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_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_20292 » 27 Feb 2015 23:50

NRao wrote:Do not be surprised if the choice is between the Rafale and FGFA - AWST.

Good pick I would say. Drop the Rafale and pick the FGFA. (A new CAS would not hurt either.)


Yes, we simply don't have the space to have and develop so many fighter types, seriously, as well as rationalize costs.

At a time when the biggest daddy of them all is making ONE fighter design, mass produced for all 3 of its armed forces that currently possess warplanes...India, with a much smaller budget, is supposed to successfully develop and deploy, the LCA, the Su30MKI, the FGFA and the AMCA, not to mention the legacy aircraft of different types.

It's not rational to add another fighter type, let alone the expensive Rafale to this mix, really, from the 30,000 ft. view.

The LCA and AMCA are ours and have to be encouraged through hell or high water. The FGFA is close to our own with the level of tech transfer. The Rafale is not close to either, and I don't see ourselves paying for expensive French labour.

If the French want to sell their wares abroad, better get off their collective, pretty little , perfectly shaped , peachy bottoms, and work more than 35 hours a week. It'll make their products cheaper and more competitive and get their youth off the streets and into more productive activities. They can literally grow their way out of high youth under-employment, and general mood of hopelessness that is prevalent .

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3967
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 28 Feb 2015 00:15

MODIJI ,DROP THE RAFALE :mrgreen:

what better way to say make in india , buy indian LCA ! :mrgreen:

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

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

Postby Boreas » 28 Feb 2015 06:57

I have said it before and I say it again, scrap mmrca. put max money in AMCA and build it in large numbers, where by large I mean upward to 500, let it along with mki and fgfa be the vanguards of our country till distant future.

PS - unfortunately it appears that it is almost certain that Modi will sign the deal in his april visit.

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

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

Postby NRao » 28 Feb 2015 07:32

Dassault needs this deal
France wants this deal
The IAF will die without this deal
Modi is a horse trader, he is not going to not-sign. He will find a way to get it done to the satisfaction of all.

Q: what will Dassult/france give for India to pay the high price and other irritants.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

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

Postby Boreas » 28 Feb 2015 10:34

NRao wrote:Q: what will Dassult/france give for India to pay the high price and other irritants.

may be better deal in nuclear plants.. may be just a smile.

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

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

Postby Austin » 28 Feb 2015 10:53

We should go for Rafale but in lesser number like more than 4-5 squadron max or ~ 80-100 aircraft. ( not 126 or 200 as envisaged eventually )

Also reduce TOT to what is needed for critical Maintenance which should reduce cost.

The remaining money should be poured into Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 also increase Super MKI to 2 more squadron

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Feb 2015 11:50

indranilroy wrote: When you sling 3 large drop tanks, the Rafale does not remain a fighter. It becomes a bomb truck with which you can fly over friendly airspace and drop bombs on far away country with small or non-existent air defense.


Or until you drop the drop tanks, then it becomes a fighter again.

indranilroy wrote:Yes, but dropping drop tanks is not a sustainable model of training or fighting. It is (as it should be) only an emergency procedure.


Such as meeting enemy fighters?

Planes don't meet every single mission, so in the common case the tanks will be returned. But if it's needed, they can be dropped, it's what they're there for.

indranilroy wrote:Similarly, it is true that when compared to the Rafale, the Su-30 is a brute. This is especially true about RCS and the man-machine interface. The first is overcome by having an extremely powerful radar (another brute method)


Having a powerful radar does nothing to protect you from SAMs.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 28 Feb 2015 13:35

GeorgeWelch wrote:Or until you drop the drop tanks, then it becomes a fighter again.

Such as meeting enemy fighters?

Planes don't meet every single mission, so in the common case the tanks will be returned. But if it's needed, they can be dropped, it's what they're there for.

There's no paucity of enemy fighters in our neighborhood particularly on the Chinese front. Every time the Rafale flies with those humongous tanks, its RCS is magnified and the aircraft rendered more vulnerable to enemy Flankers and/or AWACS. May as well employ the Su-30 at half price.

Having a powerful radar does nothing to protect you from SAMs.

Its got an RWR which will be upgraded in the MLU. And can be supplemented by ESM pods.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 28 Feb 2015 15:20

Viv S wrote:There's no paucity of enemy fighters in our neighborhood particularly on the Chinese front. Every time the Rafale flies with those humongous tanks, its RCS is magnified and the aircraft rendered more vulnerable to enemy Flankers and/or AWACS. May as well employ the Su-30 at half price.


I thought the argument was that you didn't need long-ranged strike fighters as any combat would be close and hence wouldn't need external tanks.

Expressing concern about the RCS of the Rafale with external tanks is amusing considering it's likely still less than than a Flanker loaded with ordnance.

Viv S wrote:
Having a powerful radar does nothing to protect you from SAMs.

Its got an RWR which will be upgraded in the MLU. And can be supplemented by ESM pods.


Calling RWR 'protection' is a bit much and jamming can only do so much. It can't erase a huge radar return like the MKI.

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

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

Postby NRao » 28 Feb 2015 15:46

may be better deal in nuclear plants.. may be just a smile


True. Difficult to tell.

However, a couple of things.

France has been tasked to take care of India's 'hood. That relationship is there. So for that reason alone I think this deal will go through.

Then the newer development, China - the PLA nonetheless - coming to the table is the bigger of any items. From that angle India needs a "Rafale".

BTW, note that Paki has started to wilt too. TSP Chief of Army makes a strong befitting statement while an Indian foreign sec is visiting!!!!!

Modi seems to be doing something right on the FP + Def front.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 28 Feb 2015 16:24

GeorgeWelch wrote:I thought the argument was that you didn't need long-ranged strike fighters as any combat would be close and hence wouldn't need external tanks.

The argument was the Rafale was a superb strike aircraft by virtue of its large combat radius, while the reality was the EFTs conferring that large combat radius also nullified its low RCS.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Expressing concern about the RCS of the Rafale with external tanks is amusing considering it's likely still less than than a Flanker loaded with ordnance.

Lower by how much? Radar range is proportional to the RCS raised to the fourth power. Practically speaking there would be only a limited difference in detection range against an enemy radar.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Calling RWR 'protection' is a bit much and jamming can only do so much. It can't erase a huge radar return like the MKI.

Giving it a fancy name like 'SPECTRA' also wouldn't change the limitations of an RWR or erase the huge radar return created by carrying two or three 2000L tanks.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3967
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 28 Feb 2015 16:56

Something interesting about the Egyptian Rafales deal

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world ... -warplanes

if Egypt should default on the loan for the weapons, the French government will cover the cost. 

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Feb 2015 17:26

There is RCS reductions then there is meaningful detection range reduction that usually requires some serious RCS reduction. The range equation is a known entity, so detection ranges would probably not significantly differ if one compares a Rafale with 2-3 EFT's and weapons to a Flanker with external weapons even though their RCS's may differ (or may not). The problem with seeking range through EFT's is as I mentioned earlier, of having to incorporating mission kills into the planning process because a pop-up SAM threat could force you to ditch EFTs and gain performance for the sake of survivability. Now that may not matter much to a Mig-21, Mig-29, F-16, F-18 user that bought the aircraft many decades ago and has seen the mission set grow to require these ranges (practically all western air-forces currently face this dilemma) but if one were to buy a new aircraft and begin to compare a rafale to the Su-30 for a common mission then the rafale would be at a disadvantage give its performance in those profiles (Ditch tanks and risk mission kill) etc.

Of course the rafale has other benefits and so does the Flanker. Like I mentioned earlier this isn't as much of a problem for the IAF given that the rafale compares favorably to some of the outgoing aircraft in its category, yet if one were to elaborate the mission to cover the Su-30 replacement then it would run into some trouble.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 01 Mar 2015 01:10

George,

Please read what I wrote.

1. I never said we don't need long strike missions. I said in our scenario, our planes cannot be docile while on those missions. In Kargil, our Mirages had to be escorted by Mig-29s. If you load a Rafale to the brim with fuel and have 3 drop tanks, ofcourse it can fly for 3-4 hours once it crosses over to the other side. But it most probably not last that long.

2. I don't know how a Rafale with 3 huge underslung fuel tanks does any better than a Su-30 against ground-based air defense. I would not like to be in a Rafale loaded with fuel and with 3 huge drop tanks while the ground radar paints me and readies the S2A missiles.

3. Next you said, yeah but you can drop the tanks. This was discussed too. Of course, it can be (and will be) done on an emergency basis, but how sustainable is it on a daily basis?

I never belittled the Rafale. It is one of my favourite planes. But the points that you guys are bringing in does not pass the muster. Treat a light fighter as a light fighter, a medium as a medium, and a heavy as a heavy. Don't fight physics, and you won't lose.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Mar 2015 03:09

kit wrote:MODIJI ,DROP THE RAFALE :mrgreen:

what better way to say make in india , buy indian LCA ! :mrgreen:


What happens if LCA engines get sanctioned by he who must not be named? F14 and Eyeran, anyone?
IAF struggles with its Russian fleet As it is, no need to jump from frying pan into fire. At the very least, wear a fireproof suit aka Rafale so that something is saved.

This is an issue, and there are no credible options to the Rafale. If cost needs reduction, use Austins suggestion, keep this TOT giri to bare minimum, make induction quicker, there is not much that Rafale can offer in any case, much of the technology on the Rafale is already being susuccessfully pursued at home. Only help can be had is on engines, and I don't think Dassault or any OEM is willing to truly help here.

By the way, those of you who are poohpoohing the MKI visavis the rafale , esp. In terms of payload, range, and multirole capability, please know that the MKI is capable of takeoff with 38000kg, do the math, and you will know that the load is very similar to Rafale. Add to this , long ranged A2S munitions such as the brahmos, nirbhay, effective anti radar missiles, and pakfa tech filtering through, and it becomes Very clear how viable and powerful this platform is... Plus the two.pilots who make 11 hour missions possible, would like to see rafale do the same. The MKI in IAF service brings some truly unique capabilities that can't be matched by Rafale, which of course has some unique capabilities too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 01 Mar 2015 03:30

There are many valid reasons to buy the Rafale yet this is certainly one of the weaker ones. There are plenty of ways to hedge against a potential US backlash or control during wartime. For starters you could build a strong engine inventory and take over either solely or through partnership the sustainment effort . The USAF stopped procuring the F-119 a couple of years ago (after the 507th engine got delivered), yet the fighter type would remain in service for another 25 more years at a minimum. If you wish to further hedge against a potential sanction then you can diversify by either re-designing the LCA for another engine or upping your own Kaveri engine or its offshoots as the type matures. Plenty of ways to get around that. One could keep on this sort of argument and say that the US could pressurize France much like the alleged Mistral deal and then what? Should the IAF buy from another party to hedge against the F-404/414, Rafale? There is some risk that would always exist and that risk has to be managed in the most cost-effective manner. The actions of the government seem to be totally different..There seems to be a growing relationship and it seems an Advanced F-414 looks like an early frontrunner for the AMCA with production being sought in India.

I suggested a smaller, primarily non TOT buy to keep the squadron strengths in order last year. That still in my opinion is the best way to deal with things. Technology transfer is all well and good, but it needs to be dealt with in a systemic manner rather than being plugged in with every purchase. Although that approach may look attractive it really slows acquisition down, when you should have a strategic effort to acquire technology or form global tech transfer partnerships in broader technology area. Just my 2 cents.

Plus the two.pilots who make 11 hour missions possible, would like to see rafale do the same.


Most medium class twin fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) can conduct long endurance missions if required. The Rafale has practiced 10+ hour mission before.

http://www.ambafrance-in.org/Strategic- ... on-Rafales

Also some 7 hour missions over Iraq:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/10/04/fr ... r-baghdad/

10 hours is usually the limit you want to put on your pilots on a regular basis (fighters) with longer sorties being extremely rare although many fighters have been asked to conduct strike missions at extremes.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 01 Mar 2015 03:54

NRao wrote:
may be better deal in nuclear plants.. may be just a smile


True. Difficult to tell.

However, a couple of things.

France has been tasked to take care of India's 'hood. That relationship is there. So for that reason alone I think this deal will go through.

It is about the maal code. India needs it to complete the triad.

For all these things $15B or $20B does not matter from a strategic POV

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 Mar 2015 04:36

^^ The whole idea of 11 hour missions in fighter bombers is kind of stupid. What is the typical mission? To engage enemy fighters, drop a few bombs and return? This is Israeli stuff not Indian requirements.

For Pakistan we certainly don't this. Cruise missiles, artillery and Pinaka/Smerch are more than enough.

For PRC, we're either talking nuke missiles or long range bombers (which we don't have).

The India/PRC clash is likely to be short, nasty and fast. The winner will be the one who intimidates the other from from trying a second shot. As a status quo power India has a huge advantage.

The carriers (INS Vishal) give us legs.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 01 Mar 2015 04:45

indranilroy wrote:1. I never said we don't need long strike missions.


You may not have. Many others here have.

indranilroy wrote: I would not like to be in a Rafale loaded with fuel and with 3 huge drop tanks while the ground radar paints me and readies the S2A missiles.


I would not want to be in either one. In that regards, they're both obsolete.

indranilroy wrote:3. Next you said, yeah but you can drop the tanks. This was discussed too. Of course, it can be (and will be) done on an emergency basis, but how sustainable is it on a daily basis?


Very. Drop tanks are dirt cheap compared to planes (and pilots).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8172
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 01 Mar 2015 06:44

GeorgeWelch wrote:
indranilroy wrote: I would not like to be in a Rafale loaded with fuel and with 3 huge drop tanks while the ground radar paints me and readies the S2A missiles.


I would not want to be in either one. In that regards, they're both obsolete.

Oh the 5th generation drivel?

GeorgeWelch wrote:
indranilroy wrote:3. Next you said, yeah but you can drop the tanks. This was discussed too. Of course, it can be (and will be) done on an emergency basis, but how sustainable is it on a daily basis?


Very. Drop tanks are dirt cheap compared to planes (and pilots).

Of course they are cheap compared to a plane or man, and that is why they are dropped in an emergency. But I have never heard AFs drop drop tanks on a regular basis.

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

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

Postby member_26622 » 01 Mar 2015 06:49

Can anyone summarize what this 20 billion - 100 Rafale wonder will do for us - apart from defending Delhi?

Looking at what will happen in the aerial zone - Anyone taking on PRC or Pakistan will have to face off thousands of cheap cruise missiles to begin with (Chinese export to Pakis). These are little better than diwali rockets in accuracy but have significant potential on affecting morale of population - that's why the numbers. Forget Rafale, even Akash missile seem like an expensive way to counter these dumb rockets.

Then comes the 1000's of Mig-21 copies which are on their last legs of life. Only way to counter them is with 1000's of LCA and Akash as backup. Next better option is the MKI's - for the amount of goodies they can throw at an adversary.

Next enemy option will be Ballistic missiles. PRC will not use Ballistic missiles against India - absolutely zero likelihood. A walk around Shanghai/Beijing versus Mumbai/Delhi will be enough to understand who will lose by a big margin. Chinese are not that dumb. Pakis are dumb and pu**ies. Even if they light one up, no one including pakis themselves are sure where the darn thing will land - and shiny Rafale cannot do anything except fly away fast to counter ballistic missiles.

Rafale acquisition is like a kid throwing a fit in a toy store. It's just mind numbing that any service can ask for shelling out this much $$$$$$$$$$$ to foreign shores, given that a third of of the country lives off a $ a day.

Sarcasm On - Looks like Mohammed Ghazni has come back for round 2, wearing a Gaul uniform. :evil: Off-Sarcasm

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Mar 2015 06:52

Objectively speaking 10 and 11 hour missions and armed drones are ideal for wars to be fought by the old colonial powers in the zones occupied by former colonies.

Terrorism is a type of war that can be fought by former colonies within areas controlled by former colonial powers.

That is why terrorism is the wrong type of war. Drones and 10 hour missions are the "right" type of war.

No?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 01 Mar 2015 06:56

Of course they are cheap compared to a plane or man, and that is why they are dropped in an emergency. But I have never heard AFs drop drop tanks on a regular basis


No one does plan for such a thing at a tactical level. It would be impossible for most. If there is a pop SAM system that forces the aircraft it is targeting to ditch tanks it scores a mission kill even if it doesn't get a physical kill. If you want to do this at a fleet-wide-scale you better maintain a lot of aircraft to get past the possibility of loosing a lot of mission_sets to the "ditch-and-live" sort of things especially if you want to penetrate into controlled territory going low (standard procedure). There is a reason why aircraft like the F-15E, and the Su-30 exist.

Objectively speaking 10 and 11 hour missions and armed drones are ideal for wars to be fought by the old colonial powers in the zones occupied by former colonies.


10 hour+ missions take their toll and are usually a very niche mission-sets even for the heavies. As one U-2 pilot commented on a similar-length mission - when asked about the toll of such a mission on the "mind" - " My A$$ gave in exactly 10 minutes before my senses" :) or something similar ..Ideally you want larger bomber-type platforms for such missions if not UCAV's that can usually go for 2-3 times that amount.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Mar 2015 07:06

brar_w wrote:
10 hour+ missions take their toll and are usually a very niche mission-sets even for the heavies. As one U-2 pilot commented on a similar-length mission - when asked about the toll of such a mission on the "mind" - " My A$$ gave in exactly 10 minutes before my senses" :) or something similar ..Ideally you want larger bomber-type platforms for such missions if not UCAV's that can usually go for 2-3 times that amount.

There is another factor in long missions. The airspace over Europe and the continental US is so crowded that military aircraft on exercises cannot willy nilly take off and land as they wish and typically have to follow what ATCs tell them. An Indian military training sortie on a MiG 21 might last 45 minutes but in the continental US just getting to the exercise zone and getting back may mean a 3 hour mission - requiring refuelling somewhere along the way

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Mar 2015 07:10

nik wrote:Rafale acquisition is like a kid throwing a fit in a toy store. It's just mind numbing that any service can ask for shelling out this much $$$$$$$$$$$ to foreign shores, given that a third of of the country lives off a $ a day.

Sarcasm On - Looks like Mohammed Ghazni has come back for round 2, wearing a Gaul uniform. :evil: Off-Sarcasm

Nik you are making a pseudosecular argument linking poverty with defence and saying "because of poverty the level to be spent on defence should be X and not Y". I don't want to dig deep although I am tempted to rip the argument apart on several grounds. I need not even disagree with your view on the cost of the deal - but your argument is a self goal and in no way helps your case in opposing the Rafale.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 01 Mar 2015 08:07

why Rafale has no retractable fuel probes? is this only because of space/design issue?

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

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

Postby sohamn » 01 Mar 2015 08:31

^^^^ I think it was a drag vs weight consideration that led to this decision.

member_28476
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_28476 » 01 Mar 2015 23:47

Dassault wanted a retractable fuel probe, but french Navy were afraid of reliability.
Just an element to think about : Egypt possess 7 regiments of S-400, still they bought some Rafale.
About price of the deal. Yes i guess it will be larger than th 12 billions originally intended. Question is did these billions include the industrialization process?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 01 Mar 2015 23:58

Pagot wrote:Dassault wanted a retractable fuel probe, but french Navy were afraid of reliability.
Just an element to think about : Egypt possess 7 regiments of S-400, still they bought some Rafale.
About price of the deal. Yes i guess it will be larger than th 12 billions originally intended. Question is did these billions include the industrialization process?


So lets assume that the Bold portion is true (would love to see some evidence of these 7 regiments). I was under the impression that nations usually buy weapon systems by matching them against the threat they are likely to encounter and not based on whether those weapon systems can penetrate their own air-defense network for whatever reason. Egypt's decision was based on -

- Threat - Normally, they wouldn't look to bomb themselves by defeating their own air defense system but given the region I guess anything is possible . A more likely explanation however is the much simpler one of they needing a tactical fighter to cover the threat they may face in the region.
- Available option (of which the Rafale was the best all round multi-role fighter )
- Affordability - You buy what you can afford and in this case they negotiated terms that made a high end system affordable.

What other options did Egypt have?

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 02 Mar 2015 00:57

self deleted
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 02 Mar 2015 01:04, edited 1 time in total.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

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

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 02 Mar 2015 01:04

nik wrote:
Rafale acquisition is like a kid throwing a fit in a toy store. It's just mind numbing that any service can ask for shelling out this much $$$$$$$$$$$ to foreign shores, given that a third of of the country lives off a $ a day.

Sarcasm On - Looks like Mohammed Ghazni has come back for round 2, wearing a Gaul uniform. :evil: Off-Sarcasm


Nik,

do you know how much India sends on defence as a pct of GDP ? 1.75% after the current budget.

Do yourself a favour and look at the spending numbers of of other countries on google. Given our neighborhood we should be spending at least 3.5% of GDP. But then I am sure there are enough takers for your guns and butter logic....I am told Rahul baba is missing...maybe an opportunity to join the congress ! Diggy unlce will be delighted I am sure ;-)

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

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

Postby Viv S » 02 Mar 2015 01:05

Pagot wrote:Dassault wanted a retractable fuel probe, but french Navy were afraid of reliability.
Just an element to think about : Egypt possess 7 regiments of S-400, still they bought some Rafale.

Egypt possesses no S-300s, let alone S-400s which even Russia fields in limited numbers at the moment.

It was however reportedly negotiating for the S-300VMs with Russia recently but no confirmed sales have been registered so far. Existing AD inventory consists of short range Tor and medium range Buk systems.

About price of the deal. Yes i guess it will be larger than th 12 billions originally intended. Question is did these billions include the industrialization process?

Even if the whole batch was delivered off-the-shelf it would still cost far more then $12 billion, even after the factoring the falling Euro.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Mar 2015 05:58

brar_w wrote:There are many valid reasons to buy the Rafale yet this is certainly one of the weaker ones. There are plenty of ways to hedge against a potential US backlash or control during wartime. For starters you could build a strong engine inventory and take over either solely or through partnership the sustainment effort . The USAF stopped procuring the F-119 a couple of years ago (after the 507th engine got delivered), yet the fighter type would remain in service for another 25 more years at a minimum. If you wish to further hedge against a potential sanction then you can diversify by either re-designing the LCA for another engine or upping your own Kaveri engine or its offshoots as the type matures. Plenty of ways to get around that. One could keep on this sort of argument and say that the US could pressurize France much like the alleged Mistral deal and then what? Should the IAF buy from another party to hedge against the F-404/414, Rafale? There is some risk that would always exist and that risk has to be managed in the most cost-effective manner. The actions of the government seem to be totally different..There seems to be a growing relationship and it seems an Advanced F-414 looks like an early frontrunner for the AMCA with production being sought in India.


You might think it a weak reason, but the IAF/GOI actually has always regarded diversification as a matter of policy. In terms of mitigating the engine issue by stocking up, I would agree but then IAF has to do another Russia in this situation as well - something that they would rather avoid. Still, could be doable.

As far as France being pressured by the US to sanction India, they tried this post POK II and did not meet with much success. France might be pricey but thankfully, they have a relatively independent policy at least wrt India.


Plus the two.pilots who make 11 hour missions possible, would like to see rafale do the same.


Most medium class twin fighters (Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) can conduct long endurance missions if required. The Rafale has practiced 10+ hour mission before.

http://www.ambafrance-in.org/Strategic- ... on-Rafales

Also some 7 hour missions over Iraq:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/10/04/fr ... r-baghdad/

10 hours is usually the limit you want to put on your pilots on a regular basis (fighters) with longer sorties being extremely rare although many fighters have been asked to conduct strike missions at extremes.[/quote]

Thanks, good to know about the Rafale being capable of managing such missions. Nevertheless, does not make it "superior" to the mki perse, which is the context I was replying to.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Mar 2015 06:05

You might think it a weak reason, but the IAF/GOI actually has always regarded diversification as a matter of policy. In terms of mitigating the engine issue by stocking up, I would agree but then IAF has to do another Russia in this situation as well - something that they would rather avoid. Still, could be doable


The problem with that line of argument is that A) They are looking at an increasing involvement of GE (as per some reports) through the AMCA propulsion and B ) You could always diversify if required by increasing investment in indigenous capability even if you do not (for some reason) want to build up inventory to mitigate and manage the risk as is easily doable especially if the eventual goal is to move to the F-414 and have that family (if down-selected for the AMCA) be produced in India as is being reported.

As far as France being pressured by the US to sanction India, they tried this post POK II and did not meet with much success. France might be pricey but thankfully, they have a relatively independent policy at least wrt India


The point is that if one were to hedge for absolutely everything then one has to have a plan B or a Plan C in case the worst case pans out. Anyways, the strategic relationship with the US is going in a direction where there is increasing purchase of weapons and it seems a broader strategic relationship with technology transfer for components such as EMALS etc is being talked about. The same engine against whom some may wish to hedge, is looking like a frontrunner for a much larger, more advanced and ultimately more "strategic" advanced development program in the AMCA.

Thanks, good to know about the Rafale being capable of managing such missions. Nevertheless, does not make it "superior" to the mki perse, which is the context I was replying to


I was strictly replying to the part where you said " would love to see the rafale do that", but for any other comparison for some extreme niche mission-sets one would really have to run the numbers based on missions..but a larger platform with IFR would usually be better but I guess it depends on a host of other factors..

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

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

Postby NRao » 02 Mar 2015 06:08

As far as France being pressured by the US to sanction India, they tried this post POK II and did not meet with much success. France might be pricey but thankfully, they have a relatively independent policy at least wrt India.


Everything, without an exception, is subject to change.

The *only* way India insulates herself in matters of national interest is to insulate herself in most, if not all, respects (tough to do).

But, I do not think India will face any pressure along those lines. Let us see, but one indicator would be how much help the IN gets. IAF/IA matter, but not as much, IF India wants to be a global player.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Mar 2015 06:21

Of course, all of us have our opinions on which way the wind might blow, my reading is that the IAF is quite skeptical of investing heavily in US based technology when it comes to the "tip of the spear". Between this position and that of the ADA, there has always been a bit of a gap - the ADA has, for whatever reason favored US h/w wrt the LCA (I think this had something to do with RG's bonhomie with Reagan). Matheswaran's rant in that conference of stakeholders alluded to this gap quite clearly. The fact that India has not yet signed the CISMOA et al., might also be indicative of the skepticism within strategic circles.


IF the engine issue can be alleviated as Brar W points out (by shoring up on critical spares et al.), one feels that LCA+MKI combomight serve the purpose. But then, it might not be so straightforward.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8836
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Mar 2015 06:26

The engine issue is very very doable. However what is happening is much broader. They are considering using EMALS which is even more critical. Moreover, like I mentioned you can buy a larger inventory if you want to manage that risk. The USAF has a 20+ year supply of F-119's and the only work the OEM is doing is support. That aspect can be built into the contract with transfers making sure that there is exclusive or high degree of of indigenous support. That aside, I believe that it is not in line with what seems to be happening on the ground. The relationship is on an upwards trajectory with even a deeper participation of the engine family being sought on a project that can be argued to be strategically even more significant then the LCA. You do not make those decisions without a strong political backing (with the current establishment) and understanding of A) The risk involved, and B ) the direction of the strategic relationship. Same applies to using Calspan for AMCA model testing - those decisions aren't made without a political green light.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 02 Mar 2015 09:31

The fundamental factor is not capability,where almost all contenders made the grade,but cost.If the Rafale is twice as expensive as an MKI,as the DM has stated,then what is the great point in buying it? Just look at HAL's track record on the BT,IJT and LCA.The Rafale is a highly sophisticated aircraft,where "brute force tolerances" engineered into Russian wares in general does not exist. Mastering TOT of the Rafale is going to be an arduous journey for HAL and the French are quite right in being skeptical about getting HAL to meet its v.high quality stds. The problem is that the DPSUs have a dog-in-the-manger attitude,where they want every piece of cake. The BTT hasn't even flown. The IJT has suffered 3 crashes thus far and there was no mention or sight of it at the air show unlike past shows.

The TOT for MKIs has already been absorbed by HAL,and with 270+ aircraft to be acquired,more air bases around the country being spruced up to operate the type,another 100+ would cost us just half the Rafale's cost without the extra expenditure of setting up the TOT/manufacturing line! If as some say,we do need a medium class aircraft like the Raffy,then just buy 2 sqds. as we did with the M-2K,supposedly readily available with the French,and forget about TOT.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3967
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 02 Mar 2015 10:51

Philip wrote:The fundamental factor is not capability,where almost all contenders made the grade,but cost.If the Rafale is twice as expensive as an MKI,as the DM has stated,then what is the great point in buying it? Just look at HAL's track record on the BT,IJT and LCA.The Rafale is a highly sophisticated aircraft,where "brute force tolerances" engineered into Russian wares in general does not exist. Mastering TOT of the Rafale is going to be an arduous journey for HAL and the French are quite right in being skeptical about getting HAL to meet its v.high quality stds. The problem is that the DPSUs have a dog-in-the-manger attitude,where they want every piece of cake. The BTT hasn't even flown. The IJT has suffered 3 crashes thus far and there was no mention or sight of it at the air show unlike past shows.

The TOT for MKIs has already been absorbed by HAL,and with 270+ aircraft to be acquired,more air bases around the country being spruced up to operate the type,another 100+ would cost us just half the Rafale's cost without the extra expenditure of setting up the TOT/manufacturing line! If as some say,we do need a medium class aircraft like the Raffy,then just buy 2 sqds. as we did with the M-2K,supposedly readily available with the French,and forget about TOT.


That argument is quite valid but also the one about not putting all the eggs in the Russian basket . IAF needs numbers too . If the French play ball on price and tech transfers they do have a chance. The Indian deal can put a shine to the french defense industry like none other ! :-?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 02 Mar 2015 12:34

there is no money seen in defence budget for the rafale deal...and this budget is upto march30, 2016.

so surely the deal is dead...even a first tranche signing amount would be 100s of millions of $$ to fund dassault to start the production line, order huge numbers of parts from its vendors, work on setting up the line in India, and prepare for delivery of french built units in around 3 yrs minimum....


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests