Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[Cosmo_R]

the opening of the polar routes and non-stop services from gulf to anywhere in world by 777, A330 and A380 threatens Singapore airlines and Cathay also. no longer is going to America a toss between singapore/HK in easy with long layovers or the rude german/british/french combo.

You're right. And while a little OT, flew Emirates to Mumbai two weeks ago and back. What a difference!. In Business Class on Delta: routinely obnoxious attendants who think anyone not white is going to blow up the plane, cheap (and bad) food and chaos.

The Emirates fare (less than Delta) included picking us up in a limo in NYC to JFK and then in a limo in Mumbai to our destination. On way back, they upgraded us to First (free) and SHQ took a shower (!!). Friendly attendants and great food. First time in Dubai Airport—great experience.

All the other airlines are done. Flying like it used to be in the 1950s and more.

[NRao]

^^^We don't know if it is software based discrimination or "targeting improvements" (what does that mean in this context?) for better detection. It can be newer receiver components or better clutter suppression and signal processing improvements.
Ideally, x would be the range of your max range BVR mijjle in case that mijjle has to be use it in a guided mode to reach the target.

General FYI:

The upgraded radar, designated PS-05/A Mk4, features a new hardware and software, with the primary changes being in the system's 'back end'

A mechanically scanned radar, the Mk4 will offer a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges over the current Mk3 radar by the time development is complete in 2017.

As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft').

In the air-to-air mode at low altitude, the Mk4 will provide a 140% improvement over current capabilities by 2017. These air-to-air modes have been implemented and demonstrated, the company said.

In addition to improving detection ranges, the Mk4 will allow for the full integration of modern weapon systems, such as the Raytheon Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) C-7, the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder, and the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range missile.

Jan Qvillberg, head of product area fighter radar and datalink at Saab's Airborne Surveillance Systems/Electronic Defence Systems, said the internally funded project has yet to be taken up by any current Gripen operators. He noted it will probably require a commitment from the Swedish Air Force before any other customers take it up.

While the radar is compatible with other aircraft types (including fighters, trainers, and unmanned aerial vehicles), Qvillberg said the company currently has no plans to integrate it onto any type beyond the Gripen C/D.

[srai]

If at $3 mil per round, assuming kill ratio of 3:1 and resulting in destruction of a $50 mil A/c, it is still cost effective in a war of attrition.

The problem is that at $3 Million a round it limits your overall missile loads..Its not a radically upgraded seeker that is going to serve them well into the next couple of decades. The Japanese that want to actually use the platform are going to put their own AESA seeker in there. A MICA will serve both my Rafale and Mirage fleets while the Meteor eats into my overall missile inventory due to cost and only serves one platform (36 aircraft). ASTRA is the ultimate solution since it will be shared by all platforms in the IAF...The cost_to target analogy is ok for strategic targets (such as ABM for example) but in a large multi-front war your actual inventory and how much you have standardized does play an important role...and this is a reason why most air-forces have slowly moved and standardized to one BVR and one WVR weapon for its entire fast jet fleet...The ultimate acquisition from a multi-role fleet point will be determined by how much the ratio between smart and dumb bombs is..If the ratio is high it means better tactical flexibility with a smaller squadron strength. If it is low, you need a lot many more sorties to accomplish your missions. Buying 3 Million dollar missiles, and operating 3-4 BVR missile types eats into that so the overall goal appears to be (and rightly so) to standardize into the ASTRA and make that into a world class product. They appear to be headed that way at a good pace (recent testing). Hopefully the long term IAF plans involve ASTRA integration on the rafale.

That's the price the IAF pays for not being a "builder's" airforce and also lacking indigenous options (which are finally being made available). If you go and buy few fighters from multiple countries, you also need to buy weapons specific to those types/countries. This goes for AAMs, PGMs, dumb bombs/rockets and gun ammunition. End result is you end up with low quantities of similar munition of different origins for different aircrafts. Not enough to wage war for more than a few weeks.

The other point to note is it is very difficult to integrate third-party munitions on someone else's plane. You don't have the design knowledge of flight-test data and source codes. It takes a lot of time and money (mostly to be paid to the plane's designers to have them integrate it for you). You will also need to divulge sensitive munition seeker/link data to foreign integrators.

[sivab]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... aign=cppst

France offers 25% discount to India on purchase of 36 Rafale jets

NEW DELHI: France agreed to a 25% discount on its earlier offer to clinch the deal for an off the-shelf purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Paris last month. This will be the base on which further negotiations will take place on Wednesday.

The ballpark cost per aircraft as per Dassault's winning bid for the 126 MMRCA programme — the old, nowscrapped, Rafale deal — came to about $300 million, taking into account the estimates of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Sources told ET that the objective was to bring this down to a little over $200 million apiece.

The overall cost is not expected to cross $8 billion for the entire 36-aircraft fleet, French sources said. MMRCA stands for medium multi-role combat aircraft.

The price per aircraft is not just the acquisition cost of the platform, but also includes maintenance facilities, training of pilots and technicians, armaments and spares. In comparison, Dassault signed a deal with Qatar on Monday to sell 24 Rafale fighters for $7 billion, which would put the per-aircraft cost at just over $290 million. India is set to get a better deal because of the larger number being ordered. It may be noted that the rival Eurofighter that was also in contention for the contract had offered India a 20% price cut after the new government took over.

Besides the discount, France has agreed to undertake a longer maintenance schedule. The delivery of the first aircraft, according to the broad understanding reached at Paris, would take place in the next two-three years. France is believed to have pushed for a much larger off-the-shelf purchase with better concessions but New Delhi was wary of the impact this would have on the PM's own Make in India initiative. The number, 36, was France's bottom line in the negotiations. Before the visit, France had put its entire diplomatic weight behind striking a deal, which had got caught up in complications that would have translated into a cost escalation. This would have meant it would get reopened, further delaying the programme.

Fresh negotiations began only after India made clear that the old deal was dead. This happened because the cost of the programme had swelled beyond all estimates owing to differences between Dassault and state-owned HAL on the manpower required to produce the aircraft. HAL had estimated that India would require 2.7 times the man hours that France uses for constructing the aircraft, putting the cost beyond negotiation.

[Prem]

Warmth!!

[Philip]

"$200M" a Rafale.One would be able to get for that price between 160-200 MIG-29s! The
"$8B" figure mentioned,is 2/3rds of the original price for the whole lot of 126 + TOT. It is going to make the Rafale even more expensive than the FGFA,or will the Russians now get a clue on how "rich" we poverty-stricken Indian are,where farmers are committing suicide in droves and raise the price of their bird to? This is an absolute steal for the French.

PS:The "25%" discount is clearly bogus.It reminds me about the huge SALE sings that one sees with hefty discounts "50%",blah,blah,advertised to get the women into a shopping frenzy;the prices already well hiked and tagged!

[JayS]

This reminds me of Lord Hanumaan's tail which kept growing and at the end burnt Lanka to ashes.

What the F is happening?? From initial reports of 4Bil now its 8Bil. Is that the final figure now?? This whole affair does not make sense to me at all.

[member_28990]

200m for maintenance + spares + arms: until we get the details of what the last three involve it will be too premature to comment.

[Singha]

most likely it 150 mil for the bare bones airframe with engine and ejection seat(in JF17 thats also a optional plug n play thing).
rest of it is the arms , training, spares cost divided by 36. this other part would go down had we got 48 or 64.

[Singha]

last yr brazil signed a 36 gripen deal for 5.4 billion - $150 mil a pop incl whatever else is extra in spares, weapons, training.

its not clear what all it involves ... one can safely assume rafale is 50% costlier than gripen.

[chaanakya]

Sitanshu Kar @SpokespersonMoD · 4h 4 hours ago

Defence Ministers of India & France discuss modalities 2 reach early conclusion of Inter-Governmental agreemnet for acqn of 36 Rafale jets.
46 retweets 21 favorites
New Delhi, Delhi
Sitanshu Kar @SpokespersonMoD · 4h 4 hours ago

Defence Ministers of India and France discuss follow up action on acqn of 36 Rafale jets through an Inter-Governmental Agreement.
40 retweets 26 favorites
New Delhi, Delhi
Sitanshu Kar @SpokespersonMoD · 4h 4 hours ago

India & France 2 set up teams to work out details of the acqn of 36 #Rafale jets in Flyaway condition in a time bound manner.
46 retweets 28 favorites

[Philip]

Remember good old Mad magazine? Alfred E Nueman......."What me worry?
Auto salesman with a client looking at a swank car with a tag attached to the rear view mirror which says $1,500." Only $1500?" says the client."Nope" says the salesman...."the car costs an extra 50K!"

[brar_w]

most likely it 150 mil for the bare bones airframe with engine and ejection seat(in JF17 thats also a optional plug n play thing).
rest of it is the arms , training, spares cost divided by 36. this other part would go down had we got 48 or 64.

Weapons are largely proportional to your purchase..You can divide them per fighter and thats a pretty good benchmark for comparison. Training is something that cant scale down so thats an added cost..Simulators are number dependent so say if you need 2 for 30 you may only need 3 for 50 and 5 for 100 etc. But given the cost of the deal if you order 20 more its still going to be EXPENSIVE!!

last yr brazil signed a 36 gripen deal for 5.4 billion - $150 mil a pop incl whatever else is extra in spares, weapons, training.

its not clear what all it involves ... one can safely assume rafale is 50% costlier than gripen.

Not completely sure, but that deal irrc had a TOT and local production component as well in addition to all the rights to market the aircraft in South America going to the Brazilians so not a government to government, direct sale like the rafale.

[Austin]

most likely it 150 mil for the bare bones airframe with engine and ejection seat(in JF17 thats also a optional plug n play thing).
rest of it is the arms , training, spares cost divided by 36. this other part would go down had we got 48 or 64.

Defence Minister Parrikar already mentioned the cost of Rafale indirectly , he said MKI cost $60 million and Rafale double the MKI cost , So its not difficult to see the approx cost of rafale would be around ~ $ 110-120 million

[brar_w]

For international sales, what the aircraft costs hardly matters, its the cost of the overall package that really counts. Fly-Away costs are critical if you don't have comparable packages (for comparing one aircraft to another on affordability for example) or if you are making a fighter for your own internal consumption i.e you have a hot production line, and have all the investments in place and are getting them of the line and into your squadrons. Thats why all deals whether in Europe, the US or in Russia refer to the entire package because without an initial bed down of spares you cant even send the aircraft abroad and without a considerable investment in the operator supply pipe you can't operationalize it in any way. What the size of the the "non airframe/engine component" is a major differentiator at times and companies including European ones have successfully used that in their marketing material (you can more affordably bed down our product etc etc etc)

[Austin]

The package deal tell you the big picture but if you have to isolate the aircraft , weapons , training , Spare & Maintenance cost and others then all added you get that big picture.

Even the package deal would still cater for some x period after that you have to procure new spares , weapons , engine etc , So its relative and can varry.

A unit cost of aircraft still gives a good idea how much an aircraft would cost barebone in flyaway condition minus weapons , spares etc

[brar_w]

The package deal tell you the big picture but if you have to isolate the aircraft , weapons , training , Spare & Maintenance cost and others then you get that big picture

A unit cost of aircraft still gives a good idea how much an aircraft would cost barebone in flyaway condition minus weapons , spares etc

If that makes the customer feel any good But it really doesn't because you can't really do much as an export customer with a barebone aircraft in flyaway condition minus the spares. Weapons you can do without at times (if you have compatible weapons in your fleet or if you want to use it as a trainer, or an ISR asset ) but the international operators are always given/quoted a price that gets them an aircraft and allows them to integrate it into their fleets. Fly away aircraft prices (URF/APUC etc) are good for bare bone comparisons, important for domestic procurement but fairly useless for overall export customers because they pay and get a lot more. The US and international developers and FMS customers pay a URF of $108 Million per F-35A in LRIP 8, but when it comes to creating a package of aircraft, system, spares, training, simulators and weapons that price rises to $185-$190 Million per aircraft for a South Korea for example. Thats the price that the ROKAF will pay and that is what they signed a contract for. You could have an equal fly-away cost to your nearest competitor but the cost for everything else (WEAPONS) could make your deal seriously more expensive...Such is what happens at times.

One important thing to emerge form the article that I particularly found interesting was a reference to the $300 Million per aircraft price for the original MMRCA deal that was being negotiated. That would have taken the total deal well north of $30 Billion and at least in my opinion points to some miscalculation in which the entire project was crafted in terms of what the expectations might have been regarding the cost.

[RoyG]

"$200M" a Rafale.One would be able to get for that price between 160-200 MIG-29s! The
"$8B" figure mentioned,is 2/3rds of the original price for the whole lot of 126 + TOT. It is going to make the Rafale even more expensive than the FGFA,or will the Russians now get a clue on how "rich" we poverty-stricken Indian are,where farmers are committing suicide in droves and raise the price of their bird to? This is an absolute steal for the French.

PS:The "25%" discount is clearly bogus.It reminds me about the huge SALE sings that one sees with hefty discounts "50%",blah,blah,advertised to get the women into a shopping frenzy;the prices already well hiked and tagged!

Future rafale deals can't be discounted. LCA is going to be doing most of the heavy lifting along with the Su-30.

[Austin]

If that makes the customer feel any good But it really doesn't because you can't really do much as an export customer with a barebone aircraft in flyaway condition minus the spares. Weapons you can do without at times

All that I understand but it would be good to know the unit Fly Away Cost of Rafale for India is what I am stating.

Eventually we would know when the deal gets signed as well as the cost of package deal.

[brar_w]

All that I understand but it would be good to know the unit Fly Away Cost of Rafale for India is what I am stating

For that you would first need to define what a Unit fly away cost is and for what. Is it a bare bone aircraft? if so, can the India even get that? Will the french fly a bare bone aircraft hand over the keys and go back? What exactly can the IAF do with that bare bone aircraft? No because no one sends out a bare bone aircraft to a foreign operator because it has absolutely no use for that. You could totally exclude the weapons package from the price but you can't exclude either the spares or support materials required to deliver the aircraft to India and keep it flying. Its like that with all foreign equipment sales unless the contract involves signing and handing over TOT and licenced production in which case the end user has a fly-away recurring price that it targets. In those situations the recurring fly away price is important because it tells you what your production process costs. I haven't seen any export deal for any fighter aircraft that draws a distinction between just the airframe+engine and everything else. It usually involves the aircraft with the support, spares and equipment/training required to integrate it into the operator's fleet and a weapons package that may be a part of that. That is standard practice, whether you buy Russian aircraft, French, Non French European, American or Swedish. You pay for a weapons system, and that is what all operators of the Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, Mig29, Su-30 (now Su-35) and Gripen have paid. There's a good reason why this is !! If I were to speculate, when the IAF and the MOD asked for bids for the MMRCA, they must have asked for the weapons system cost i.e the cost of each aircraft delivered to the IAF with all that is required to support them.

As far as the bare bone cost of the Rafale, 120-150 Million is probably right with the number closer to 120 Million than to 150, but just like the F-35A URF price of $108 Million, it has no real significance to an export customer that is likely to pay 70-80 million on top of that for support, training, spares, weapons and simulators among other things. Of course if the URF (Flyaway) cost comes down, so will the overall cost paid by a foreign customer but to that end the rafale is a mature aircraft and Dassault would know fairly well what it would cost at 11 a year, 20 a year or even 30 a year and the contract amount will reflect that. Not many doubted that the rafale would be expensive as a weapons system but some of these numbers coming out of the Qatar, Egypt and the IAF deal are well above what I had expected. I expected it to be about 20% cheaper than either the PAKFA/T-50 or the F-35. While the former has yet to narrow down on a serial production and nail down an export contract the latter has already sold the jet through FMS at cheaper prices than the "slightly more than $200 Million" being quoted in the article above. While I still support the Rafale acquisition, the IAF may need to seriously reduce the eventual procurement..At this rate/cost I don't think they'll look to get more than 50-60 (Total)..

[srai]

^^^

The whole MMRCA deal was pegged unrealistically at $10-12 billion for 126 aircrafts. That's around $80-95 million per plane. It is obvious that the deal estimates were only factoring in bare bones unit fly away cost even though the RFP (for the first time) supposedly included lifecycle costs calculation. What was required for lifecycle costs calculation is a mystery; only thing we know is that the French gamed it to win L1. Let's not even add TOT and its impact to the costs.

[brar_w]

^^ I am not worried at what it was pegged because that was what was used in the PR or by the media. if it were actually pegged (as in a hard stop) @ 12 Billion then you would have disqualified pretty much all the competitors (even the cheapest F-16 with the TOT would have likely cost beyond that) except maybe the Mig..They were obviously open to negotiations and thats what they were doing since the deal had aircraft+spares+training+support+weapons component, and a TOT component with licensed production in India.

That fact is that when you compare say a Rafale to the Typhoon, you can separate say the fly away cost of the rafale and the typhoon for comparison. So the typhoon costs $115 Million and the Rafale say $110 Million (just examples)..Or say the Gripen costs $90 Million and the F-16 costs $80 Million..But when you actually sign a contract you sign it for the weapons system which includes everything you need to actually operate the aircraft. All FMS sales, and all foreign sales form European and Russian OEM's are pegged that way and that is what is eventually signed in the contract. If you were to produce the Rafale, or the Flanker then the URF cost is of a lot of importance. It tells you how much you would need to spend on an annual basis to churn out a desired production rate from your own factories. Since you control the spare inventory, and you own the IP, you can lower the cost considerably..In such cases the URF (Flyaway cost) gains tremendous importance because that is roughly what determines whether you can actually afford to procure a set number given your budget for that time period. But since you have no control over spare production and long term OEM support in a foreign military sale (G2G sale) you must procure all that and build up an inventory. So an aircraft X may cost its developer 140 Million to procure even with the bed-down of spares and equipment but when the same aircraft X sells in the foreign market it can cost 190 Million.

We can see what Qatar, Egypt and now India is likely to pay for the Rafale. It is an expensive weapons system to procure..Whether its fly away cost is 100 million or 50 Million has absolutely no bearing on that overall weapons system cost paid by its recent customers.

[Mort Walker]

The entire Rafale deal stinks. Here I have to agree with Philip.

The IAF and HAL already have the infrastructure and logistics to support the Mig-29 and Su-30 with very high availability. Training is already known on it.
Further, the Rafale is NOT going to be available until 2018 at the earliest and a full squadron won't be available until 2019.

At this point, the deal needs to be scrapped, and funding for the PAK-FA or setting up for the purchase of the F-35 via FMS, would be a better option to save both time and money.

[brar_w]

The rafale should arrive before 2018, i think the deal is still to supply the first batch within 24 months of contract signing which should happen in a few months if the urgency being reported is to be believed. PAKFA investment is development-program dependent. It has only a handful of prototypes as of yet, and they have yet to get a factory going and kick off serial production. There is limited amount of options when it comes to speeding up that program. There are already reports that some of the changes that the IAF wanted may not happen (again just reports) and there are also reports that the IAF will get an aircraft next year for evaluation. I am not sure whether the Indian MOD has paid its share of $5 Billion for co-devleopment at this stage but I also haven't come across any report on that being made. The deal is still under discussion from what I understand. The option is to go for a much smaller procurement of the Rafale (which will not be reversed now) and increase the production of LCA's over the next 5-8 years. Anything in the interim has to be filled in with MKI's even though its a heavy.

[Philip]

Adm.Greenert ,CNO of the US made everyone think again when he famously said,"why buy a sports car when a bomb truck will do?" Ultimately it is the ordnance carried that matters and whether it gets delivered on the spot.Given the type of weaponry prevailing with the IAF,almost every type ,from MKI to LCA is going to carry the same weaponry. The fall in numbers does matter and costs also do. If the Rafale was a bit more expensive than the MKI,one could swallow the deal,but twice as much,when the MKI is the globe's premier air dominance fighter barring the F-22? As said many a time,the simplest most cost-effective interim solution until LCA MK-2/AMCA arrives is simply building in India more MKIs or MIG-29UGs,along with whatever LCA MK-is that HAL can churn out with a brand new management team that will increase production and the desired quality substantially.

Nevertheless,we will have to wait for the final figures released before delivering judgement.

[wig]

India, France to form teams to work out details

India and France today decided to set up teams to work out details of the acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets in fly-away condition in a “time-bound manner”.
The decision was announced after Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar met his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian. PM Narendra Modi had last month announced India’s intention to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France under a government-to-government deal during his trip to the country.
As a follow-up on the subject, Drian and Parrikar met in Delhi to decide on the way forward.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 77338.html

[Karan M]

Make the 36 into 63, and call an end to this farce. 63 will give 4 squadrons of 14 aircraft each and 9 in reserve plus maint. Enough.

[brar_w]

Adm.Greenert ,CNO of the US made everyone think again when he famously said,"why buy a sports car when a bomb truck will do?"

I don't think the Admiral realized what the impact of that statement would have on you my friend

[Philip]

I believe more in pragmatism rather than exoticism. Adm.Greenert is echoing what India has been practising for decades. In a crisis,the "bird in the hand is worth much more than the two in the bush".Our large numbers of second best Soviet aircraft did the business in the past.36 Rafales aren't going to win the next air war with Pak/China,the 270+ MKIs and 200-300 numbers of legacy upgraded MIG-29s,Bisons,Jaguars and M2Ks will do the business.

[RoyG]

I believe more in pragmatism rather than exoticism. Adm.Greenert is echoing what India has been practising for decades. In a crisis,the "bird in the hand is worth much more than the two in the bush".Our large numbers of second best Soviet aircraft did the business in the past.36 Rafales aren't going to win the next air war with Pak/China,the 270+ MKIs and 200-300 numbers of legacy upgraded MIG-29s,Bisons,Jaguars and M2Ks will do the business.

Chances are there will be additional orders in the future. Modi probably needed to throw them something to solidify some other deals hence the urgency. Bisons and Jags will be gradually phased out with LCA induction. Even with additional orders of Rafale, I don't think it will touch 126. Perhaps somewhere in the range of 60-90 aircraft.

[NRao]

36 Rafales aren't going to win the next air war with Pak/China,the 270+ MKIs and 200-300 numbers of legacy upgraded MIG-29s,Bisons,Jaguars and M2Ks will do the business.

IF it comes to war then, to some extent, even the MKIs have not done their job.

The 36 Rafales (although the Rafale was not my choice) will certainly add to the deterrence value. Far more than the MiG-21 I would imagine. ?????


Also, on "Our large numbers of second best Soviet aircraft did the business in the past" .......... that is a pat on the backs of wo/men at the IAF. Not so much teh planes - Gnats did the job too.

Point being the Rafale - for once perhaps - are the choice of the IAF. So, even though they may not be the best one, let them have it. The IAF will do well - just as they did without them.

[ramana]

Make the 36 into 63, and call an end to this farce. 63 will give 4 squadrons of 14 aircraft each and 9 in reserve plus maint. Enough.

It will be 72 with a maintenance depot run by Dassault Joint venture.
The numbers will go up based on France supporting India in various ways.
Arms deals will be used to induce appropriate behavior and not for bribes as was the Congress way.

[Karan M]

Aap ke muh main ghee shakkar.

[pankajs]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 192915.cms
France offers India fly-away Rafales at same rate as to own air force

NEW DELHI: France is offering India 36 Rafale fighter jets in fly-away condition at the same price which it pays to French defence major Dassault Aviation to equip its own air force, defence sources said.

They added that this means that the cost per aircraft will be much lower than the price that was being worked out under the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, which also involved transfer of technology.
.............
They added that the final pricing will depend on the specific requirements that India seeks from France and how the negotiation goes forward.
.............
Defence sources said the teams will work out the finer details of the deal, including the pricing.

They also questioned the possibility whether the deal may have an offset clause, saying it would be difficult if the pricing for Indian aircraft remains the same as that for the French air force.

As per industry experts, the price of a Rafale to French air force works out to anywhere between USD 200-220 million.

"If we take the lowest value of USD 200 million, it will work out to around Rs 1,240 crore per aircraft. Even if we increase it to Rs 1,300 crore, it would be a better price than earlier," sources said.

The price per aircraft not only includes its own cost but also that for maintenance, training of pilots and technicians, armaments and spares.

[shravanp]

How come the french stubbornness reduced ? (considering that they are offering same price as french air force and also extending the service/maintenance period) Is it primarily due to the nature of contract (G2G) v/s dalaals?

[GeorgeWelch]

France sells 24 Rafale to Qatar for $7 billion

US to sell 28 SH to Kuwait for $3+ billion

This is probably the closest we can come to an equal comparison of costs.

Even taking the $3+ as $3.5, the SH is less than half the price of the Rafale. The Rafale may be better in some aspects, but is it twice as good as the SH? Absolutely not. If you need a competent, credible fighter to fill your squadrons, the SH is the way to go. If you want to spend 'Rafale money', might as well go for the F-35. Then at least you would get the extra capability to justify the increased cost.

[TSJones]

France sells 24 Rafale to Qatar for $7 billion

US to sell 28 SH to Kuwait for $3+ billion

This is probably the closest we can come to an equal comparison of costs.

Even taking the $3+ as $3.5, the SH is less than half the price of the Rafale. The Rafale may be better in some aspects, but is it twice as good as the SH? Absolutely not. If you need a competent, credible fighter to fill your squadrons, the SH is the way to go. If you want to spend 'Rafale money', might as well go for the F-35. Then at least you would get the extra capability to justify the increased cost.

Kuwait is already in the supply chain, training facilities, weapons procurement, etc. They are not starting from scratch. the US Navy probably uses their facilities as backup.

To all:
WTF is all this tamasha about cost? Are you or or you not getting value for the money spent? If you are, then belly up to the bar, pony up the bucks and get the process started. geezus....

[brar_w]

Oh yes they are. Just wait till DCSA announces the entire package (excluding the weapon) and the weapons package. Australians required training, and extensive support equipment transfer even though they operated the Hornets. Virtually everything on the inside is different, from the engine, to the electronics, cockpit and even the logistical systems. It would be an easier transition for them, since a couple of operators have made this leap already (F-18 to super hornet) and this was an advantage going for them going into the deal.

[Cain Marko]

@ $ 200 mil per aircraft, where is the so called, "discount"? It is not as though they are setting up TOT/Production facilities too (a part of the 300 mil figure). Public ko chutiya bana rahe hai.

Scrap the Rafale deal and get more Airbus 330s for tankers, AWACs et al., and an additional Scorpene or two; should keep France happy enough. Even @ $ 100 mil, we get 2 MKI for one Rafale. And even if the availability of the MKI is lower, we can still get more MKI in the air than Rafales at this rate. The discrepancy is even more so with the MiG-29M. I'll take additional MKI, supply chain headaches and the danger of over-reliance on Russia over this daylight robbery. Ditto with the C-17s.

And no, the Rafale is hardly anything extraordinary compared to the MKI. Waste of time and money. The training and spares infrastructure is already quite well developed for the MKI or Baaz, and these costs can/should be avoided.

[Gyan]

The Basic thumb rule is that:-

Rafale fly away is USD 100 million

Ground support, repair, maintenance, service equipment, ancillaries like pilot suits, pylons, fuel tanks, simulators, training etc around 25% ie USD 25 Million

Spares & maintenance support per annum USD 5 million

Hence , I estimate that USD 200 million includes around 10-15 years of Spares & maintenance support