how the Scorpene deal also spanned regime change and had to be renegotiated over the extra price.

If the economy fails to pick up,and drastic cuts are being made all round,then the MOD/IAF will have to look for the most cost-effective replacements and more of the same-either Sukhois or MIG-29s,ease of induction as both are in service,being the attraction,along with as many LCAs that can be produced as MIG-21 replacements,may be the order of the day.There is one issue that perplexes me.The Jaguar upgrades and the delay.I'm not sure if a comparison has been done between the Jaguars and LCA MK-1.The latter is a far more sophisticated fighter and appears to be able to perform the strike role as efficiently or better.Instead of building extra Jaguars/upgrading the entire lot,surely the Jaguar line could be used for extra LCA production.Can anyone shed some more light on this?

arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby arthuro » 02 Nov 2013 13:55

First upgraded mirage 2000 delivered to IAF :

Image

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/11/ ... -2000.html

With the upgraded mirage 2000 being a reality for the IAF, it makes even more sense to stick with the rafale for the MRCA.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby kmc_chacko » 02 Nov 2013 15:24

Philip wrote:I don't know why the F-35 is being discussed in this thread,the IAF have said repeatedly that they do not want the F-35.Other more realistic alternatives to the MMRCA/Rafale if the deal collapses need to be debated.In any case,even if the negotiations drag on,the French would not like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and at some point in time next year,the deal should go through ,but perhaps in modified form.Having waited patiently for years for the LCA and still waiting,another year's delay in the Rafale would be acceptable to the IAF,as long as they get the bird.The French could sweeten the deal by transferring a couple of its sqds. in the interim,until new-built fighters arrive.Remember how the Scorpene deal also spanned regime change and had to be renegotiated over the extra price.

If the economy fails to pick up,and drastic cuts are being made all round,then the MOD/IAF will have to look for the most cost-effective replacements and more of the same-either Sukhois or MIG-29s,ease of induction as both are in service,being the attraction,along with as many LCAs that can be produced as MIG-21 replacements,may be the order of the day.There is one issue that perplexes me.The Jaguar upgrades and the delay.I'm not sure if a comparison has been done between the Jaguars and LCA MK-1.The latter is a far more sophisticated fighter and appears to be able to perform the strike role as efficiently or better.Instead of building extra Jaguars/upgrading the entire lot,surely the Jaguar line could be used for extra LCA production.Can anyone shed some more light on this?


Sir,

Is there any need for requirement or alternative to MRCA ? If Yes then only question raises what are the options IAF has ?
Before that we should check what might be the composure of IAF in/after 2030 ?
I have listed some stage at which IAF might be in 2030 - correct me if I am wrong

Su-30MKI - 250+ - will be at the same stage where now Mig-29 is i.e., getting upgraded
MRCA - 150+ - will be at the same stage where now Mirage is i.e., getting upgraded
Mig-29 - will be waiting for retiring - just like Mig-21s
Mirage - will be waiting for retiring - just like Mig-21s
Mig-27 - already retired
Jaguar - already retired
Tejas - Mk.1 - 40 waiting for upgradation or retirement
Tejas - Mk.2 - 60 under production if everything goes as per plan
Tejas - Mk.3 - 150+ under production if everything goes as per plan
PakFa - 50
FGFA - 150+ under production if everything goes as per plan
AMCA - 50 if it can be reality
therefore by-large in 2030 If we leave out MRCA project now and concentrate on AMCA and LCA project we can make up the strength of 39+ Squadrons by 2030 and if we continue with MRCA project then we will have 45+ squadrons.

So my final suggestion is rather than thinking about replacing or cancelling MRCA project, let the project of procuring continue and alongwith that try to buy or steal technology from US and concentrate on absorbing technology for everyone and integrate that into AMCA and LCA projects and make us self sufficient.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Nov 2013 18:17

arthuro wrote:First upgraded mirage 2000 delivered to IAF :

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/11/ ... -2000.html

With the upgraded mirage 2000 being a reality for the IAF, it makes even more sense to stick with the rafale for the MRCA.


A VERY frightening picture and thought.

Now imagine what the cost of a Rafale MLU would be!!!!

Even at the current estimated cost the Rafale is not worth it, with the MLU it would be the most expensive purchase in Indian history.

Not worth it at that price. (Again I am complaining about the cost and NOT the technology.)

Alternatively IF Indians cannot get the MLU for the Rafale without any French help - then India better fold up and move on.

OR by the time the Rafale MLU arrive India should be in a position to dump the Rafale (it should be obsolete by then.

On teh other hand, the French had teh Rafale to upgrade the M2K, what will they have for the MLU for teh Rafale?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2013 20:38

its becoming more like a whats best and whats ok but not the best for a sick patient.Too late the patient dies or medicine becomes past expiry date. looks like the patient ( IAF ) has to become better on his own or get some alternative medicine :mrgreen: ... maybe homeopathy ? .. :(( .. mig 29k s for IAF ! .. might or might not work ..placebo effect though in numbers


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests