Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

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.
member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28722 » 06 Oct 2014 22:43

@Philip
The purpose of ToT and 50% Offsets in MMRCA is to have local manufacturing replacements for all the imported stuff. This would further augumented by Tejas and FGFA.
Dassault will try 200% to play this more in their favor for ensuring future dependency
HAL inability (although IMHO not 100% inaccurate) is just a convenient reason. If HAL can deliver a Su30mki and service M2K very well, it can certainly deliver a Rafale.


@Kit ... you beat me to it :)

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2086
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby srin » 07 Oct 2014 00:04

The more they drag on, the less likely the entire deal becomes. Frankly, I think the MMRCA deal has to be signed before LCA FoC or it isn't going to happen ever.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 07 Oct 2014 02:03

Shrinivasan wrote:^^^ Even Rafale purchase, Barak SAM, US2 purchases are in line with this Strategic Autonomy. Our insistence on ToT was also along this lines, but our DPSUs not being able to do $h1t with it has made ToT as ToTal waste.


There is no such thing in the real world as 'transfer of technology'. It is a particularly Indian concept which originated in planning commission speak during the late 1960s along with "R&D" investment in India.

In reality, the learning occurs at the individual worker level: someone who works on a fighter for example, and notices not only how it's done but also what could be done better. The 'ToT' of rocket technology to the US from Germany post WWII occurred when Werner von Braun & Co. came to the US.

We had a chance for example, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, to buy their scientists who worked on military programs including n-subs, ICBMs and the like. But, while the US rushed in to employ these guys, we sat on our hands.

The Rafale 'ToT' if it occurs, will involve handing over fully depreciated blueprints and tools over at 2x the cost which will enable us to finally manufacture a fully 'indigenous' a/c by 2025-30 which became obsolete around 2020.

Much like the Morris Cowley AKA Ambassador which was obsolete in 1955 but with full ToT we were able to carry on with it until this year.

The UK plans to retire the Typhoon by 2030.

$20 billion + for a gap filler that will be obsolete within 3 years of induction.

If HAL can't deliver the LCA MK1 or 2, outsource it. Heck, give Textron licensing rights and a purchase order.

We are the laughing stock of the international arms trade., We are so easy to game.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 07 Oct 2014 02:31

^

I agree with you. Reminds me of what an ex CMD of HAL Sqd Ldr Balooja told me a 4/5 years ago. When the Soviet Union had broken up he was very keen to get russian engineers into HAL as they were available at very good prices and were familiar with HAL and keen to come over as well. According to him it would have helped HAL create a strong design base and embed practices deep into HAL and position it to take on bigger challenges. The MoD denied him permission. He was very disappointed.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4566
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby JayS » 07 Oct 2014 20:01

srin wrote:A

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Impending-MMRCA-Waste/2014/10/03/article2459932.ece

So fending off pressure from the Indian Air Force (IAF) and European states on medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) should be easy, especially because favouring the French Rafale aircraft or the German Eurofighter is likely to permanently tar the reputation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party as the Bofors gun scam did the Congress party. A boondoggle lurks just below the MMRCA decision and requires, not finalising, but scrutiny by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The MMRCA was conceived by the IAF brass as means of procuring Western aircraft under the rubric of “diversifying supply sources”. The deficiencies in the MMRCA concept and the Rafale aircraft and deal have been analysed in my previous writings. But how supplier states brazenly play a con game using transfer of technology (TOT) provisions with the full connivance and complicity of the ministry of defence and services headquarters is astonishing and has, so far, gone unnoticed. An egregious example is that Dassault, as part of the Rafale contract, has promised gallium nitride (GaN) technology to make semi-conductor chips utilised in high-powered avionics but refused to part with technology for the foundries to fabricate the chips! India will thus pay through its nose for technology that cannot be converted into a component, which will end up being imported for the lifetime of the aircraft.



One interesting comment on this article in comments section:

http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/10/03/impending-mmrca-waste/#comment-14523

Your article was interesting. For the first time I read what we had heard in whispers the Tyagi / Browne combo cancelling the Qatar deal. In fact if the CVC / CBI so wishes / desires, the scandal of how Browne when he was ACAS Plans drafted the stupid RFP for the MMRCA and Tyagi ensured that Rafale was selected can be found out easily. I had heard whispers in the MoD corridors of how IAF officers were made to retire when they pointed out by analogy that instead of buying a Full Fledged Ferrari Car, the IAF had drafted specification such that a Ferrari can be purchased with an Ambassador engine. MoD & Antony knew this and other such glaring errors but the combo was all too powerful. Abroad when we questioned MoD about such glaring errors in evaluation (it was impossible to digest that Eurofighter had come in top 2) we were told hush hush stories. Stories which became true when the man in question was sent as Ambassador. A pity that we will be spending twice the money.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 07 Oct 2014 20:27

May be I should suggest the F-35 after all.

Lol.

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SanjayC » 07 Oct 2014 20:38

Akshay Kapoor wrote:^The MoD denied him permission. He was very disappointed.


Most of India's backwardness is self-inflicted. These kind of decisions seem deliberate to not allow India to progress. Otherwise, the only explanation is that there is some kind of mental blindness and attitude problem.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_26622 » 07 Oct 2014 20:42

Going by recent IAF news about squadron strength and wings getting 'old' >> Dassault and French govt. want to lock this deal by end of year desperately, really desperately. Without this deal Dassault is history in my opinion, as they do not have deep enough pockets for 5th gen fighter (other option is stealing from us).

Browne and Tyagi affair apart, why is current IAF chief Raha pushing so hard for this outlandish deal? It would have made more sense if Rafale was a proper 5th gen plane like F35 or PAKFA, but it is not by a million miles.

Either news media is prepping us up for buying this lemon or someone in IAF/Govt is looking to make an outright fool of themselves by pursuing this.

One thing is sure - If we sign up for Rafale then we will affirmatively crowned as a Banana republic - the biggest ever.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Oct 2014 06:15

NRao wrote:May be I should suggest the F-35 after all.

Lol.


You should. Buy the airframes off the shelf and insist they build the engines in India.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55363
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby ramana » 08 Oct 2014 06:30

After Modi visit the F-35 is not far fetched.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 08 Oct 2014 06:47

when did Rafale mature with GaN or AlGaNs? I thought the Ef2Ks were much more advanced on giving the GyaNs!

For us, all we need is the Elta 2052s, and LRDE GaNs to begin with.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1559
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Sumeet » 08 Oct 2014 07:59

SaiK google UMS GaN MMIC or TR module. French avionics and Spectra is pretty cool besides whats in F-35 and F-22. That is the stuff we would like to have and reuse in our AMCA and FGFA. Although for most effective EW its better to have it tailored made according to various profiles expected of one's fighter.

Use them till our tech matures and then replace it with our indigenous modules.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... Capability


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.js ... %3D4720829

publications.tno.nl/publication/101016/Bg46D6/janssen-2008-xband.pdf

publications.tno.nl/publication/102903/1SAMjo/janssen-2009-robust.pdf

Because of all of above now:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avi ... and-rafale

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby merlin » 08 Oct 2014 11:20

ramana wrote:After Modi visit the F-35 is not far fetched.


To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20317 » 08 Oct 2014 13:06

Actually they will fly in any serious manner, only when the Unkil gets off from the wrong side of the bed and needs help in one of its many expeditions. Otherwise they will be allowed to be flown around, inside a cage, as much as it may be thought fit.

But why hanger queens. After all it is meant to be a handout to the lackeys so they can keep flying it and feel secure. That is the whole rationale for it.

But you can expect ABV type letters to the POTUS seeking permissions and offering explanations. Helpfully pointing fingers at the people across the borders bothering the Potus on his comfortable perch preventing the Potus from doing the all important task of commanding the world around.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 08 Oct 2014 14:49

It seems BK is on a jihad against MMRCA contract. And in this endeavor, there seems to be willingness to use some shoddy stats and information and pass them off as 'THE' final word on the subject.

So, IAF Chief's have become so powerful as to decide on the price to be paid for a particular weapon system? If the GOI and MOD of the day were OK with paying USD 600 million for 12 Mirage 2000-5, then what power does a IAF Chief have to bring it down to USD 375 million? Unless, someone wanted to scupper the deal for other motives.

This report tells you that it was almost a done deal at USD 600 million: http://teleradproviders.com/nbn/story.php?id=MTM3MjY=

And then, you've this news:http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/jul162005/national195252005715.asp

‘IAF under US pressure in aircraft deal with Qatar’


The quoting of low price by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the purchase of 12 secondhand Mirage 2000-5 fighters from Qatar was reportedly done under “subtle pressure” from the US that is pressuring India to buy its F 16/F18 multi- role combat aircraft (MRCA).


To apportion the blame on IAF for the Qatar deal is dishonesty of the highest order. Even if the IAF Chief 'bend with the winds' to scupper the deal, the source of it lay in the Indian political establishment.

And finally, what grand purpose did 12 Qatari Mirage-2000-5 would've served from the perspective of negating the very requirement of MMRCA?

Added later: It seems the Qatar-France deal for 12 M2K-5 was for USD 1.2 billion. I'm sure it consisted of lot of support and spare parts and weapon systems. Still, that works out to be USD 133.3 million per plane :shock:

And in 2005, they wanted USD 600 million for these 12 planes and 500 bombs/missiles. That works out to be USD 50 million per plane!

How would our Mirage-2000 upgrade deal in 2010 at USD 2.2 billion (USD 43.1 Mn per plane) compare with the price quoted by Qatar in 2005? Unless, the package was very exciting because it came with missiles and bombs? May be, Karan M can answer this better.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Austin » 08 Oct 2014 16:32

BK as much as I respect him is clue less on MMRCA , the round table discussion video of IAF clearly spells out why the IAF needs MMRCA and the thought process on it.

He proposes LCA as an alternative but iirc not long ago he was criticizing the Tejas and wanted it to be scrapped.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 19:54

First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that. The only thing left is the blame. If one is making the case that the responsibility lies with the MoD and not with the IAF, then lets also grant that the MMRCA decision should come from the MoD as well and any IAF 'lobbying' in the matter needs to be disregarded (since the responsibility for a screw-up will be apportioned to the MoD in the latter case as well).

With regard to the MMRCA being an 'absolute necessity' as many on the thread are stating, lets be clear, this is a first and foremost a matter of simple economics. (An aspect the IAF appears utterly oblivious to.)

The PLAAF is inducting at least 1 regiment each of J-10s and J-11/16s annually with deliveries of the JH-7B starting next year. That's at least 50 fighter inducted annually, rising to 70 fighters per year by 2016. Jane's 'high end' estimates put it at 80/yr.

We're currently inducting 15 MKIs annually ending around 2018. Rafale production will average 14 units/yr (2018-26). And Tejas' production rate will determined by how myopic the MoD/IAF are.

The J-10 & J-11's cost is little harder to pin down. The J-10A was reportedly priced at $42 mil for export customers (flyway presumably). The J-10B/C would likely cost about $50 mil. Factor in the fixed 'setup' costs, and the Rafale comes out to cost about two and half times higher than the J-10.

Does it offer two and a half times greater the combat capability? Keep in mind that the J-10B already fields an AESA, a comprehensive EW suite, high composite content, reduced RCS on an airframe offering more than decent aerodynamic performance. And that it will be replaced by a newer J-10C variant by the time the Rafale nears delivery (and that's without going into the J-31).

Faced with a foe that has budget at least 3 times greater, if cost effectiveness is not the single most important concern for the IAF, then the result of an air war against the PLAAF is predictable. Assuming that our military budget is fixed, the Rafale deal far from bridging the gap with China, will actually make it a lot worse.

Given that the blame for the ignominy of a defeat will inevitably be laid at the govt's door for not allocating 'adequate' resources for defence, the onus is on the MoD to buy smart, even if it means unapologetically overruling the IAF.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 Oct 2014 21:40

Viv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that.


12 fighters were never going to make a difference

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 22:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that.


12 fighters were never going to make a difference


12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20292 » 08 Oct 2014 22:17

Viv S wrote:First of all, it is obvious that torpedoing of the Qatari Mirage deal was a mistake and a very blatant one at that. The only thing left is the blame. If one is making the case that the responsibility lies with the MoD and not with the IAF, then lets also grant that the MMRCA decision should come from the MoD as well and any IAF 'lobbying' in the matter needs to be disregarded (since the responsibility for a screw-up will be apportioned to the MoD in the latter case as well).

With regard to the MMRCA being an 'absolute necessity' as many on the thread are stating, lets be clear, this is a first and foremost a matter of simple economics. (An aspect the IAF appears utterly oblivious to.)

The PLAAF is inducting at least 1 regiment each of J-10s and J-11/16s annually with deliveries of the JH-7B starting next year. That's at least 50 fighter inducted annually, rising to 70 fighters per year by 2016. Jane's 'high end' estimates put it at 80/yr.

We're currently inducting 15 MKIs annually ending around 2018. Rafale production will average 14 units/yr (2018-26). And Tejas' production rate will determined by how myopic the MoD/IAF are.

The J-10 & J-11's cost is little harder to pin down. The J-10A was reportedly priced at $42 mil for export customers (flyway presumably). The J-10B/C would likely cost about $50 mil. Factor in the fixed 'setup' costs, and the Rafale comes out to cost about two and half times higher than the J-10.

Does it offer two and a half times greater the combat capability? Keep in mind that the J-10B already fields an AESA, a comprehensive EW suite, high composite content, reduced RCS on an airframe offering more than decent aerodynamic performance. And that it will be replaced by a newer J-10C variant by the time the Rafale nears delivery (and that's without going into the J-31).

Faced with a foe that has budget at least 3 times greater, if cost effectiveness is not the single most important concern for the IAF, then the result of an air war against the PLAAF is predictable. Assuming that our military budget is fixed, the Rafale deal far from bridging the gap with China, will actually make it a lot worse.

Given that the blame for the ignominy of a defeat will inevitably be laid at the govt's door for not allocating 'adequate' resources for defence, the onus is on the MoD to buy smart, even if it means unapologetically overruling the IAF.


Does buying smart mean that you take into account the 22 to 1 kill ratios and similar statistics that fighter aircraft run up against each other?

Then, the F 22's 242 to 1 kill ratio means that stealth , in the form of the F 35 is absolutely necessary?

Is the US putting it on the table? If they are, will they allow them to be used in a war with China? @GeorgeWelch?

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 22:20

rohitvats wrote:And then, you've this news:http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/jul162005/national195252005715.asp

‘IAF under US pressure in aircraft deal with Qatar’


Doubt it had anything to do with the MMRCA or the US. The whole sham according to some sources was simply to nix the PAF's play for the aircraft and that India had no genuine interest in it.

The quoting of low price by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the purchase of 12 secondhand Mirage 2000-5 fighters from Qatar was reportedly done under “subtle pressure” from the US that is pressuring India to buy its F 16/F18 multi- role combat aircraft (MRCA).


And in 2005, they wanted USD 600 million for these 12 planes and 500 bombs/missiles. That works out to be USD 50 million per plane!

How would our Mirage-2000 upgrade deal in 2010 at USD 2.2 billion (USD 43.1 Mn per plane) compare with the price quoted by Qatar in 2005? Unless, the package was very exciting because it came with missiles and bombs? May be, Karan M can answer this better.


$600M for aircraft that retained '80-85%' of their airframe life according to the RM's statement (just 8 years old and used sparingly).

In contrast, not only did our upgrade cost $45M each for aircraft that were already over 20 years old (it'll be 30 years old by the time the first upgraded unit is delivered), we also had to shell out an additional $1.2 billion for 450 MICAs.
Last edited by Viv S on 08 Oct 2014 23:36, edited 2 times in total.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20292 » 08 Oct 2014 22:22

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Again, I will point you back to the MRCA deal. Obviously both Boeing and Lockheed strongly believed all the required systems would have been available for India. They invested too much to simply get to the end and be like, 'Oops, guess we can't sell it to you anyways, oh well.'


I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 Oct 2014 22:29

Viv S wrote:12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.


Why invest so much in, not even last-gen, but pre-last-gen fighters and create yet another sub-fleet?

They were not the same as IAF's existing Mirages so will have their own unique issues.

You can make arguments for them, but you can easily make arguments against them. To say it was the obviously correct decision would be pushing the facts a bit far.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 Oct 2014 22:30

mahadevbhu wrote:I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.


Because that statement is incorrect. Simple as that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2014 22:32

(ALL this is great time-pass, while GoI makes up their collective mind!!)

12 fighters were never going to make a difference


Answer:

However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C/D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen)


This after the initial thought of moving the entire 2000K line to India.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 Oct 2014 22:44

NRao wrote:Answer:

However, the Indian Government decided to go in for a multi-vendor tendering process. Requests for Information (RFI) were issued in 2004. The RFIs were initially sent to four vendors: Dassault (Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2), Lockheed Martin (F-16C/D), Mikoyan (MiG-29OVT), and Saab (JAS 39 Gripen)


This after the initial thought of moving the entire 2000K line to India.


Even if India did buy 100+ Mirage straight from Dassault, I still don't see the point of creating a sub-fleet of 12.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 22:45

mahadevbhu wrote:Does buying smart mean that you take into account the 22 to 1 kill ratios and similar statistics that fighter aircraft run up against each other?

Then, the F 22's 242 to 1 kill ratio means that stealth , in the form of the F 35 is absolutely necessary?

Is the US putting it on the table? If they are, will they allow them to be used in a war with China? @GeorgeWelch?


merlin wrote:To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.


The Rafale isn't going to overly worry the Chinese. Between a high-end IADS coupled with AEW&C systems and a large fighter fleet, they know they can handle it. That comfort will evaporate when pitted against an aircraft with the range, stealth and EW kit to go after their force multipliers and triple digit SAMs, while rendering their rear areas vulnerable to attack.

As for US policy vis-a-vis China; in 1950, the US accounted for 50% of the world's GDP. Even at the height of its power, the Soviet economy was only a fraction of the US'. Its 75 years of American economic predominance that is coming to a close as China overhauls it and its implications are staggering. The US can see it and China's neighbours can see it (most of them) and they're informally banding together to counterbalance an increasingly aggressive and assertive China.

The US' position can be gauged from the 'Pivot to the Pacific' and its stand over the Senkaku Islands. The Russians and French on the other hand are a lot more ambivalent to (if not downright welcoming of) China's new position. As sovereign nations they have that right, but their positions will likely be worrisome for India.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 22:54

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:12 fighters wouldn't have been pivotal, but that doesn't make dropping what was a good deal any less of a mistake.


Why invest so much in, not even last-gen, but pre-last-gen fighters and create yet another sub-fleet?

They were not the same as IAF's existing Mirages so will have their own unique issues.

You can make arguments for them, but you can easily make arguments against them. To say it was the obviously correct decision would be pushing the facts a bit far.


The deal was being negotiated back in 2005 when India has just inducted 12 new build Mirages from France. The Qatari Mirages like the IAF's fleet were off-the-shelf units and would have been perfectly compatible after modification with BEL's IFF and datalink modules.

Second hand units from Qatar and UAE are a good deal even today, with the Mirage fleet due to serve till 2030 and IAF facing a numbers crunch. All have been upgraded to the same Dash Mk2 standard as the IAF's upgraded Mirages.

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 08 Oct 2014 23:02

I hope and pray we dont end up buying the overengineered F35. I bet a 35 year lifetime cost for that plane will top 500 mill a piece at the very least. And I am not even accounting for the MLD when I quote that number. It is utter madness. Forget capabilities or lack of it and look at plane (design and engineering) from a longevity perspective. We arent buying these planes for 5 years, more like 50.

Krishnakg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 01:16
Location: hyderabad
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Krishnakg » 08 Oct 2014 23:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:
mahadevbhu wrote:I don't know why it doesnt get into your head that the F 18, with its high wing loading, is not suitable for the hot and high conditions that are present at Tibet. It doesnt cut the mustard. Simple as that.


Because that statement is incorrect. Simple as that.


@GeorgeWelch, 60 years since the renowned WWII flying ace, whose name you are using as the forum handle, died, at least live up to that legendary name sake and give sensible, structured argument to justify your stand.

F-18 didn't make the grade in the high altitude tests neither the hot weather tests. Boeing reps were briefed about it in that aspect. IAF requirement of MMRCA is not only for filling the squadron numbers, but for effectively taking the fight to where it matters, high over and above, north of Himalayas.

Much has been written and debated about the tests in this forum. Now, is there something we missed and you know something which we don't ? Everyone respects knowledge, and we are here on the forum to share that. We may agree or differ in our views, but we respect a well substantiated argument in favor of your view. Please feel free to enlighten us in detail, than just write, one word, one line answers.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 08 Oct 2014 23:34

George wrote:I hope and pray we dont end up buying the overengineered F35. I bet a 35 year lifetime cost for that plane will top 500 mill a piece at the very least.

Closer to $400M. The Rafale will probably clock in at about $300M over its lifetime (not including MLU & local production costs). Add in the cost of a cheaper munitions package and MLU for the F-35 and it'll move towards parity.

And I am not even accounting for the MLD when I quote that number. It is utter madness. Forget capabilities or lack of it and look at plane (design and engineering) from a longevity perspective. We arent buying these planes for 5 years, more like 50.


Looks have nothing do with it (not a pretty aircraft though).

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 08 Oct 2014 23:38

Viv S wrote:
George wrote:I hope and pray we dont end up buying the overengineered F35. I bet a 35 year lifetime cost for that plane will top 500 mill a piece at the very least.

Closer to $400M. The Rafale will probably clock in at about $300M over its lifetime (not including MLU & local production costs). Add in the cost of a cheaper munitions package and MLU for the F-35 and it'll move towards parity.

And I am not even accounting for the MLD when I quote that number. It is utter madness. Forget capabilities or lack of it and look at plane (design and engineering) from a longevity perspective. We arent buying these planes for 5 years, more like 50.


Looks have nothing do with it (not a pretty aircraft though).


i put design and engineering in brackets, i did not mean aesthetics. i meant a fat single engine that has to work at above 80% peak power most of its flying time just to keep the aircraft afloat, forget pulling g's. IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape. 400 million if not inflation adjusted, maybe if we are lucky, i dont think it will be anything under 500 million.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2014 23:51

forget pulling g's


What is the need for pulling g's? In a F-35 that is.

IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape


On the contrary. IIRC the AMCA is emulating that aspect of the JSF.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 09 Oct 2014 00:01

Krishnakg wrote:F-18 didn't make the grade in the high altitude tests neither the hot weather tests. Boeing reps were briefed about it in that aspect. IAF requirement of MMRCA is not only for filling the squadron numbers, but for effectively taking the fight to where it matters, high over and above, north of Himalayas.

Much has been written and debated about the tests in this forum. Now, is there something we missed and you know something which we don't ?


Maybe I missed something, but I never saw any credible links to that effect, just some rumor sites repeated endlessly.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 09 Oct 2014 00:05

So Americans don't need to pull da Gs for next 50 years in F35?

member_28714
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28714 » 09 Oct 2014 00:08

NRao wrote:
forget pulling g's


What is the need for pulling g's? In a F-35 that is.

IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape


On the contrary. IIRC the AMCA is emulating that aspect of the JSF.


Need for pulling g's? Best to ask a fighter pilot. And the BVR logic really wont fly when our wars are at our doorstep as opposed to America's wars being at the enemy's doorstep. So we need a plane that can pull g's and fight close. The deal is for MMRCA, not a high altitude bomber escorted by interceptors.

What aspect? Running the turbofans at 80% peak thrust most of the time? Or are you saying AMCA is going to be single engine?
also there is a big difference between running a 200kn engine at 80% and two 100kn engines at 80%.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 09 Oct 2014 00:13

George wrote:i put design and engineering in brackets, i did not mean aesthetics. i meant a fat single engine that has to work at above 80% peak power most of its flying time just to keep the aircraft afloat, forget pulling g's. IAF maintenance crews will go nuts keeping that junk in shape.


You can tell from its 'design and engineering' appearance that the aircraft goes into a stall under 80% thrust? (BTW its been tested to 9.9Gs and past 50 deg AoA)

Also for the record, the F-16 has a 'fat single engine' as well, no maintenance issues.

400 million if not inflation adjusted, maybe if we are lucky, i dont think it will be anything under 500 million.


$130M procurement cost. $30K x 8000h = $240M operating cost. The Rafale's cost isn't that much lower especially after accounting for a pricey weapons complement.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Oct 2014 00:15

Need for pulling g's? Best to ask a fighter pilot.


Best to ask the designers of the plane.

What aspect?


Maintenance without going nuts.

Man this is a new century.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2014 02:27

sumeet, thanks. i read the f3-r spectra getting GaN upgrades from aviationweek. 'could not google to any other link giving more spec details.. going by that article, it definitely doing great for stealth features - active cancelling. that is very complex technique and requires a lot of testing, and tremendous processing power. no chance the french would offload that tech to us. we have to do that all home grown!

I am sure the next generation radar processing logic will begin detecting on those half-wavelength phased out return to offset the precise location of mimicking source. but very interesting technology!

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 Oct 2014 02:59

merlin wrote:
ramana wrote:After Modi visit the F-35 is not far fetched.


To be bought and then become hanger queens when Unkil gets off the wrong side of the bed. India will be the biggest fools ever if we buy critical stuff like fighters from the US.


It's not just the US. ANY imported a/c runs the same risk.As Russia gets isolated from the west, it has turned to PRC:

"Mr. Xi has since made his relationship with Mr. Putin a priority. He chose Russia for his first foreign visit as Chinese president and was one of the few world leaders to attend the Sochi Winter Olympics. Mr. Xi has met Mr. Putin nine times since taking office, most recently at a Central Asian security forum in Tajikistan last month.

"I have the impression we always treat each other as friends, with full and open hearts," Mr. Xi told Mr. Putin in Moscow last year, according to an official Kremlin transcript. "We are similar in character."

He told Russian students later that China and Russia were both going through "an important period of national rejuvenation" and had "the best great-power relationship" in the world."

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-russ ... australian

Don't count on Russia to keep those spare parts for MiG 29s and SU30MKIs in the face of a India - China face-off.

They'll plead supply chain issues to fob us off.

The Rafale EF2K are jokes. Their manufacturers don't want to/can't afford to buy them in quantity. They are the Ambassadors of fighter planes.

Spare parts, weapons and upgrades are going to become a nightmare because the production runs are small.

LCA Mk2 + AMCA: choice #1 (forget PAK/FA it's not going to happen)

60- JSF off the shelf + licensed engine production in India and the AMCA built around it. Choice #2
Last edited by Cosmo_R on 09 Oct 2014 03:10, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests