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_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_26622 » 10 Nov 2014 06:53

One question - Can we get the Spectra from Rafale and put it on Tejas - paying like 0.5 billion $ ?

Rafale nose size is limited with the dual air intake position and guessing Tejas nose will have similar sizing for main radar sensor. Other sensors sizing and countermeasure does not look like a big deal and smaller sized Tejas will do better anyways.

I really don't see any upside in Rafale other than Spectra. Platinum and Gold standard is F-22/35 electronic+sensor suite but willing to settle for a bronze 'french' Spectra version. Better option would have been getting Israel supply us with F-35 suite but that might take 5 years ...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2014 07:21

Pagot wrote:
Image


That's Mac's image of the US DOD's costing breakdown for the various technical parameters. I've posted it a couple of times on this forum based on his work.

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

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

Postby member_28722 » 11 Nov 2014 06:44

Viv S wrote:The current line is 'rated' for 12 aircraft per year IIRC. It can probably be increased further if the backing for the same were to come from the MoD and IAF.

Yes, but the projected delivery from public sources is being slated at 8, max 10. If IAF increases Mk1 orders post FOC then I am all for taking it up, till then it will be good if this stays at 8 and Mk2 development speeds up.

The AMCA's induction should coincide with the start of Su-30MKI retirements, long way off. As for our current requirements, both the PAK FA and F-35 are available off-the-shelf in the same timeframe as we're receiving the Rafale.


Not as direct replacement no. But its worth examining as a limited acquisition (40-60 units) for high end tasks (SEAD, anti-AWACS, EW, ISR) that the existing fleet is poorly suited for. You can use the Rafale for that, but it has the basic 'non-fixable' limitation of a non-VLO airframe. Same off-the-shelf acquisition cost for both BTW.

Alternatively, the IAF could manage with an early off-the-shelf order for Russian built PAK FAs. Nowhere as reliable as Western platforms, but at least the basic design delivers far more capability than the Rafale.

I highly doubt we will ever go for F-35 unless we decide to dump PAKFA.

CAS for the future will consist of PGM employment from medium-to-high altitudes targeted by high resolution high fidelity EO systems. A mission profile in which, the Tejas+Litening G4+Paveway II/Sudarshan is just as capable as the Mirage 2000, and more so than the Jaguar and MiG-27.

I think we would need TV-guided PGMs for actual CAS. Most of our ammunition are laser guided.

- The PLAAF will be inducting hundreds of 5th gen fighters regardless. Whatever the China's limitations may be, manufacturing at a large scale is not one of them.
- J-31 might be out-of-budget for the Pakistanis for the moment, but a decade from the same may not apply. If nothing else, they'll be able to get it on credit from the Chinese, who'll be doubly eager to see India off-balance.

If the J-31 is not at least F-35 then we should not be much worried. With AESA on all our AWACS and front line aircraft, detecting such aircraft should not be a problem. Also any J-31 inducted in this decade will be to F-35 what Su27 is to Su30MKI, so not too worried. Realistically we won't be much behind PLAAF w.r.t 5th gen induction.

The Rafale's delivery schedule has already been laid out in the MMRCA contract. One squadron delivered off-the-shelf starting 36 months from contract signing and ending 48 months after. So the first squadron will be up by 2019. Production at HAL is to span eight years IIRC. So domestically assembled Rafales will be delivered between 2019-2026, starting probably at less than 8 aircraft per year, increasing to perhaps 16 annually (by 2023 or so).

Totally depends upon how quickly the line is built. Su30 started in 90s, two decades later we can expect the technology to be absorbed faster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Going a bit OT but IMHO, I would rather that we focus on completing Kaveri:
(a) Develop variants which can be used in LCA Mk2 and develop it further so that we Su30MKI comes up for engine change in second half of next decade, it is replaced with Kaveri. Use Rafale deal as leverage to JV this with Snecma inputs if needed. This should be our primary focus
(b) Develop the 5th gen variant of Kaveri engine which would power AMCA and FGFA also

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider Rafale as a platform equal to medium weight Su30MKI, if not better and more reliable. Ideally we should be getting 300 of these instead of 300 Su30MKI, but costs and reality of world keeps us at disadvantage.
J-31 in its current form is a 4.8 gen aircraft, so if its inducted in this side of 2020 by PLAAF then I would rather that our pilots are seated in mature 4.5 Gen platforms Super Sukhoi or Rafale, both of which are superior in capabilities to any 4th gen the PLAAF are going to have in their inventory for near future.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 11 Nov 2014 06:51

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:
Viv S wrote:The current line is 'rated' for 12 aircraft per year IIRC. It can probably be increased further if the backing for the same were to come from the MoD and IAF.

Yes, but the projected delivery from public sources is being slated at 8, max 10. If IAF increases Mk1 orders post FOC then I am all for taking it up, till then it will be good if this stays at 8 and Mk2 development speeds up.

...


Here is a public source that states 12/year: HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year
The ministry of defence has sanctioned Rs 1,556 cr for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year
Ajai Shukla | Bangalore December 30, 2013 Last Updated at 00:19 IST

...

The ministry of defence (MoD) has sanctioned Rs 1,556 crore for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year. The funds will come from the IAF (25 per cent); the navy (25 per cent), while HAL will put up half the money.
...
"... By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.
...
That was the pattern while building the Hawk. After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months.
...


This is what the production rate plan is:
  • 4 -> 2014-15
  • 6 -> 2015-16
  • 9 -> 2016-17
  • 12 -> 2017-18
  • 12 per year post 2017-18

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

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

Postby kmc_chacko » 11 Nov 2014 07:10

So many fighters development programmes are running in China JF-17, J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, J-20, J-31, is this possible?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 11 Nov 2014 08:07

^ It is possible if China is providing the money and Russian engineers and scientists are doing the work in Chinese factories. The Russians have more talent, designs and ideas than they know what to do with but have no money.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

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

Postby alexis » 11 Nov 2014 09:56

JF-17, J-10, J-11 are done and dusted from a development perspective. J-15 and J-16 are incremental efforts like our Jaguar. So they are concentrating on only 2 types.

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

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

Postby member_28722 » 13 Nov 2014 00:11

^^^^ You would still need multiple production lines to produce so many copies
Bandar: Mig21 upgrade
J-10: Lavi (either steal or sold from Israelis)
J-11: Su-27 copy
J-15: Su33 copy
J-16: Su30MKK copy
The J-16 is suppossed to be the most advanced of these and it lags considerably behind the Super Sukhoi.
Also as of 2013 they have been having problems in WS-10 (essentially an AL31 copy). This is after the WS-10 has been in development for 25 years with all the supposed Chinese engineering superiority compared to ours.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/China-Will-Not-Quit-3-26-2013.asp
-----------------
On a technology level, Rafale and Super Sukhoi are equal (Rafale may be slightly better). If we get Rafale then with our current inventory, we would still retain the quality edge against PLAAF by a good mile.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2014 19:47

The new defence minister must think far outside the box

Interesting data points:

Of this year's capital allocation of Rs 94,588 crore, over 90 per cent is pre-committed towards instalments for contracts concluded in previous years. Instead of grandstanding over unaffordable purchases like the $20-billion Rafale fighter, Parrikar should initiate a project to increase the operational availability of the Sukhoi-30MKI fleet from the current 50 per cent, to a more respectable 80 per cent.

That alone will put 80 Su-30MKIs into the sky, dramatically eroding the argument for the Rafale.

Simultaneously, a strategic decision to promote the indigenous Tejas fighter would implement the "Make in India" directive, while also making up fleet numbers with cheap, utility fighters.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2014 20:03

^^^

It is very likely the Rafale deal will languish for a couple of more years in order to clear backlog of purchases (or make room for smaller purchases). There is no funds for it at this time.

India's Defense Spending Boost Won't Be As High, Sources Say
NEW DELHI — Despite calls by India’s new defense minister for a 20 percent boost in spending, sources in the Foreign Ministry say that number will more likely be 10 percent due to New Delhi’s financial conditions.

In a note to the Finance Ministry last week, the Defence Ministry sought a $7.5 billion jump over the existing allocation of $35 billion, announced by the outgoing United Progressive Alliance government in February.

The outgoing government allocated $14.93 billion in the Capital Head for fresh weapons and equipment. An MoD source said the bulk of the allocations in the Capital Head are used for paying for past contracts, leaving very little money for buying new weaponry and equipment.

Also, under Indian procurement norms, the government pays for 10 percent of a contract up front and the rest is spread over the following years. Since India needs to finalize $20 billion in contracts in the next year, it must spend $2 billion in additional money to cover its upfront costs.

“There is a need for substantial increase in the defense budget to cater for both committed liabilities and for new schemes. The pressure on the defense budget has been acute in recent times, to the extent that around 97 percent of the capital acquisition budget was [due to] committed liabilities, leaving very little for the new contracts,” said Laxman Kumar Behera, research fellow at the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses.

The MoD needs to finalize contracts worth $20 billion in the 2014-2015 timeframe, including:

■$12 billion for the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program, with Dassault as the preferred bidder.

■$1.5 billion for eight mine countermeasures ships from Kangnam Corp., South Korea.

■$1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers.

■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.

■$833 million for 15 Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters.

■$600 million for light howitzer guns from BAE Systems.

■$350 million for 1,418 Israeli-made thermal imaging sights for T-72 tanks.

■$250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries.

■$200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS.

A Navy officer said India needs to sharply increase its budget spending to match the increased spending by China, which has an annual defense budget of $132 billion, nearly four times that of India. The officer said the optimum level of defense spending should be over 3 percent of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), compared to its current level of less than 2 percent.

“By a rough yardstick, India needs to spend approximately 2-2.5 percent of GDP consistently on defense so that it is able to stay at par with the modernization curve,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Rahul Bhonsle, now a defense analyst. “In the last five budget years 2010-11 onwards, including the interim budget for 2014-15, [spending] has been below 2 percent of the GDP. This means for the next five years, there is a need to spend on the higher side, that is 2.5 percent of the GDP, and then a review could be carried out.”

However, Amit Cowshish, retired MoD financial adviser and defense analyst, said there is no “optimum” level of defense spending.

“Some people do advocate that [the] defense budget should be pegged at 3 percent of the GDP, but there is no empirical study to establish that this would be the ideal level of funding,” Cowshish said. “Since there is no ideal/optimum level of funding, there is no way of saying what the ‘lag’ is.”

However, MoD is unlikely to get the increased funds as demanded, given the tight fiscal health of the country, forcing the MoD to rejig the purchase and even put some projects on hold, the MoD source said.

“Some smart contract negotiations will have to be undertaken to delay a few contracts such as the heavy lift helicopters, pay lower contracting margins to large projects as the Rafale [MMRCA] and cut back on projects as the indigenous aircraft carrier,” Bhonsle said. “However, any cutback in artillery guns and submarine procurements are not recommended.”

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Nov 2014 20:17

^^^"“Some smart contract negotiations will have to be undertaken to delay a few contracts such as the heavy lift helicopters, pay lower contracting margins to large projects as the Rafale [MMRCA] and cut back on projects as the indigenous aircraft carrier,” Bhonsle said. “However, any cutback in artillery guns and submarine procurements are not recommended.”

I'd bet the retired ACMs and Admirals will have a different story.

This story also puts the Rafale deal in perspective at ~@20 billion lifetime, the ~!0% down payment eats up 100% of spend required on the other items.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2014 21:01

srai,

Thanks for that article.

This "dispensation"(?) is taking a totally different view: Reduce the deficit and increase the growth of the economy at the same time. IF this strategy works things should be in a better shape.

Looks like there are 4 nations that have essentially "pledged" (if I can all it that) around $30 billion each - in investments in India. that is a good start.

Not going to be easy for the wastage of the previous government spanning 10 years.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

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

Postby koti » 14 Nov 2014 01:00

■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.


Can 1 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot? :mrgreen:

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.
Last edited by koti on 14 Nov 2014 02:55, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 14 Nov 2014 02:47

koti wrote:
■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.


Can 20 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot? :mrgreen:

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.


Champagne tastes, beer budget.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 14 Nov 2014 05:19

Cosmo_R wrote:
koti wrote:...

Can 20 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot? :mrgreen:

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.


Champagne tastes, beer budget.


More like moonshine budget :)

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

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

Postby kmc_chacko » 14 Nov 2014 06:25

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:^^^^ You would still need multiple production lines to produce so many copies
Bandar: Mig21 upgrade
J-10: Lavi (either steal or sold from Israelis)
J-11: Su-27 copy
J-15: Su33 copy
J-16: Su30MKK copy
The J-16 is suppossed to be the most advanced of these and it lags considerably behind the Super Sukhoi.
Also as of 2013 they have been having problems in WS-10 (essentially an AL31 copy). This is after the WS-10 has been in development for 25 years with all the supposed Chinese engineering superiority compared to ours.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/China-Will-Not-Quit-3-26-2013.asp
-----------------
On a technology level, Rafale and Super Sukhoi are equal (Rafale may be slightly better). If we get Rafale then with our current inventory, we would still retain the quality edge against PLAAF by a good mile.


alexis wrote:JF-17, J-10, J-11 are done and dusted from a development perspective. J-15 and J-16 are incremental efforts like our Jaguar. So they are concentrating on only 2 types.


If JF-17, J-10 & J-11 are done then why this A, B, C alphabetical inductions are going on ? isn't that development ? isn't upgradation is different from development. As for as present status they haven't stopped production of J-10s & J-11s. J-10B is newly developed version production started from 2013 onwards.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 14 Nov 2014 06:46

'Smart negotiations' while importing arms and cutting down on indigenous stuff. What great advice to tide over the fund crunch. What we need is something like a strategic defence review where deals like the Rafale and Apache can be culled wholesale.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 14 Nov 2014 07:07

Re the Chinese working on multiple fighter programmes concurrently, one has to keep in mind that they have a much bigger defence industry. With their big power mindset they were making bombers, ICBMs etc even when their GDP was close to or behind India(when we were content with just screwdrivering a few basic systems).

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 14 Nov 2014 08:01

abhik wrote:Re the Chinese working on multiple fighter programmes concurrently, one has to keep in mind that they have a much bigger defence industry. With their big power mindset they were making bombers, ICBMs etc even when their GDP was close to or behind India(when we were content with just screwdrivering a few basic systems).

They also had multiple aircraft companies, even multiple helicopter companies, that were in direct competition with each other even back in those days. With our apologetic, non-violent mindset, we had and still have only one and that too with near-zero accountability which has naturally achieved near-zero results. All the tech that has been given to China's private companies for being the world's factory, from state-of-the-art production lines, chips, computers, cars, airliners, ships to bullet trains is transferred immediately to its weapons factories. We are only now thinking of doing something like that.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3452
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 14 Nov 2014 19:01

kit wrote:
nik wrote:@ Saurabh

Jaguar upgrades cannot be compared with Rafale. Jaguar was retired by UK-France in 2007, it's a 'mechanical' antique flying machine, reliable as now mature but nowhere near complex as a 4th or 4.5 gen fighter. You can get a Maruti 800 fixed by anyone in India, doesn't mean they can or you will give them to repair a top of line Mercedes S series. It's just harder to do changes with newer gear given the amount of integration.

Any comparison of Russian and French equipment will get us more in red. Kilo subs cost 300 million while Scorpene cost a billion plus. Was shocked that it does not even come with torpedoes as per recent news. This does not mean Russian stuff is inferior - US and Russia were playing to kill each other, France on the other hand is good for make up only when it comes to true war fighting capability.

By buying Rafale we are in effect doing the same - planing to go to war with expensive make-up. Honestly, how many on this forum think that 100 shiny Rafales will even figure in China's plans 5 years from today. China has 3000 jets and the are replacing older 3rd Gen planes with newer 4.5 and 5th Gen planes at a third to half the cost of our shiny 100 RAFALE. The amount of wackiness in Rafale acquisition is that obvious.


+1 To that ., building up an industrial base, infrastructure ,spawning ancilliary industries,creating seed money for startups all can happen with the billions on order .At the end of the day IAF needs good planes up in the air and in numbers and it need not be an uber expensive Rafale., its what that goes into the plane that counts unless its a true blue 5th or 6th generation.Give a mark 2 LCA a good AESA radar and a system similar to DAS and it would probably beat any Rafale out of the sky !



That feels great !! 8) 8) 8)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/emerging-businesses/startups/drdo-floats-idea-to-set-up-fund-to-support-defence-start-ups/articleshow/45147448.cms

DRDO floats idea to set up fund to support defence start-ups

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

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

Postby RSoami » 16 Nov 2014 17:42

The delivery date for the Mistrals was November 14. France is dithering under pressure from Anglo Saxon alliance. Russia has threatened to claim compensation and damages by the end of the month.
This will have repercussions on the credibility of the French to deliver when pressurised by Americans. :(

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

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

Postby Will » 16 Nov 2014 17:54

With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

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

Postby Liu » 16 Nov 2014 18:50

Will wrote:With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?

rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once.. frankly speaking,no country on the earth is so kind to share top tech of 5g bird with india,so india can not learn much from russia t50.........india would find it will get little from t50 project,although it invests billion dollars. india had better invest billion.dollar for bettet labs and experiment infrastructures for its scientists and engineers,instead of order 200 rafaels.

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

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

Postby member_20317 » 16 Nov 2014 19:03

chalo ji,

finally you find something in common with our MUTUs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 16 Nov 2014 19:24

ravi_g wrote:chalo ji,

finally you find something in common with our MUTUs.


:rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2014 20:37

Liu wrote:
Will wrote:With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?

rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once.. frankly speaking,no country on the earth is so kind to share top tech of 5g bird with india,so india can not learn much from russia t50.........india would find it will get little from t50 project,although it invests billion dollars. india had better invest billion.dollar for bettet labs and experiment infrastructures for its scientists and engineers,instead of order 200 rafaels.


While I agree with your post in general (if you had gone back in this thread that is what some of us have been saying for about a year now), I really do not think the J-20/31 is there as yet and will not be a good (not great) 5th gen until around 2025+ There a lot more to a "5th Gen" plane than looks, RCS and super-cruise. Thankfully. China has yet to demonstrate other aspects of the "5th gen" planes. China is long way off.

But, I agree, that the Rafale, in its current thinking, is a waste of funds.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

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

Postby Victor » 16 Nov 2014 21:14

Come on. Rafale is miles ahead of so-called Chinese "5 gen" aircraft. Pound for pound it is the best bomb carrier around. Its avionics won't be matched by Chinese for a long time and a faceted shape covered in ram coating will give them only so much "stealth" while their noisy engines will nullify the rest to a great extent. Forget about supercruise. And combat availability. Yes they will get there sooner than us but it's a long way off. In the meantime, we can't wait for our R n D to give us anything to bomb Chengdu with. It is needed fast and our potential adversaries fear it.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 16 Nov 2014 22:31

Liu wrote:rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once..


What are the capabilities of J-20/J-31 that make it superior to Rafale?

Radar? No
Engine? No
Avionics? No
Sensor Fusion? No
Missiles? No
RCS/Stealth? Based on what?

Why is China still inducting large numbers of J-10/J-11 if the J-20/J-31 will be inducted soon?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Nov 2014 23:06

I don't like the J-20. But I think it will supercruise. Also I would give it radar advantage over Rafale. Everything else is in Rafale's favour. I would buy a Rafale over the J-20. Rafale is expensive, but a beauty.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2014 23:35

As we type the rafale is worth it (keep the cost aside - that is a different matter).

By 2025 or so, the rafale will be relatively outdated - compared to today.

And, the J-20 would be more mature.

So, I think, the relevant question is which one would you buy in 2025 (or so, do not hold me to that year).

IF in 2025 or so the rafale is still preferred, then why the AMCA?

(Both are thinking-aloud)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 00:01

indranilroy wrote:I don't like the J-20. But I think it will supercruise. Also I would give it radar advantage over Rafale. Everything else is in Rafale's favour. I would buy a Rafale over the J-20. Rafale is expensive, but a beauty.


The tradeoff is quite obvious, but then there is no J-20 option anyhow. Super cruise would obviously depend upon the engine, but some suggest that the J-20 is a long range strike fighter that could also do that role in the maritime domain. That would be the logical thing for china as that type of an aircraft is what they require much more then to replace the front line Flanker family, especially since they have the option of the Su-35 for the future. It appears the J-31 would be a more conventional fighter but it is clear that propulsion would determine a lot of the capability, and that is why a fighter designed around very firm and secure propulsion plans will always perform closer to what is expected of it.

The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 00:07

NRao wrote:As we type the rafale is worth it (keep the cost aside - that is a different matter).

By 2025 or so, the rafale will be relatively outdated - compared to today.

And, the J-20 would be more mature.

So, I think, the relevant question is which one would you buy in 2025 (or so, do not hold me to that year).

IF in 2025 or so the rafale is still preferred, then why the AMCA?

(Both are thinking-aloud)


DRDO says LCA is not late because it took 20 years to develop and all good aircraft take 20 years to develop. When did the clock start on the AMCA: which year are we in today?

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 00:16

brar_w wrote:The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)


FGFA and Rafale have different roles. How stealthy will FGFA be once its carrying 9 tonnes of gifts for our friendly neighbours? Rafale is a proven system and it is highly reliable and dependable, as well as being lethal.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 00:29

eklavya wrote:
brar_w wrote:The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)


FGFA and Rafale have different roles. How stealthy will FGFA be once its carrying 9 tonnes of gifts for our friendly neighbours? Rafale is a proven system and it is highly reliable and dependable, as well as being lethal.


I assume the PAKFA would have a tactically significant multi-mission internal payload and that the IAF/MOD will get to keep and use the IP whose development is paid for by it. Anyhow that is besides the point, you are bringing technical points to a financial argument. I am aware of the technical merits of the Rafale, and have gone so far as to say that it is by far the best aircraft to replace the mission set in the MRCA. My argument is about the cost of the deal and how to bring it down to a level that can be easily justified for the sort of capability being obtained. Like I said, a decade ago when things like multi-spectral Jammers, AESA radars and IRST's had not proliferated (capable ones anyhow) or gone beyond a few users that sort of cost for tech transfer would have been justified, but in my humble opinion that the MOD is paying "5th" generation premiums for this sort of a deal that won't materialize in decent strength (squadrons) before early 2020's. If it is about where the forex goes then my argument is that we reduce the financial impact of the rafale deal (by still keeping the squadron strength issue in mind i.e. acquire the same number of rafales, just do more from france and look to assemble in house) and make strategic acquisitions elsewhere and in technologies that will have a longer pay off (5th generation technolgies such as those being worked on at the PAKFA and other products outside of fighters)
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Nov 2014 00:52, edited 1 time in total.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 00:35

^^^^
The cost of the Rafale is more than justified by the capability it brings. Certainly we should squeeze the French down to the last cent, and then a bit more (we are in a buyer's market; its kind of obvious).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 00:40

eklavya wrote:^^^^
The cost of the Rafale is more than justified by the capability it brings. Certainly we should squeeze the French down to the last cent, and then a bit more (we are in a buyer's market; its kind of obvious).


The capability would be the same regardless of whether the deal is structured to cost 10 billion - 12 billion or 20 billion or higher, heck the capability wouldn't change if we demanded that Francois Hollande himself oversee the activities of HAL while the jet is in production ;) The rise in the price of the rafale deal is largely attributable to the depth of the technology transfer and IP being sought, and that is the point I am making. The french know exactly to the last euro what a Rafale costs to produce given a production number (within the limits of the line), that is projectable. It is also easy to calculate the learning curve based on experience for how long HAL will take to get to a certain level of proficiency of making it. The variable is the TOT, and that is what is going to cost a lot and where much of the cost analysis is going to focus on, and ultimately it is what is risking a significant delay (over and above) that in a way exaggerates the entire problem the MRCA was crafted to solve (squadron depletion) in the first place.What must also be kept in mind is that Transfer of technology is almost never for what is in the "pipeline", as I have never seen a deal structured to include those elements. No nation will sell its future IP, or "LAB" products unless they are super desperate. So you get to negotiate on what was proposed in the MRCA, whatever goodies the french are working on in secret on the future, would have to be procured as upgrades (like the rest of the world) or TOT for them worked upon at the time they are to be incorporated.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 00:52

^^^^^
We will pay extra for manufacturing it in India (same story for Su-30 MKI), but I am not sure if there is an explicit price attached to the ToT / IP being transferred. The cost of setting up a manufacturing line has to be paid if we want to make them in India. If we make them in India with deep ToT, then we will be able to maintain them more easily, etc. (one hopes)!

Francois Hollande will need a new job soon, so maybe we can offer him a production supervisor vacancy at HAL to sweeten the deal for the French.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2014 01:00

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
We will pay extra for manufacturing it in India (same story for Su-30 MKI), but I am not sure if there is an explicit price attached to the ToT / IP being transferred. The cost of setting up a manufacturing line has to be paid if we want to make them in India. If we make them in India with deep ToT, then we will be able to maintain them more easily, etc. (one hopes)!

Francois Hollande will need a new job soon, so maybe we can offer him a production supervisor vacancy at HAL to sweeten the deal for the French.


I am aware of setup costs, but those are also dependent upon the level of technology that has been transferred and the level of ultimate in house production sought. That is number dependent as it is in all manufacturing. The main cost rise is when you sit down and hammer out the technologies you want to totally own and have freedom on, that is the hard thing to hammer out and agree upon. Like I said, the cost to open a production line for the Rafale in India can be relatively easily calculated based on historic costs for both western and soviet lines, and what the various cost breakdowns were for french manufacturing. It is not going to cause a sudden spike in the overall program cost because experts are usually quite good at running those numbers / predicting them to a high degree of certainty. Now, if this were the early 2000's, when the AESA laden F-2's , F-15's. F-16's and F-22 raptors were just entering frontline service (only a handful delivered to test squadrons with a mid decade IOC planned) then one could justify the cost of paying 20 Billion for 100+ 4.5 gen fighters that brought you those technologies (multi spectral jamming, AESA radar, HMS etc) but around 2020, you will reach a critical global trend where the world would be producing and ultimately procuring as many 5th generation jets as 4th generation jets and even the 4th generation jets being procured (The Su-35's, Gripen NG's, Typhoon Tranch 3's, J-10's etc) would pretty much all carry as standard things as an AESA radar, Active A2A missiles, Multi-spectral integrated Jammers, IR based MAWS (F-16, Gripen and the Su-35 already have these iirc) etc. Like I mentioned earlier, the total cost to buy the jets, acquire of technology has to be on a curve and dependent upon whether the aircraft (whichever MRCA candidate it is) is procured in 1995, 2005, 2015 or 2020 with the same technology. One cannot charge the same amount of TOT cost (hypothetically speaking) for an F-16 Block 60 with a brand new cockpit, AESA radar, Active multi spectral Falcon Edge integrated Jammer, Modern Integrated IRST/FLIR in 2000's as in 2015, because in 2015, everyone else has these things integrated or are on a fairly certain path to get them integrated.

Similarly there has to some factoring in cost and ROI when one is paying 5th generation prices (as evident form the PAKFA example) for procuring and acquiring 4.5 generation Technology in 5th generation timelines. At what point do you step back and start trading off 5 billion in TOT (as an example) for technology acquisition elsewhere (such as the 5th gen PAKFA, or other non fighter related military IP acquisition) given that the technology being acquired has a shorter ROI because it essentially has been standardized by pretty much every other product in the category.At what point does one say, perhaps I should use the 5 billion to LEAP one entire generation and invest it somewhere else, and just license produce the rafale in the most cost-effective fashion so as to provide the IAF with the amount of fighters it needs, the basic underlying reason of the MRCA exercise in the first place.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Nov 2014 01:17, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 17 Nov 2014 01:16

DRDO says LCA is not late because it took 20 years to develop and all good aircraft take 20 years to develop. When did the clock start on the AMCA: which year are we in today?


The AMCA team is looking for an engine as we type. They are expected to produce 2 prototypes - I think by 2018-19. And production around 2025-30 time frame. (needless to state I am bullish) Chander IIRC mentioned the AMCA will be a 5.5 Gen (I have no clue what a 5.0 is, so I have absolutely no clue what a 5.5 Gen is. But, he said that. So, expect the AMCA to be a whole Gen ahead of the Rafale when it comes out.)

But, the question still stands, if the Rafale is so good, then why a AMCA?

Again, the Rafale(or PAK-FA) as filler - perfect.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 17 Nov 2014 01:22

^^^^^
Because a filler in hand is better than two in the bush.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests