Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 05 Sep 2014 11:57

NRao wrote:
Karan M wrote:France is under russian nuke threat too the comparison to indo france relations is completely off.
Besides that the rough comparison to the Indian situation would be if India decided to invade someone. Would France behave similarly? Testing nukes is a totally diff level of the game.

They would absolutely behave the same. If we invaded Pakistan, the Frenchies would absolutely hold back on critical Rafale spares. That is my view.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Sep 2014 15:14

Importing large amounts of arms will consign you to being a munna. When the munna starts acting up the big boys will cut you to size. It doesn't matter if it is the US, France or Russia. I think there is most mistrust of the US (rather than France or Russia) because they were the ones who's screwed us most recently and that's what they remember. They don't remember France withholding support in 71 war or the Americans lending us C-130s during 62.

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Sep 2014 15:36

+1

When you import arms from others, you also import their foreign policy and bind yourself to their strategic interests.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 05 Sep 2014 16:13

I think in this and day age it will be difficult to find strategic partnerships that go beyond politics and India like any other nation with self interests at its heart should always try to ensure there are channels of clear cut comms & procedures to tackle any shortcomings from both sides of a relationship and methods to engage in changing political dynamics.

What I find sad is that though we have strategic relations with Russia, we have not set yet set a method to engage with them and address a lot of the issues we have in many of the deals with them. This whole MRCA saga with France would have been wrapped up much sooner had we placed a method to communicate effectively over time.

I find the Indo-US relationsip to be the most method and procedure oriented else it would have been difficult to get the various aircraft already delivered on time and integrated so quickly, offcourse this interaction should get more systematic and even more transparent for the decision makers on both sides. We should try to find a proper method to address our Russki and French relations, I could be wrong but to me it looks like these two relations seem to suffer from lack of proper guidelines and a lot of our interactions with them seem to be haphazard. Just a feeling.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Sep 2014 16:47

The actions of France in withholding the delivery of Ships paid for and nearly completed, in the face of the demands from the US. Clearly suggests that it is an unreliable supplier.

Ironically, the EU has not come out any better in this situation as they are as spineless as the French.

Which leaves the Khans and the Sweeds. Khan is the big daddy of all and is politically most unreliable. The sweeds in the absence of US approval for the re-export of US items cannot claim to be politically reliable as well.

Having said so, for the MMRCA, the only reliable choice now is Russia. But they will charge an arm and a leg for the product.

Life can be so unfair.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Sep 2014 17:31

On all this brouhaha going on the reliability of France, some addition from moi. You guys can totally ignore it.

I think, we cannot do the naivete of having faith on any country not Russia, not France. We have already burned by milk a number of times. Also, the stance of countries like France will change once we start being perceived as a geopolitical and/or technological rival for their own position. There is no guarantee which way they will turn, pro or against. Also it will be situation specific, like we are standing against Pakis vs against Chini, the reaction would definitely different. In any and every case, let it be Russia or France or US, they will do everything to hinder our technological progress in future rather than aiding it and prevent us from morphing from buyers to sellers.

If we go for this deal we should keep a plan B for a situation where we will be held hostage with sanctions in some disastrous situation. I think its useless to think the French will give us any meaningful ToT. But I hope at least there will be tough clauses put in the contract which will shield against such situations, unfair cost-escalations, unfulfilled ToT and Offsets, and restrictions on indigenous modifications in future etc.

The best thing would be to just scrap the deal, that's my jingoistic wish. Whenever we were sanctioned for something, we came up with something even better indigenously. Maybe its time we should have a self imposed sanction and start moving our a$$ to get the technology the hard way.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Sep 2014 17:48

Russia was offering MIG 35 and even 29K land version may be ok as an interim solution. CFamparitively Mig was cheaper. Stop thinking that we will get any critical TOT from anyone. Purchase a small amount of Mig AC if IAF feels that some serious numbers of required and than use the money saved to develop capabilities, production facilities etc here in India.

NM may at least think seriously before committing for Raff. Let us see what happens.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 05 Sep 2014 21:02

Karan M wrote:France is under russian nuke threat too the comparison to indo france relations is completely off.

And...? This doesn't figure much in their strategic sales calculus. There is a financial conflict between the EU and Russia with Gazprom trying to control a substantial chunk of the oil and gas routes into Europe. Germany and France are acting together.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 22:32

You missed the point entirely.

Lets make it clearer. Russia is being sold items by France that don't threaten its territorial integrity & a few Mistrals don't matter much. Russia will never be offered missile tech or Neuron tech/JV (in the rare case Russia ever wanted it). However, at the end of the day, France is part of the EU defence coalition & coordinates its strategy with Germany and UK for local purposes. Hence, the token decision to not supply the Mistrals for public consumption. In reality, I bet they called the Russians up ahead and explained and made sure the bread was buttered on both sides.

The same type of logic applies to Russia & China - its not love of India which makes Russia give the PRC grade 2 gear (Su-30 MKK versus India getting Su-30 MKI) its that Russia & China share borders & both have co-opetition. They are competing/are wary of each other to a degree, yet are cooperating with Russia needing China's financial heft & China needing Russia's tech but latter wary of the former's growing aspirations and seeing its own vulnerabilities (vast underpopulated tracts of area). So PRC is offered S-400 when S-500 program is going on, Russia keeps its grade A/A+ tech for itself, as versus India which gets to Grade A & customizes it. This is much the same reason India & Russia don't have issues in the long term (apart from their gypping us - we don't have a common border, Russia is not playing global cop & doesn't care beyond a point about TSP).

When it comes to France & Russia relations - they don't translate to India & France relations for the same reason. We don't pose an immediate or long term threat to France that raises its hackles. Its even willing to work with PRC which is far more expansionist than India. It's compliance viz international rules & cartels (when we f.e. test a nuke) will be balanced against France's evaluation of the Indian market and what it gets out of it, defence & civilian both. In the former, the French are now competing against the US, Israelis and Russians. Every little bit counts. They know it & will grab a chance to use it. They are no "great guys". In Kandhamal, their version of the right was in power and their sneering arrogance and interference in Indian affairs was evident. With a coward like MMS in power, we didn't stand up either. But we can count on their straightforward calculations about economic gains.
The only reason they don't much deal with TSP now is because former is broke and its habitual backers, KSA, Gelf states, PRC etc won't finance any more large weapons deals.

That's about it. In short, claiming France is unreliable because it cancelled its token deal with Russia is beside the point & irrelevant to us. By those standards, none of our suppliers are reliable & we have to depend entirely on ourselves anyways.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2014 22:48

It cuts both ways.Russia entered into several civil tech deals in aviation with western manufacturers ,engines for the Sukhoi Superjet,helicopters,etc. These were considered landmark deals ,along with the Mistral order,where Russian and Western cooperation was seen to be working well and greater integration of Russia into a European economic partnership.Gas supplies to Europe at reasonable prices ,to the Ukraine for example-which has still not paid to the tune of billions,$14B in debt too,indicated its goodwill.

Sadly,the Cold War warriors of the West,particularly the British (and the "Atlantic alliance"),who have never forgiven the Russians for the Revolution and executing the Czar,have sabotaged the growing cooperation between Russia and Europe,with Germany in particular.An entente between Russia and Europe,especially between Germany and Russia, would lessen considerably the need for NATO and reduce the US's influence upon its NATO allies.Hence the orchestration of the UKR crisis ,deliberately drawing Russia into conflict with the UKR,so that Putin and Russia could be disgraced in the eyes of the international community.The failed attempt to fix the blame upon Russia for the MH attack-there is total silence on the issue now,saw the escalation of the attacks upon civilians in the east.Thus sanctions were imposed ad nauseum upon Russia and the gains of cooperation with Europe have been shattered.

Learning from this recent lesson,the GOI should be exceptionally careful to see the wavering nature of some nations supplying key military eqpt. We must have alternatives for deals with suspect nations and right now,France is surely suspect. It has virtually capitulated to US pressure over the supply of Mistrals.The propaganda campaign going on right now in the Western media is par for the course. India will, similarly come in for the same kind of stick should we embark upon augmenting our independent strategic deterrent,which is inevitable since the Pukis are much ahead of us in warhead numbers and delivery systems according to US analysts/intel.

Alternatives to the Rafale ,say the Gripen for example will also be subject to US pressure over its US engine should we embark upon a "P-3".The LCA programme is entirely compromised,why I've maintained that we must develop two prototypes of the Mk-2 one with the EJ engine.we can easily afford to do so given the billions already spent on the programme and massive escalated cost of the Rafale.Unless we are given 100% safeguards,we should not seal the deal on his score alone ,not to mention the costs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2014 00:04

Russia entered into several civil tech deals in aviation with western manufacturers ,engines for the Sukhoi Superjet,helicopters,etc

Yo, them "Western manufacturers" won it in a fair and square competition. The Russians had no options. It was not out of some love.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 00:12

Too many folks here are connecting domestic fighter design & production capability with the MMRCA contract as an either/or proposition because of money. It is not anything like that and they should be treated as completely separate issues. True, we are paying through every orifice hoping for "ToT" to fall on our heads like magic dust but that is secondary to the main aim of getting a decisive qualitative edge over the Chinese because we are in an extremely dangerous situation.

If it were as easy as throwing buckets of money at the LCA project et al and expect them to materialize in record time, we are in for a rude shock. We have squandered decades in feeding milch cows that only had the mandate to turn screwdrivers clockwise and now pretend that these milch cows can produce fighters when they are having a hard time even turning the screwdrivers anti-clockwise (aka reverse engineering). It will take decades to build up capability to make a truly Indian 6th gen fighter (because that is what we should be aiming for now). In the meantime, if we are so stupid as to try and slip by without a meaningful deterrent like the Rafale (or EF/SH/JSF), we deserve to lose the Andamans, J&K and the Northeast within a decade, which in turn will effectively lead to the split-up of what we know as India.

Our position now is not to d!ck around with ToT and shiite but to stop yapping and get those damn planes into service asap.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2014 02:05

get those damn planes into service asap

Yeah, yeah. Lease Rafale from the FAF.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 05:50

Well, IIRC they did offer us 40 loaner Rafales while we waited - and waited and waited..

- for the first of the French-built ones to come into service. Why not take them up on that immediately pending the end of the babus' flatulence.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Sep 2014 06:12

^^^
"In the meantime, if we are so stupid as to try and slip by without a meaningful deterrent like the Rafale (or EF/SH/JSF), we deserve to lose the Andamans, J&K and the Northeast within a decade, which in turn will effectively lead to the split-up of what we know as India. "

And what are the Arihants, Agnis and follow-on variants for if they don't deter land garbs that could be foiled by Rafales?

Can the Rafales actually reach the Andamans to foil dastardly actions by the PRC? The MKIs can and have.

If we look at India's threat scenarios:

1. PRC. Encroachment/bullying but not full frontal 1962. What do we need for that? infrastructure/hearts and minds of NE peoples/airbases for MKIs/lots of conventional missiles (Nirbhays/Shauryas etc) and a nuke redline. No dogfights. Threat of serious politico-military realignment.

2. Pakistan. Nirbhays, Shauryas, Brahmos and Agnis with big nuke stick to back them up. Sub conventional assets through the Afghans plus the IAF with MKIs and Jaguars

None of the above requires a MMRCA at a cost that will denude the options in # 1 and 2 above.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 07:57

Cosmo_R wrote:None of the above requires a MMRCA at a cost that will denude the options in # 1 and 2 above.

According to 3 successive Air Chiefs, the need for the MMRCA is urgent with no back-up plan. They are making these observations with the full knowledge of the capability and numbers we have of Sukhois and Mirages, and while it's OK for us internet ninjas to disagree and construct an alternate reality, I pray that's not the case with the GoI.

PV Naik:

any delay, or heaven forbid, cancellation of the MMRCA contract by the new Government will leave the IAF in operational lurch...“We are in deep trouble”. And there is no Plan B.

NAK Browne:

the future of the combat fleet of the IAF does not appear as bright as it ought to be. With this size and vintage of the combat fleet, the IAF will be ill-equipped to meet the challenges effectively even on a single front. The rapidly dwindling fleet of fighter aircraft should leave no one in doubt that not only is the deal for the 126 Rafale MMRCA becoming increasingly urgent and vital for the IAF even if it has to just arrest the degradation of combat capability

Arup Raha:
On the urgent requirement of combat aircraft though, he pointed out:..The contract for 126 MMRCA is expected to be signed sooner than later in the current FY 2014-15.

There should be no question about the need for MMRCA. Only what, from where and how many remains to be sorted out. If the Rafale deal as it stands is unaffordable, a way will have to be found to materialize those planes pronto with or without ToT or HAL if needed. If the French can't or won't play ball or try to jerk us around, we should look at the SH and buy as many of them off the shelf as the yanks will sell us. One thing is clear: the IAF does not want Russian planes for the MMRCA and we should just leave it at that. The BJP is business-minded like no other govt has been and the right decision will be made soon, no question about it.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 08:22

Cosmo_R wrote:Can the Rafales actually reach the Andamans..

Rafale combat radius is 1,000 nmi vs Su-30mki's 700 nmi. Distance from Kalaikunda or Chennai to Port Blair is 1,300 miles. The Rafale can make it with fuel comfortably to spare. Pound for pound, it is one of the most efficient and powerful fighters today, if not the most.

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Sep 2014 10:26

What is the big Sh!t about back up plan? Just order more Su-30MKIs. Perhaps they mean that there is no back up plan to create their retirement funds in Swiss accounts.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Sep 2014 10:39

The question is the cost sir. Is the cost we are paying required to be paid or not? Particularly after huge cost escalation. If IAF feels that there is a serious security threat to the nation which can not be repelled without Rafale or some other system like SH why it is keeping quite without going to public or resigning as protest. Agree that IAF chiefs best know what they are saying. Are they saying that we can not even face PAF without Rafale ??? With regard to China, are we sure that we can spend huge amount of our meager AF budget on Rafale without leaving anything for development and production from our end and it will help us in long term? Why there is no serious perception of lack support for indigenous development and production from I.A.F. (and IA). Is it bad for us expect the I.A.F. chiefs at least being vocal on support to L.C.A. even with all its problems etc, instead of running it to ground with leaked press reports. Is it not the duty of the top leadership of the forces to identify this serious strategic flow in our security posture to the political leadership particularly when all most all our politicos seriously lack military background or knowledge. May be they have in closed doors. But when there is no response for a closed door briefing, should they not go public in the interest of the nation?

One more thing, for years we were told that IAF is very satisfied with MKI and now they say there are serious problems with it and it is under powered and what not. Are we being lied till date or being lied now to push a MMRCA purchase? Only I.A.F. because it alone has to expertise, without at least asking question we should spend whatever they ask for from gora nations.

No doubt we are in deep mess due to 10 lost years of mafia rule. But the one of main reasons/origins of that mess is the failure to make our own systems and top leadership of armed forces, at least IAF and IA also responsible for it.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 06 Sep 2014 10:53

Being completely dependent on Russia for the bulk of the fighters is probably unacceptable for the IAF. Hence the Rafale. If the Tejas was mature enough, India would be crazy to go for the Rafale over it. So there is some need for it.

IAF being IAF, no plan B is par for the course. The ideal plan B was Tejas which the IAF did not support. And does not support, else there would be an order for at least 5 squadrons of Tejas Mk 1 itself.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 06 Sep 2014 11:13

Narayana Rao ji,

the general rule is followed by the armed forces that they would go to the political authority who were cooperative enough to give one full fledged ministry for their purposes. Going to public esp. through MSM, is something resorted to by either officers who are in a sticky situation (VKS) or those who were not officer material in the first place (politician like material - among the visible ones like our own shook-law kinds). Every organisation has it and this is something we have to learn to live with and exploit. MKI is being bad mouthed for political convenience by people who are compromised for reasons of personal ego, promised benefits or to much indulgences in the dog and pony circuit. Fortunately there are enough of good officers and they will be able to handle the situation good enough. The current political authority is a new one and will take some time to convince itself that the deal is cut the way they feel it needs to be - it is not getting held up for want of political decisiveness or even military knowledge. These 10th pass 12th fail politicos get insider information on these systems at a rate that would take us outsiders a lifetime.

MKI is a good plane. Rafale is a good plane. LCA is also a good plane. MKI, Rafale, LCA are all different types of planes each with its own characterstics and whatever they may choose to say but the budgetary constraints, tech maturation and strategic priorities will ensure that IAF is going to require all types. A lot of IAF people will love to have imported maal but that is a measure of a workmen trying to give due importance to his tools. Nothing to do with putting the earlier tools down. They should be allowed to do what they think is best within their realm and likewise the nationwide strategic decisions rest with the political authority and people all across will have to learn to live with that too. Workman is supposed to work and not dictate the tools he must have. Tools nahi milenge to kya karega - India is not short of talent, everybody is replaceable.

The political authority has in turn to ensure that capital items are sourced properly without any bottlenecks dictating the realization of our eventual national goals. No fun stopping a mature asset like rafale when LCA is not FOC-ed, has no real supply chain and not clearly understood in terms of future possibilities.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 06 Sep 2014 12:37

Even if we sign contract today we will not have a Rafale sqdn before 2015 end and first indigenous before 2017 going by how we did for Mki; provided we do not have ToT delays like we are seeing in Scorpene
Since Tejas Mk1 will get FOC soon, it would be better to build 100 of these and then scale up to Mk2
We can field more than double Tejas compared to Rafale
With $30 bil spending expected in FGFA it doesn't make any sense to spend $20 bil on a fighter which is essentially meant to be second line of defense

Investment in Rafale now will may kill funding for Tejas and FGFA

If we have short term threat in next 5 years then increasing Su or getting more Mig29 or getting anti-rad missiles or having bvrs in high numbers or getting more awacs makes more sense than going for Rafale.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Sep 2014 15:35

^The issues with Tejas alternative to Rafale is the job IAF wants Rafale for can not be performed with Tejas. But as mentioned above payment for Rafale will kill funding for Tejas and even AMCA. We may therefore look for an interiem solution and go for AMCA and Sukhai on long term basis. May be an additional order of 126 MKI-super may be a solution. It may be cost saving and will continue the same production line we have. In the meanwhile go for Mk2 etc of Tejas also.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Sep 2014 18:48

I like the way we BRFites decide what is good for the IAF over the recommendations of several air chiefs who of course are all corrupt. And how we throw around 'LCA1' as if it is truly imminent, never mind that DRDO only realized 2 yrs ago that it was to be mass produced and needs to be engineered as such. Good, solid timepass

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2014 19:15

Victor wrote:I like the way we BRFites decide what is good for the IAF over the recommendations of several air chiefs who of course are all corrupt. And how we throw around 'LCA1' as if it is truly imminent, never mind that DRDO only realized 2 yrs ago that it was to be mass produced and needs to be engineered as such. Good, solid timepass

THAT is what a chat site is about!!!!

However, on a more serious note; why has it taken so many air chiefs to say the same things? "We need planes" or "We need this plane"?

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 06 Sep 2014 21:21

Today's demo at Payerne, Switzeland, NTM colours

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpwB0r4b9HU

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Sep 2014 22:53

It's why I've been emphasising for aeons the need for LR strat/tactical bombers.At least SU-34s,preferable to have UG Backfires/Blackjacks.I don't know if members have been following the posts about upgrading the Campbell Bay naval air station and INS Dega operating Fulcrums.If the IN's Fleet Air Arm is expanded in responsibility and strength,operating frontline multi-role air dominance fighters like MIG-29K and in the future FGFAs from the island territories and coastal bases,it could release vital sqds. of high-performance aircraft of the IAF to deal with Pak and China.As of now,we will possess a qualitative edge in the maritime sphere in the IOR and chokepoints against our traditional enemies,Pak and China.

The GOI should tell the IAF that the budget cannot be increased ($10-12B) as earlier envisaged and that it has to manage with that amount.It can then work out alternatives so that it can meet the required 40+ sqds. as planned.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 06 Sep 2014 23:08

Victor wrote:I like the way we BRFites decide what is good for the IAF over the recommendations of several air chiefs who of course are all corrupt. And how we throw around 'LCA1' as if it is truly imminent, never mind that DRDO only realized 2 yrs ago that it was to be mass produced and needs to be engineered as such. Good, solid timepass

Actually my point is pretty simple. IN took a decision in early 90s to design and build ships in India. We started from Brahmaputra and Delhi; And today we are at Vikrant and Arihant. IAF (and IA also) need to learn from this. Work with ADA, DRDO, HAL to develop local abilitied and we will have an 70% product now in Tejas but our capabilities will develop. I guess always getting least budget forced Navy to look inwards much before.

Is Rafale deal worth $10-12 bil as planned when tender was floated. Maybe yes provided we scrap Mirage and Jag upgrades. Is it worth $20 bil or more .... definitely NO

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2014 23:17

^^^^^
The problems with the LCA programme are not caused by the MMRCA process. The MMRCA process is caused by the problems with the LCA programme.

Show me one quote from HAL/ADA/GTRE that complains about lack of funding for the LCA or that the IAF has witheld some resource from the programme.

With IJT, IAF put all its eggs in the HAL basket. Outcome: still flying HJT-16, all of which need hip replacement, cataract surgery, hearing aid, etc.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2014 23:30

merlin wrote:IAF being IAF, no plan B is par for the course. The ideal plan B was Tejas which the IAF did not support. And does not support, else there would be an order for at least 5 squadrons of Tejas Mk 1 itself.

HAL is apparently capable of producing 4 LCA Mk 1 per year:

http://www.janes.com/article/41342/teja ... ter-admits

The IAF ordered two squadrons or 40 LCA Mk Is in 2005, with inductions to begin in 2011-12. However, postponements in obtaining IOC and now FOC were further compounded by delays by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bangalore in series production of the fighter.

Jaitley admitted as much in parliament when he declared that HAL's "inadequate production facility" was capable of building only four LCA Mk Is per year, instead of a projected eight platforms. The IAF, for its part, wants HAL to build 14 LCA Mk Is a year to boost its depleting fighter squadrons.

If IAF had ordered 100 LCA Mk 1, would the problems of the LCA Mk 1 disappear?

vic · Post by **vic** » 06 Sep 2014 23:46

HAL has not been able to complete SP1 in 10 years. And no, it neither IOC1 Nor IOC2 standard. As per Chaiwala news SP 1 & 2 are pre IOC, SP 3 - 6 would be IOC1 while SP 7-14 will be IOC2 standard. Thereafter it is estimated that next 16 aircraft will be FOC1 while balance would be FOC2. It is also edyimated that even on optimistic projections, Hal will be able to complete current Mark 1 orders in hand only by 2022 while Mark-2 SPs will start rolling out only by 2025 onwards.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Sep 2014 23:50

^^^^
I don't understand your post, and frankly its unnerving. Surely all a/c in IAF service will have to match FOC standard to be able to "go to war". What is FOC2 (first time I hear of it)?

HAL is building Su-30 MKI from raw materials and is gearing up to produce 108 Rafale; why can't they produce LCA Mk 1. Its very strange ...

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 07 Sep 2014 01:25

^^^^
Tejas problems and Rafale are not linked but surely we can't afford to spend $20 bil on a new second line fighter along with costs of a new line of weapons and also on an indigenous fighter and also $30 bil on FGFA. Something will take a hit and it will mostly be Tejas and we can't afford that

HAL problems with Tejas are strange though to say the least

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2014 01:30

HAL is building Su-30 MKI from raw materials and is gearing up to produce 108 Rafale; why can't they produce LCA Mk 1. Its very strange ...

Why? Why is it strange?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 07 Sep 2014 02:07

It is strange because if HAL can build Su-30s in vastly greater numbers than 4 per year from raw materials, there shouldn't be any problem with HAL ramping up production of LCA. I suspect that HAL wants more money from GoI and underplaying the production numbers for LCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2014 04:22

Assuming that the previous poster had the same/similar reasoning.

It is strange because if HAL can build Su-30s in vastly greater numbers than 4 per year from raw materials, there shouldn't be any problem with HAL ramping up production of LCA

That is a very valid conclusion, especially when we all know that the MKI came with a "ToT".

What is the reality?

How much of that experience is allowed to be used in other efforts? (Asking)

How much of what is allowed has been absorbed? (Asking)

How much of what is absorbed can be migrated to an old project like the LCA? (asking)

Can such foreign production methods be easily implemented in an on-going project, like the LCA? (asking)

Etc, etc, etc.

Someone with info on this subject matter needs to pipe in.

That is one thing.

Secondly they have the ability to ramp up to 16 planes a year. I am sure we *all* would love to have 16 LCAs a year (I would like 32, in five years they are done and then have two lines of MK-II, for 64 per year, after which those lines could be re-tooled for the AMCA - "You wish") starting today and continuing for a decade.

But ..........................

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Sep 2014 04:52

Victor wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Can the Rafales actually reach the Andamans..
Rafale combat radius is 1,000 nmi vs Su-30mki's 700 nmi. Distance from Kalaikunda or Chennai to Port Blair is 1,300 miles. The Rafale can make it with fuel comfortably to spare. Pound for pound, it is one of the most efficient and powerful fighters today, if not the most.

All Rafale performance figures agreed.

What is the special 'deterrent' value that it has over the other means of delivering hurt to the enemy?

The IAF chiefs statements are fine but what else would you expect them to say?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2014 04:58

Rafale figures look inflated & are irrelevant without considering mission profiles and weapon loads. In an ideal world, Rafale f.e. can load up on multiple fuel tanks and claim extreme combat ranges. In the real world, festering with MANPADS, SHORADS, IADS - every ounce of maneuverability will count & the extreme loadouts festooned with multiple heavy fuel tanks are quickly ridiculous, until and unless one is fighting an enemy with a mid'70's ADS like Syria, with little to no effective airpower. When up against PRC, these won't apply - multiple battalions of S-300 PMU1/2 and local ripoffs.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Sep 2014 05:39

Pratyush wrote:..
Having said so, for the MMRCA, the only reliable choice now is Russia. But they will charge an arm and a leg for the product.

Life can be so unfair.

Except the Russians can't deliver the spares, won't honor contracts and spike any efforts towards 'indigenization'.

Life, more particularly the import driven life is so unfair.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 07 Sep 2014 06:33

DRDO should collaborate with some private companies for further & future development & testing of LCA rather than depending on HAL. Which i believe doesn't have time, Interest and resource for its development.