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

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

Postby vishvak » 17 Apr 2015 09:27

Gripen has same engine as LCA and probably will be affected by sanctions whenever US Govt/Senate wishes so. Better to have more of LCA by awarding manufacturing 32/year to competing pvt/public enterprises, and if HAL wants to be then HAL could be part of some consultant/integrator unit, thereby not having to lose any manpower to pvt industries and at the same time increasing talent pool without poaching.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Apr 2015 09:40

WRT US fighters > US still insists that we sign on to all the four lettered agreements for any substantial transfer of tech. India does not want to sign on.

We can talk all we want and test them all we want in Leh, etc BUT the main hurdle still remains.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 17 Apr 2015 09:44

Q. Was the Indian Air Force on board when the government took the decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters under the government-to-government (G2G) route from France?

A. I consulted the Air Force to the extent it was required. They have no role in decision-making as ultimately it’s the Prime Minister’s call.
^^^
I don't like the sound of this. "Consulted to the extent required", "ultimately it’s the Prime Minister’s call"? Sounds like a unilateral decision by the PM. I'm wondering if the IAF is now kicking itself for insisting on only Rafale.

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

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

Postby Philip » 17 Apr 2015 09:58

Karnad's figures need to be rechecked.If they are accurate then he has a very valid point.

http://bharatkarnad.com/
Impatience Seals Worst Possible Defence Deal
Bharat Karnad
Posted on April 17, 2015

by Bharat Karnad
With the price negotiations meandering into the fourth year, an impatient Narendra Modi intervened, circumventing the elaborate Request for Proposal (RFP) system of competitive bidding under which the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal was initiated. The prime minister decided to purchase the Rafales “off the shelf” without transfer of technology at the government-to-government (G2G) level.

This was portrayed as Modi’s “out of the box” solution for a problem that didn’t really exist. Plainly, he mistook the hard, extended, bargaining between the two sides as evidence of red tape, and cutting it as his unique achievement. But impatience is a liability in international relations and can cost the country plenty.

Rather than pressuring French president Francois Hollande and the French aviation major, Dassault, which is in dire straits and was in no position to resist sustained Indian pressure to deliver the Rafale and the technologies involved in toto to India, Modi eased off, promising a munificent $5billion-$8 billion for 36 Rafales off the shelf minus any reference to the L1 (lowest cost) MMRCA tender offer, possibly a buy of another 30 of them, and no onerous technology transfer obligation.

It is a turn that must have astonished Hollande and Dassault with its exceptional generosity, surpassing in its muddle-headed excess Narasimha Rao’s handout of Rs 6,000 crore in 1996 to Russia to prevent the closure of the Sukhoi design bureau and production plant in Irkutsk, in return for nothing, not even joint share of the intellectual property rights for the Su-30MKI technologies subsequently produced there, which could have kick-started the Indian aerospace sector. Then again, India is a phenomenally rich country, don’t you know?—the proverbial white knight rescuing the Russian aviation industry one day, French aerospace companies the next.

But let’s try and see if sense can be made of Modi’s Rafale deal. Much has been said about the G2G channel as a means of securing low prices. The record of acquisitions from the United States in the direct sales mode, however, shows no marked drop-off in the price for the C-17s and C-130J airlifters and the P-8I maritime reconnaissance planes. But in terms of maintenance, almost all the 20-odd ANTPQ-36/37 artillery fire-spotting radar units bought by the army from the Pentagon, for instance, are offline due to the paucity of spares. Supplier states in this situation routinely manipulate the spares supply to configure politico-military outcomes they desire. No saying what France will do with respect to the entire fleet of IAF Rafales in the years to come. Usually, the practice also is to sell the platform cheap but rake in extortionist profit selling onboard weapons and spares. In any case, it is unlikely the price of a fully loaded Rafale will be less than $200 million each or $7.2 billion for 36 Rafales, $13 billion for 66 of these aircraft, and $25.2 billion for 126 planes.

Then again, French fighter planes have proved inordinately expensive to maintain. How expensive? According to a recent report by the Comptroller and Accountant General, in 2012-2013, for example, the total cost of upkeep of all 51 Mirage 2000 aircraft in the IAF inventory was Rs 486.85 crore compared to Rs 877.84 crore for 170 Su-30MKIs—meaning, the annual unit cost of maintaining a Mirage was Rs 9.5 crore versus Rs 5.2 crore for the more capable Su-30MKI. Now ponder over this: The cost of upkeep of a Rafale is authoritatively estimated at twice the cost of the Mirage and, hence, four times that of Su-30!

The “Super Sukhoi” avatar of the air dominance-capable Su-30 entering IAF is equipped with the latest AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar permitting the switching between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles in flight, and which radar will be retrofitted on the older versions of this plane in service. In the event, in what combat profile exactly is the Rafale superior?

The defence minister Manohar Parrikar was partial to the Su-30 option, having publicly stated that it was more affordable—its procurement price half that of a Rafale, and that owing to improved spares supply condition, its serviceability rate would rise to 75 per cent by year-end, exceeding that of the Mirage, incidentally. Even so, the loyal Parrikar praised Modi’s Rafale initiative as providing “minimum oxygen” for the IAF without letting on that it will maximally oxygenate French interests and industry!

While Modi talked of a low G2G price for the Rafale, he said nothing about its servicing bill. According to a former Vice Chief of the Air Staff, the total life-cycle costs (LCC) for a fleet of 126 Rafales calculated by Air Headquarters is over $40 billion. How will the LCC be downscaled if only 36 or 66 Rafales are eventually bought? If the real acquisition price of the ordnance-loaded Rafales is added to the LCC the total outgo will be upwards of $50billion-$55 billion, a figure this analyst had mentioned many moons ago.

Indeed, the odds actually are that India will end up buying the entire MMRCA requirement from France. Why? With 36 aircraft slotted in the direct sales category, it is already cost-prohibitive for any Indian private sector company to invest in a production line valued at $5billion-$6 billion to produce the remaining 60 or even 90 aircraft. In other words, by pledging to buy enhanced numbers of Rafales from Dassault the Narendra Modi government will be constrained by economic logic to buy the rest from this source as well, a denouement the IAF had always desired. Why else was the IAF Chief Arup Raha so desperate to get the PM to commit to buying significant numbers of this aircraft outright on the pretext of “critical” need when the Rafales will come in only by 2018 at the earliest but importing Su-30s from Russia would have beefed up the force by this year-end?

Previous prime ministers have been victimised by bad advice, and paid the political price, for instance, Rajiv Gandhi with regard to the Bofors gun. Modi will have to carry the can for this Rafale transaction—a boondoggle in the making. With the opposition parties and Dr Subramaniam Swamy waking up to its potential to politically hamstring the BJP government and mar Modi’s prospects, anything can happen.

[Published in the New Indian Express, April 17, 2015, at http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 767483.ece

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Apr 2015 10:06

All foreign purchases will have some or the other issue i.e Expensive, spares, maintenance, 4 lettered agreements, sanctions, etc.

I have already proposed the cheapest solution. A White flag at Lal Quila and an invitation to the Bakis or the Cheenis to take over. We can probably manage within a couple of thousand rupee provided we again stick to local material and darzi.

Why does a peace loving country, the land of gandy and buddha need Force and that too AIR force hanji?

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

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

Postby vishvak » 17 Apr 2015 10:12

Also puts ? on higher upkeep cost of Mirage w.r.t. Sukhoi. And Rafale upkeep cost will be about 4 times! This is opposite to view that "western" aircrafts are cheaper to maintain.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 17 Apr 2015 10:12

Singha wrote:the SH was the weakest of the lot at high alt ops iirc. it will be hard for it to overcome that tag.


I never saw a credible source for that information.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9812
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Apr 2015 10:15

It may be unilateral decision of the PM. If IAF, MOD babus and all are not doing anything for years someone has to step in and take the decision making power out of their hands. That is what PM did. If anyone thinks it is a bad decision then whose fault is it? MOD and Saint and also IAFs who allowed this situation in the first place. Corruption ? who took the money in a GtoG purchase?

It is always the person who takes a decision get the blame and called names and if you do not take any decision for a decade you get an honest person tag. If the decision is a bad one, then nation has to live with it and make best use of what we are getting out of it.

In 10 years of UPA we lost a lot. This will be one of them.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8229
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 17 Apr 2015 10:15

Every one seems to be missing the point that the NaMo govt., has expressed its intention to have 250 LCA Mk2s to be built by the Pvt. Sector by 2025 in order to break the monopoly of the HAL on Aircraft making in the country.

Given the track record of the govt. It is only a matter of time before it is put into execution by the govt. So the space of any other platform is non existent.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 17 Apr 2015 10:17

nikhil_p wrote:The hornet is not going to make it. Two reasons why - one - it failed critical hot and high tests,


There were minor issues that were easily addressed, it was a non-issue.

nikhil_p wrote:2 - it doesn't bring much to the table compared to other contenders.


When it's the one that's more affordable and available in the time required (which are 2 of the most important criteria), the proper way to look at it is: What do its competitors bring compared to it?

And the answer is 'Not much.'

nikhil_p wrote:The EF could very well be the dark horse in this race. It was after all L2 and brings to the table Germany, England and a couple of other European countries which could be strategically important.


If that's the criteria, their 'strategic importance' pales compares to the US.

nikhil_p wrote:But IMHO the Gripen makes more sense overall


The Gripen is obsolete and the Gripen-NG is still a proposal.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

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

Postby pankajs » 17 Apr 2015 10:53

We have 5-10 (2015 to 2020-25) very tricky years to navigate compounded by the fact that last decade was a wasted decade in every field but especially defense.

1. We already have sufficient MKIs on order. We don't want our Airforce to be only MKIs.
2. 36 Rafale is strategic in the sense that it plugs an immediate gap, diversification, reliable partner in France.
3. Whether we order more or go for local manufacturing depends on 1) Cost per plane 2) What happens to FGFA 3) Tejas MK2
4. If the PAKFA can start appearing by 2020 leading to FGFA, the need for further Rafale or MKI will not arise.
5. If Tejas Mk-2 can start induction by 2022 in numbers we will have no more Rafale.
6. Tejas Mk-1 will have to be ordered in numbers to fill in for Mig-21s. It is good enough.

MKIs and Rafale orders will be used to fill up gaps if the timeline on Tejas or FGFA slips.

Rafale remains expensive and further orders will depend on exceptional circumstance
1. Steep price discount
2. Real deep and path-breaking tot
3. Unexpected and Worrying shortfall in planned induction of other platforms (Primarily FGFA and Tejas Mk-2; 2020-25 timeframe)
4. Unexpected and Worrying development in our neighborhood (Appearance of a new very capable fighter on our border is large quantity)

Given the tricky nature of this transition period India will have to follow up on all the tracks in parallel. (Tejas, FGFA and Rafale). What will get the maximum orders will depend on the progress.

So what the GOI is saying/doing, i.e all paths are open, is not surprising at all but the ideal mix going forward remains Tejas, FGFA and AMCA.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1984
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 17 Apr 2015 12:27

Unilateral decision is good esp when the alternative route didn't yield anything for a few years - finally there is someone with enough backbone to make a decision without appointing a dozen committees.

OTOH, I'm ambivalent on doing away with RFPs for large deals - without RFP and fair competition, it wouldn't be possible to do proper price discovery and technical analysis. Otherwise, we'll end up comparing brochures.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

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

Postby alexis » 17 Apr 2015 16:35

^^
How can we say unilateral decision is good? By that metric, all decisions are good!

it is the cost of the decision that decides whether it is good or bad. By all indications Rafale is going to cost 140 mn USD without any technology transfer (i remember people quoting fly away cost of USD 80 mn for Rafale some time back). I am sure, if this decision was taken by UPA, we will all be discussing the kickback amounts. Quick decision is fine but under the circumstances, we can procure 1 Su 30 and 1.5 LCA mk1 for a rafale and these can come in the same timelines. irrespective of the credentials of the decision maker, i cant find it in my heart to support this decision.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 16:42

GeorgeWelch wrote:If you need large number of fighters fast, the SH is still the best decision. Nothing else combines the affordability with the industrial capability to get it done. The Rafale is currently at 11/year and it will take years to double that rate and just sold 2 years worth of production to Egypt. Not to mention, 100+ of them just isn't affordable. The Tejas, well HAL hasn't even built 20 total and of course it isn't even operational yet.

If an FMS purchase from the US was deemed to be politically feasible, it would still be an exceptionally foolish decision to purchase the SH, with the F-35A finally having arriving on the scene. It offers better value-for-money and even head-to-head it wouldn't be that much more expensive in two years time. Performance-wise it is of course in entirely different league altogether.

Both are utterly incapable of delivering the quantities needed in the timeframe required.

The SH is currently being produced at 36/year.

The F-35's production rate is currently 42/year which will increase to 60+ next year (unless a three year block buy is sanctioned).

As far as the Eurocanards are concerned, the EF consortium (and possibly Sweden/Saab) can probably off-load serving examples to the IAF on the cheap as a stopgap bridge to new aircraft. Less of an option for France with its Rafale fleet fairly stressed and strength reduced further with transfers to Egypt.

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

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Apr 2015 17:02

The F-35's production rate is currently 42/year which will increase to 60+ next year (unless a three year block buy is sanctioned).

As far as the Eurocanards are concerned, the EF consortium (and possibly Sweden/Saab) can probably off-load serving examples to the IAF on the cheap as a stopgap bridge to new aircraft. Less of an option for France with its Rafale fleet fairly stressed and strength reduced further with transfers to Egypt.


If the latest AO167 request is any indication, the block buy will be pursued for 9,10 and beyond. The only thing left to decide is whether the US aircraft would be clubbed into the first block buy or the second one. With hints coming from the IDF that they may up their order by a dozen or so, the possibility exists that it can happen when the first Adir's (2) land in Israel (Dec, 2016).

Lockheed has a very aggressive ramp up plan for the F-35 from 2016 and beyond. They won't get it spot on and there would be a learning curve associated just as there is a learning curve associated with current ramp up (deliveries that are stretching into the holiday season and shortened vacations to meet delivery targets). Moreover, the Congress is slowly adding back the USN's jets that it pushed to the right of the acquisition cycle. When combined, I seriously doubt that Lockheed can commit to a Pre-2020 FMS delivery for any significant amount unless someone somewhere pushes their orders to the right.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 17:45

brar_w wrote:When combined, I seriously doubt that Lockheed can commit to a Pre-2020 FMS delivery for any significant amount unless someone somewhere pushes their orders to the right.

A block buy ensures a single large order enabling contractors to reduce their prices in return for assured volumes. It by no means precludes the order book from being expanded with supplementary orders. The program would have to be run by lunatics to refuse a major new order (with huge growth potential considering the FGFA's woes) on technical considerations. The result may not be a conventional FMS purchase but that hardly makes it a non-starter.

And that's assuming units earmarked for the US aren't diverted to service exports, which remains a possibility. The USAF isn't nearly as desperate for new aircraft as the IAF (& USMC) and the current ramp-up is at least as much to support the F-35 program as it is to service military requirements.

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

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

Postby brar_w » 17 Apr 2015 18:02

^^ Replied in the appropriate thread.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 18:08

All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 18:16

Pratyush wrote:Every one seems to be missing the point that the NaMo govt., has expressed its intention to have 250 LCA Mk2s to be built by the Pvt. Sector by 2025 in order to break the monopoly of the HAL on Aircraft making in the country.

Given the track record of the govt. It is only a matter of time before it is put into execution by the govt. So the space of any other platform is non existent.

I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 18:51

chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? And carrying that further what exactly are the operational repercussions of signing the CISMOA (or a similar inter-government agreement)? I understand the LSA at least and it makes eminent sense, though the optics are discomforting. Should ideally be enacted through a bilateral treaty rather than boilerplate lettered document.

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 » 17 Apr 2015 19:03

All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do


EMALS. Offer to help design the next air craft carrier. .....................

Like it or not, much water has flown.

It could reverse too.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:15

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? And carrying that further what exactly are the operational repercussions of signing the CISMOA (or a similar inter-government agreement)? I understand the LSA at least and it makes eminent sense, though the optics are discomforting. Should ideally be enacted through a bilateral treaty rather than boilerplate lettered document.

Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah. We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt. Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12126
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Apr 2015 19:17

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do.

How do we intend to operate the AH-64E and P-8I without CISMOA? .


Dont know about Apaches but in P-8I and C-17 US communication equipment Datalinks were removed and BEL produced Datalinks and communication equipment was installed- Not NATO standard- Indian Standard. Don't know how it compares.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:17

NRao wrote:
All US made fighters are off. It requires CISMOA which India has not signed nor is it likely to do


EMALS. Offer to help design the next air craft carrier. .....................

Like it or not, much water has flown.

It could reverse too.


When India asked Cray X-MP super computers USA denied. When India developed its own they eased restriction and allowed second best to be shipped so that we don't advance. I would not touch this offer with a barge pole. India should design its own carrier. IAC-1 is there. No?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8229
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 17 Apr 2015 19:38

chaanakya wrote:I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.




India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 17 Apr 2015 19:43

Thanks, That makes sense if read in conjunction with DM's statement and decision to scrap MMRCA. GOI can go a step further and offer disinvestment and cede management control to those wanting to get 49 % of HAL without ceding majority voice.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 17 Apr 2015 20:07

Pratyush wrote:
chaanakya wrote:I missed this bolded part. can you link it?

HAL is not a monopoly. It is a govt organisation and disinvestment option still exist. Now that defense sector is opened up companies can setup their plants and try to compete for IAF orders and for export market. Nobody would prevent them.




India Offers To Spend $12B To Break Monopoly


Finally, what I've been saying for some time is finally happening. It's the beginning of the end for HAL. In 2 decades or less, privates will eat up majority share of aeronautics sector in terms of new aircraft orders. What's happening with the C-295 deal?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby deejay » 17 Apr 2015 21:43



Pratyush Ji, in your link I found a familiar voice and look what it is saying now:

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.

“There appears to be a misconception that if ADA wishes, the LCA can be produced by the private sector. Nothing can be further from truth. The LCA cannot be produced by anybody without the major involvement of HAL.” ■


Did I read right or did I see the Sun for too long. :wink:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6958
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

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

Postby Anujan » 17 Apr 2015 21:57

^^^

The same argument would hold for HAL wanting to build aircraft through ToT from abroad, no?

This of this as an "internal" ToT. From HAL/ADA to a private player.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 17 Apr 2015 22:51

chaanakya wrote:Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah.

You're confusing CISMOA with an end-user agreement. I'm still trying to nail down what exactly the CISMOA consists of.

We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

I'm sure any fighter aircraft including those US-origin will be modified with Indian comm modules.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt.

LSA has nothing to do with CISMOA and signing it (or a similar arrangement) only changes existing arrangement from a cash-exchange method to a more efficient barter system. No alliances involved. At all.

Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

No need to be pals to appreciate the utility of their military equipment (wherever valid). And I'm sure their interest in turn is driven by the wish to keep China off-balance rather any real love lost for India. I would however suggest a long hard look at the rate of Chinese military modernization program and only then deciding how badly we need (or don't need) that edge that appropriate cost-effective gear brings.

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Apr 2015 23:00

Anujan wrote:^^^

The same argument would hold for HAL wanting to build aircraft through ToT from abroad, no?

This of this as an "internal" ToT. From HAL/ADA to a private player.


Exactly. I mean what does it take? Hive off the team building the LCA from HAL and place it in a private sector entity that is profit driven and has excellent project management skills.

Of course, HAL could be saying: "you can't build it with us or without us". That's a different story.

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 » 17 Apr 2015 23:02

IAC-1 is there. No?


IF that is your standard or understanding, then please continue.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19569
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 17 Apr 2015 23:07

deejay wrote:


Pratyush Ji, in your link I found a familiar voice and look what it is saying now:

But Muthumanikam Matheswaran, retired air marshal and adviser (for strategy) to the chairman of HAL, said no private-sector aircraft facility could build the LCA.

“There appears to be a misconception that if ADA wishes, the LCA can be produced by the private sector. Nothing can be further from truth. The LCA cannot be produced by anybody without the major involvement of HAL.” ■


Did I read right or did I see the Sun for too long. :wink:


Who pays the piper calls the tune saar.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vasu raya » 17 Apr 2015 23:25

wasn't TASL building chopper airframes for export? and their workforce doesn't have any prior experience to start with

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

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

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Apr 2015 23:53

For those of you who are worried about Shornet's hot/high performance, remember Boeing is now offering the "international" version - heavily stealthified with stealth weapons pod + the EPE engines which will automatically make the TWR for the Shornet the highest out of all contenders.

Not that I am advocating the Shornet, just sayin'

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 18 Apr 2015 01:55

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... t-surprise

India hit the reset button on stalled contract talks with Dassault, opting for a government-to-government sale of 36 Rafale fighters. Our editors discuss what the deal means for India, Dassault and future combat aircraft competitions.

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

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

Postby brar_w » 18 Apr 2015 02:08

+ the EPE engines which will automatically make the TWR for the Shornet the highest out of all contenders


Provided someone pays for the development (engine) and certification. GE surely haven't indicated that they are going to do it by themselves and they have been trying to pitch the idea to the USN for a few years.

It all depends which configuration an export order takes. I am pretty sure that One ME customer will pick the Shornet but don't rule out the regular USN version as opposed to the more expensive Internaitonal/Advanced version, The Super-hornet is going to be in production possibly till 2020 or so.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 08:44

Viv S wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Communications Interoperability And Security Memorandum of Association is required to access certain critical technologies provided by US. In absence of it ,US has removed critical technologies required for network centric encrypted communication with other US made aircrafts. Improves interoperability but also allows US to keep checking on its equipments, end use blah.

You're confusing CISMOA with an end-user agreement. I'm still trying to nail down what exactly the CISMOA consists of.

No I am not confusing. All I am saying is that any use of restricted US technology will include severe end use clause which would have detrimental impact. And here is the official list of equipment India won't be getting as a result of not siging CISMOA. It is from Livefist,i.e. if you trust him

Here's the official list of equipment that India won't get as a direct consequence of the hanging CISMOA:

* AN/ARC-222 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) - Manufacured by Magnovox and administered by the US Air Force

* KV-119 IFF Digital Transponder (Mode 4 Crypto Applique) - Manufactured by Raytheon and administered by the US Air Force

* TACTERM / ANDVT Secure Voice (HF) Terminal - Administered by the US Air Force

* VINSON KY-58 Secure Voice (UHF/VHF) Module - Administered by the US Air Force

* Finally, the Rockwell-Collins AN/ARC-210(V) SATCOM Transceiver's COMSEC/DAMA embdedded RT is replaced with an RT that has no COMSEC/SINCGARS

Sources say the Indian government has a few specific reservations about the CISMOA (I'm gathering more on this), and is not convinced that there is any particular hurry to conclude the memorandum.


We can't even rule out the possibility of hidden channels of communications , hacking and backdoors , trojans besides sanctions. At present whatever we are operating are without those equipments and India is using its own equipments. It includes P81, AH and Transport aircrafts.

I'm sure any fighter aircraft including those US-origin will be modified with Indian comm modules.

I don't think we will bother much. India has beaten US fighters available with Pakistan in past. Actually I would say free access to US weapons by Pakis is a bigger problem hindering US fighter jets and other defense related equipment besides possibility of sanctions as always. UnReliability of US establishment is in no doubt. We might get tidbits but thats about it all. Tarapur, remember.

LSA is contingent upon CISMOA. I don't see the need for LSA unless we join US in military pact. Do we want that? I doubt.

LSA has nothing to do with CISMOA and signing it (or a similar arrangement) only changes existing arrangement from a cash-exchange method to a more efficient barter system. No alliances involved. At all.

Again , you are not envisaging the importance of CISMOA for having effective LSA. LSA requires seamless integration of communication and datalinks which are highly integrated and encrypted platforms. Having different comms would not result in smooth operation. I would put it this way. It is necessary condition but not sufficient.

Political cost will be high given that US has high penchant to sleep with Pakis. I have not forgotten their roles in 1971, giving billions in Aid which was used against India, giving false Nuclear clean chit certificates to pakis by Bill Clinton to continue aid, role of US Congress in passing anti India amendments and Acts, Military equipment aids to Pakis, and not but the least Headly and Rana. Where are they?? I don't trust USG.

No need to be pals to appreciate the utility of their military equipment (wherever valid). And I'm sure their interest in turn is driven by the wish to keep China off-balance rather any real love lost for India. I would however suggest a long hard look at the rate of Chinese military modernization program and only then deciding how badly we need (or don't need) that edge that appropriate cost-effective gear brings.
Actually we have always appreciated their equipments. India is one of the unique places where Us and Russian origin equipments have been in an active face offs. Our armed forces know better. we always need something to counter US weapons with capabilities which US and its partner countries may not be fully aware of the potential. What you forgot is that US planes were ticked off in MMRCA. IAF certainly knows better or is it your case that you know better then them?

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 08:53

NRao wrote:
IAC-1 is there. No?


IF that is your standard or understanding, then please continue.


Errr not exactly mine but IN's standards. If you get their philosophy, they are heavily into indigenous production rather than depending on undependable US. In fact one of their dispatches in wikileaks specifically mentions this.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

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

Postby chaanakya » 18 Apr 2015 09:04

Karan M wrote:

Who pays the piper calls the tune saar.


True that. I don't see why our corporate world can not step in and why their capacity is in doubt. If Reliance can get into oil exploration and refinery business from producing textiles and Tatas can get into IT from producing steels and both excel I don't see why can't they do better in defence. Let us give some chance. What's wrong with it? There is no need to resent their rise. They are ultimately Indians. MIC will consist of Indian Private Sector industries and PSUs and R&Ds. In fact I would suggest HAL can be hived off in different companies and management controls be handed over. We can retail control of security and access, apply defense of India Act, ask for no disclosure bonds and put severe penalties for info leaks, provide security ratings and levels of clearances for each employee and restrict their travels abroad.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests