Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Apr 2015 17:38

Indian Rafale deal to be finalised 'by end of May'

Industry sources familiar with the ongoing talks between the two governments told IHS Jane's that Dassault is reported to have agreed to more than double its annual Rafale building capacity from 11 to 24 aircraft. The company had slowed down Rafale production rate to around 11 platforms per year as no new orders were forthcoming.

The French government is also believed to have persuaded its air force to reduce its Rafale induction until the IAF contract is fulfilled.

Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar told the Mail Today newspaper on 16 April that the accounting process for the Rafales would be completed within 2-3 months and deliveries would begin in 18 months. "So roughly it [the contract] will take three years," he said.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Apr 2015 19:15

Dassault is reported to have agreed to more than double its annual Rafale building capacity from 11 to 24 aircraft

I sort of expected this but Dassault would now have a larger downturn once the deliveries conclude and they wouldnt have extended the line as much into the future as they would have liked. France is unlikely to sustain 24/year once the 2 export orders wind down so they have to secure more orders which may come now that there is finally a couple of customers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2015 20:09

AWST, March 30, 2015.

Interview with French Air Force Chief Gen. Denis Mercier

How do you see the Rafale fighter evolving?

Depending on what we do with FCAS we have several options. For example, if a combat drone is stealthy, such as the European Neuron unmanned combat air vehicle, do we really need to work on stealth for the Rafale, considering it would likely fly in partnership with the future drone? Would it not be better to concentrate on the Rafale's strengths, such as the active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and look at whether we could put AESA on the Rafale, for example, for electronic warfare, as radar, or for highly encrypted communication? For me the key lies in high speed data links [and their ability to transmit such information to the pilot and command center]. That is the real technological and operational revolution.

That in 2015?

Am I missing something?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Apr 2015 11:35

As the title says,the Rafale deal,was more of a political statement,apart from a stop-gap move to save the IAF's bacon. The "consolation prize" ,as a US commentator has said,of just 36 aircraft,nevertheless gets the Raffy's nose into the tent.Together with agreements for N-plants,etc.,it preserves and cements the Indo-French relationship,where France has always looked and respected India as an independent power on its own in a v. Gaullist manner. Neverthesless,it is a v.costly exercise even to support 36 Rafales for 30-40 years without TOT,but as many are saying,how did we get ourselves into this (ICU) mess ? That blame surely lies with the despicable previous regime,whose indifference to India's defence and security was tantamount to treason.

http://rt.com/op-edge/251325-india-fran ... jets-deal/

Rafale deal: The diplomatic deftness of India’s Modi

Published time: April 20, 2015
India's Rafale deal is not just purchasing fighter jets. It’s also about facing the challenge of national security, and balancing defense relationships as well as bilateral ties. A diplomatic deftness PM Narendra Modi seems to have lived up to.

When India, the world's largest arms importer, makes a defense move it is watched keenly. The recent deal on 36 Rafale jets is no exception.

Speculations are rife on how this deal works for France, and what's in it for India? After all why would New Delhi choose the expensive Rafale which does not command a very impressive list of international customers (other than Egypt), nor does the purchase without a transfer of technology (ToT) in any way compliment India's much touted 'Make in India' campaign of which the defense sector is an integral part.

However, for India more than the question is who the winner is.

Multilevel stroke

Against a required 44 squadrons to be able to effectively neutralize any external threat the Indian Air Force's (IAF) assets have come down to just 34. Most of these functioning squadrons comprised obsolete MiG-21s & MiG-27s ready to be scrapped in about two years.

Apart from just 55 percent serviceability of new Sukhoi-30MKIs (200 in service, of 272 ordered for $12 billion), even the putting into operation the indigenous Teja light combat aircraft is behind schedule, in addition to the delays in the joint development of the Russian 5th generation fighter project.

Prime Minister Modi has been told by his defense team that the earlier MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) contract - to acquire 126 fighters at a cost to the country $14.43 billion, and a delivery period likely to be over seven years - cannot offer the quick transfusion required for India's air capability. Nor was scrapping the deal and issuing a fresh tender an option as that would have led to expensive penalties.

Instead, reducing the number to 36 jets, expected to be delivered in less than three years, seemed more effective to plug operational gaps. As India based defense analyst Nitin A Gokhale says, “It's neither business nor politics. It is pure operational necessity.”

Then there was also the quotient of global relations. India has been trying to diversify the sources of its arms imports. Although the US and Russia are its largest sources, India recently has come out into the open about its intent to deepen defense ties with countries like Israel, a relationship hitherto kept under wraps for fear of upsetting friends in the Middle East. The reason is, while the US has been a weapons supplier to rivals like Pakistan for a long time, Russia too has recently forged defense ties with Islamabad – much to the discomfort of New Delhi. So deeper French ties seemed fitting as part of India's tryst to spread out its dependence for arms to multiple sources.

French president Francois Hollande (R) toasts with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi (Reuters/Yoan Valat)

This worked well for the French because in lieu of an earlier deadlocked deal they bagged an outright sale of 36 jets without having to part with the technology of these products.

By making this announcement in France Modi has shown the deftness of his diplomatic judgment. His visit saw inking of 17 other crucial agreements, with a nuclear deal being one of them, apart from announcements of French investment in India. This means India is looking at building a broad based balanced relationship where each has considerable stake in the other and not just narrowly dependent on arms trade where India could be severely arm twisted for its vulnerability.

Consider this, as per reports France might divert its own military's production order for Rafale fighter jets to meet India's requirement for 36 warplanes clearly showing France's business compulsions.

Additionally New Delhi has shared a fairly stable relationship with Paris, especially following the 1998 nuclear test by India when France was the first and only Western power to have built strategic partnership with the country.

But back home the deal sparked some strong criticisms for Modi who many thought not only sacrificed the case of “Make in India”, but also drained huge resources with this expensive buy of a jet that many have rejected in the past, including Brazil.

As per this account Brazil not only objected to an additional charge for ToT but also found the quality of the AESA (active electronically scanned array) of Rafale dubious. As a result, the country chose the Swedish Gripen NG fighter.

Concerns have also been sounded about the hidden overheads of Rafale maintenance, and the fact that the IAF inventory already with too many aircraft types would be made more complex by adding another making maintenance more difficult and expensive.

However the Indian defense community looks at it differently. To them the deal’s government to government approach meant circumventing the long drawn out defense acquisition process and accelerating future acquisitions. It also injected a temporary patch, while buying time for India to explore more options for future purchases which could be from the same vendor or another.

As former Air Marshal M Matheswaran and a member in executive council of Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), says, “This is a govt. to govt. deal and a limited business deal. Rafale was declared as L1 (lowest bidder) in the competitive selection process more than three years ago. However, the negotiations have been stuck for too long. In order to break the deadlock the government had to by-pass the RFP (request for proposal or global tender) process. The huge costs involved for 126 aircraft and the urgent requirement of a minimum number to meet immediate requirements of the air force were the considerations.”

Also because this deal did not involve any ToT, the costs were well within limits which actually make a good amount of resources available to the defense ministry. Pegged at some $4.25 billion Dev Mehta, analyst at the Strategic Defense Intelligence (SDI), says the deal for 36 Rafale aircraft actually frees up funds that can partly be used for scaling up production of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and the faster induction of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) in collaboration with Russia.

Additionally the French make seems to have an excellent reputation in Indian defense circles. As senior researcher at IDSA, Rajiv Narayan, “It (Rafale) is a preferred weapon of (Indian) air force.”

A Rafale fighter jet. (Reuters/Regis Duvignau)

For instance Matheswaran dismisses the Brazilian case as a non-issue for India as he says, “the level of AESA radar development and maturity is just about the same all over except in USA. The reason why Brazilians chose NG Gripen was more due to cost advantage and more importantly, the technology transfer that Saab was offering.”

Military experts like Vijainder K Thakur, a former IAF Jaguar pilot say these jets come with additional features that protect the aircraft against airborne and ground threats. During operations over Libya, French Rafales reportedly operated independently of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) platforms.

Allaying the concern of complicating the inventory experts say there is a conscious effort towards type reduction because Rafale replaces two existing types - older variant MiG-21s and MiG-27s.

However, Matheswaran agrees over the long run that maintenance costs would be high due to dependence on the OEMs. But he says, “This could be resolved at a later date.”

More shares for grab

While the deal is done, the suave defense businesses still seem to be hopeful in making a dent in the IAF requirement after the Indian Defense Minister ManoharParrikar's announcement that while the LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21, there are possibilities of building another single engine fighter under 'Make in India' which could also be a replacement for the MiG-21.

Business Insider reports Sweden's Saab and US Lockheed Martin are set to re-pitch their Gripen and F-16 planes, eliminated in the Rafale tender, as the kind of lighter, single-engine aircraft that Mr. Manohar Parrikar talked about.

Saab reportedly was even proposing to establish "fully-fledged production" of the Gripen in India alongside a local partner. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin may also tout its F-16, one of the most widely used fighter planes in the world, as a replacement for Russian-made MiGs that are a mainstay in India's fleet

However, Mehta predicts opportunities for the Su-30MKI (advanced version) are here to stay as the original MMRCA deal falls apart. MiG-35 is a 4 ++ generation aircraft, with a combat capability against air, land and maritime targets, the newer version of the aircraft is now able to carry a heavier load of 6 tonnes as compared to the earlier 4 tonnes.

Nonetheless, future military deals will have to accommodate the 'Make in India' aspect as there will be immense public pressure on the Indian government. The defense circle is already suggesting steps like Maintenance Transfer of Technology (MTOT) for the existing 36 Rafale fighters should go to Indian private vendors.

Reports are already out on the likelihood of the 30 percent offset clause remaining, even in the current deal by which a foreign company has to invest a portion of the deal back into India.

As Wilson Center's South Asia expert Michael Kugelman says, while “36 fighter jets is a pretty nice consolation prize” for Rafale, India wants to strike a balance between defense acquisitions abroad and defense production at home. So in the long run it will want to reduce its dependence on defense exports even though it currently lacks the capacity.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Apr 2015 13:35

Austin wrote:Indian Rafale deal to be finalised 'by end of May'

Industry sources familiar with the ongoing talks between the two governments told IHS Jane's that Dassault is reported to have agreed to more than double its annual Rafale building capacity from 11 to 24 aircraft. The company had slowed down Rafale production rate to around 11 platforms per year as no new orders were forthcoming.

The French government is also believed to have persuaded its air force to reduce its Rafale induction until the IAF contract is fulfilled.

Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar told the Mail Today newspaper on 16 April that the accounting process for the Rafales would be completed within 2-3 months and deliveries would begin in 18 months. "So roughly it [the contract] will take three years," he said.

Double the order, sign off on the offsets and long term spares supply and call an end to this farce.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Apr 2015 14:22

The key is to have a MRO facility and spares availability and reserves , Atleast we dont have to send ti france for short and medium maintenance and repair.

In any case we need around atleast 5 squadron of Rafale or around 96 aircraft including some reserves , the rest can be filled with Tejas in major number and MKI in lesser number to reach 39-43 squadron

partha · Post by **partha** » 23 Apr 2015 09:55

Karan M wrote:
partha wrote:Yeah, what about Make in India? Make in India doesn't mean every nut and bolt will be manufactured in India and that there will be zero import of manufactured goods.
With a total order of 60-63, Make in India for Rafale is mostly hope and conjecture at this point.

I understand that. What I meant was just because Govt announced a Make in India policy people should not question every time Govt imports some manufactured goods which that article did. Our enemies won't wait for Make in India to take off so if we have to buy jets in fly away condition to address shortages, we have to do it. There is no other option unfortunately. These 36 jets will give some breathing time for further negotiations and in my opinion some Make in India is still possible.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 10:36

Just limit the Rafale numbers to 36,(we only have 40+ M2Ks) as the unit cost is still astronomical and firm up the MRO/support etc. as is being done with the Russian birds/HAL so that for the next 5 + years,cannibalisation doesn't take place! There are much cheaper alternatives which can be MK-2 will not appear in production anywhere before 2020 from the manner in which the programme is going.It would be a remarkable feat if the 40 MK-1s are delivered before 2020.If we do not take a firm stand now,every 4-5 years or so the GOI/MOD taxpayer will be "giving oxygen" to the IAF,which will have a charmed ICU existence.

If HAL/DPSUs cannot deliver, SACK the heads who have not performed.The "7 deadlines" passed in the IJT programme cannot be perpetually excused and development of the aircraft go on indefinitely.
There must be a whole new management team with the IAF firmly embedded in the LCA programme,taking control if need be and told that the bulk of future fighters for the IAF is their responsibility and that they must perform or perish.That will bring about a change in attitude.

Every million saved on wasteful defence expenditure can go into alleviating other sectors of the economy.Yesterday we had one of the most shameful incidents in post-Independence history when a poor farmer hanged himself at the AAP rally in the capital. All over the country farmers are committing suicide.The rise of the Naxal movement in a swathe across the map of India has been primarily because of the poverty of the poorest of the poor,who have little hope in govts at the state and central level.
This govt.was voted in because of the hope that the economy would be turned around and corruption drastically curbed,with the guilty punished.

partha · Post by **partha** » 23 Apr 2015 10:42

^
Since HAL is already behind schedule for LCA MK1, MK2 and now starting with AMCA, does it make sense for HAL to work on Rafale too? It's best for HAL to focus on delivering mk1, mk2 and amca and let a private player (with HAL's consulting?) get into Rafale business (assuming 100% of Rafales won't be bought ready made).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 11:13

The building of Rafales in India is to me now a dead duck.What is the point? If we do so,it will be more moolah to the French.We should've either beaten them down on the TOT original deal,but from the well-publicized appearance of the "R" co.,whose name first appeared with Dassault when the M2K upgrades (at the cost of 2 new MIG-29Ks!),one can speculate that the "D" Co.'s lack of confidence in HAL was a deliberate ploy to swing the deal in the direction of the "R"Co.

There is no pvt. party in India that can manufacture the Rafale,period. I've made hundreds upon hundreds of paper planes far more than the "R"Co has! They would have to start from scratch and what guarantee is there that they can deliver? A chit from their partners in profit Dassault? An at what cost/aircraft,that too with no TOT? What's the point? the $15-20B that would have to be spent to build without TOT the remaining 90 aircraft could be far better spent elsewhere on other alternatives,LCAs at around $30M each,MIG-29s at $40M,and MKIs at $65/70M. The (secret) Rafale cost for just these 36 is estimated not less than $5B,which works out to approx. $140-150M each! Some say that the package actually will work out to around $7B+ with weaponry.

The great fear is that the entire LCA programme is now at stake with the entrance of greedy pvt parties in the combat aircraft zone of our aerospace industry.Let the pvt. parties first deliver on simpler programmes like the basic trainer,IJT,light transports,COIN aircraft,light helos,UAVs/UCAVs,etc.,where HAL has failed to deliver,and prove themselves before handing over the most sophisticated programmes to them on a platter. In fact the entire UAV/UCAV requirement can be thrown open to the pvt. sector,as a few cos. showed us at the air show.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Apr 2015 12:12

Neither is 36 Rafale certain nor is *made in India* Rafale dead. The old MMRCA deal/process is dead that much is confirmed.

If MKIs can be built by HAL under TOT from Russia so can Reliance or for that matter other Indian majors build Rafale under TOT. HAL after all is a company that is unable to deliver an IJT even after having missed "7 deadlines". BTW I did not count but am relying on data provided previously in this thread.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 12:56

The GOI,nation has spent billions in building up the massive DPSU /DRDO infrastructure over decades.It is poor management that is the major reason why the programmes have either failed/delayed. Compare them with the space/missile programmes,where we had to do everything ourselves because no one was willing to help us.They've succeeded.

Therefore,the management and structure of the DRDO/DPSUs must change first,with embedded top leadership from the end-users,the 3 services.The IN's exemplary efforts at indigenisation shows the way along with space and missiles.Once that is achieved,there will be no need to hive off in entirety to the pvt. sector the plums and fruit of the DPSUs. There is ample scope fore the pvt. sector to help reduce drastically the "70%" of imports that exists today.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Apr 2015 17:02

partha wrote:^
Since HAL is already behind schedule for LCA MK1, MK2 and now starting with AMCA, does it make sense for HAL to work on Rafale too? It's best for HAL to focus on delivering mk1, mk2 and amca and let a private player (with HAL's consulting?) get into Rafale business (assuming 100% of Rafales won't be bought ready made).

You are confusing ADA (the design agency) and HAL (the production agency). The Tejas Mk2 and AMCA are being designed at ADA and they aren't closed to being manufactured. So, HAL has not much role there .. yet.

For a manufacturing agency, the killer is the uncertainty - uncertainty wrt order size and uncertainty wrt supply chain (what component is indigenized and who will supply it). True, that HAL is establishing a production line (and associated supply chain) for LCA Mk1, but once the line is stabilized, it sort of chugs on auto-pilot. Similar would happen with Rafale - *if* it gets the order, it can set it up easily.

And yes, HAL is developing IJT, HTT-40, LUH, LCH, MTA, PAKFA on its own, but that would be its own internal designers and it would have nothing to do with the factory setup.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Apr 2015 17:05

Philip wrote:The GOI,nation has spent billions in building up the massive DPSU /DRDO infrastructure over decades.It is poor management that is the major reason why the programmes have either failed/delayed. Compare them with the space/missile programmes,where we had to do everything ourselves because no one was willing to help us.They've succeeded.

Therefore,the management and structure of the DRDO/DPSUs must change first,with embedded top leadership from the end-users,the 3 services.The IN's exemplary efforts at indigenisation shows the way along with space and missiles.Once that is achieved,there will be no need to hive off in entirety to the pvt. sector the plums and fruit of the DPSUs. There is ample scope fore the pvt. sector to help reduce drastically the "70%" of imports that exists today.

If that is all true, how do you explain the delays in PSU shipyards for naval orders ? You can't have it both ways.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 17:34

Srin,PSU shipyards delays have been well explained by various reports,CAG,etc. Non-availability of specialised steel,changes,etc.,The fact is that the yards have delivered ,though late and over budget. P-15 class DDGs,P-17 class FFGs,P-28 ASW corvettes,OPVs,various missile/patrol craft,survey vessels, etc. have all been commissioned.

Whereas, HAL and co. are still struggling with the LCA,IJT,BTT,LUH,whatever.These have NOT even been commissioned into the IAF after decades of development. Moreover,these warships built by the DPSU yards are unique Indian designs ,even with their firang sensors,weaponry and eqpt.,and thus cannot compare with HAL's licensed manufacture-with small improvements ,of MKIs,Jaguars,etc.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Apr 2015 17:50

1. Has HAL invested a rupee in R&D wrt Rafale?
2. Has HAL invested a rupee for Rafale Manufacturing yet?
3. Has HAL been involved with Rafale in anyway?
4. If Rafale production where to go to HAL would it not need to invest money to create new infra, etc? Same will happen in private sector.

So what plums and fruits of DPSUs will be hived off to private sector? Instead of the NEW manufacturing capacity being built under the wings of HAL it will be built under Reliance (As everyone's fav example). The same amout of money will likely be spent irrespective of who gets the order. Cost will differ slightly based on cost of land, etc.

Some say HAL has prior aerospace experience but did that help speed up MKI production? Wasn't the TOT implemented over phases (4, IIRC) spread over years (10 perhaps; a guess so don't beat me up on this; just substitute the correct figure) starting with CKD imports. Can it get worse for Reliance led Rafale production especially with mandated localization in phases?

Another advantage that HAL has is its experienced staff but experienced at what? Wasn't MKIs a complete new ball game for HAL and didn't HAL need extensive hand holding with MKIs to start with? The same will happen with Rafale so does it matter if its Reliance staff rather than HAL staff that get trained? Reliance being a private player can hire the best of the best in business from anywhere in the world including HAL and Dassault itself.

On the balance I don't see any single *big* issue with moving a completely NEW project like Rafale *make in India* to the private sector. This is a manufacturing contract and Reliance will do just as well if not better on it than HAL. Reliance is just used as a representative for the private sector.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Apr 2015 18:30

Philip wrote:Srin,PSU shipyards delays have been well explained by various reports,CAG,etc. Non-availability of specialised steel,changes,etc.,The fact is that the yards have delivered ,though late and over budget. P-15 class DDGs,P-17 class FFGs,P-28 ASW corvettes,OPVs,various missile/patrol craft,survey vessels, etc. have all been commissioned.

right. isn't it because IN got its hands dirty very early on. funds, persevers even if there are delays because technology is complex, gestation long. by putting yourself on the line you are not only taking risks but also being part of the effort you encouarge the 'team' and who is this team? same DPSUs and some private. IN encourages its men to take up research, stations people and gets the work done. isn't it a mantra for them - indegenous route first, import only if necessary. these efforts are what results in what you wrote above.

Whereas, HAL and co. are still struggling with the LCA,IJT,BTT,LUH,whatever.These have NOT even been commissioned into the IAF after decades of development. Moreover,these warships built by the DPSU yards are unique Indian designs ,even with their firang sensors,weaponry and eqpt.,and thus cannot compare with HAL's licensed manufacture-with small improvements ,of MKIs,Jaguars,etc.

yes. there are delays of various kind and i am not justifying them but don't you ignore the important point? have IA/IAF have considered projects in the same way as IN done? have they dirtied their hands? are they even showing an inclination now? would the results have been better if they had involved early on than what it is now? is it a necessity or not? don't they have a vested interest in achieving that more than anybody else just like IN?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 18:46

Prag,I entirely agree with you.The IA and IAF have not dirtied their hands in the way the IN have.From my posts over a decade,you can see that. But were they given the opportunity to take charge as the IN managed to quietly do? Here one cannot underestimate the influence and power of babudom. Babudom have shown in the past their ability to cut the services down to size and have pushed in their men where specialists were needed. A former CNS told me that when a certain country wanted us to design and build its new navy,it took the MOD one year to approve the visits by the tiny team of two experts! The opportunity was lost and we are now watching the Chinese steam all over us. To even get air tickets for important visits abroad,the MOD has tortured the services. Not too long ago we had reports that the IAF's wish that as in the past,senior retd/serving IAF AMs were placed on the board of HAL was rejected. Turf wars between the MOD,DRDO and services and between servcies themselves,have been the bane of our defence and security. But it is upto the regime in power to kick ass,crack heads and sack those who cannot or are unwilling to perform or fall in line with the GOI's directives. It ahs a great opportunity now.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Apr 2015 18:59

Philip wrote:Using the same argument,buy only locally built systems,then why was the Rafale bought,even just 36 for at least $5B when the LCA is is on the cusp of series production ?

Philip sir,

you are missing my point. i am not saying 'only' indigenous. it is neither feasible nor economical wrt different projects and the present situation. what i am saying is by involving themselves like IN, some of these projects could have seen closure and speeded up others!!

heck they don't want to induct stuff which are complete - sending them for non stop trials, asking for more and when proven not ordering while importing all this time taking away any future space for the said product. it is the attitudinal problem. import first, indigenise - ???

There is no FMBT desi design or prototype as of now unlike the new Russian FMBT. Even the IA's specs haven't been worked out. The issue at hand is not the FMBT but why we need another 300 T-90s (not my idea!) when reports say that the Arjun MK-2 is available (and from the CAG report the prod line is idle? Other than "vested interests",can someone try and find a rational explanation/excuse please?ee that.

Prag,I entirely agree with you.The IA and IAF have not dirtied their hands in the way the IN have.From my posts over a decade,you can see that. But were they given the opportunity to take charge as the IN managed to quietly do? Here one cannot underestimate the influence and power of babudom. Babudom have shown in the past their ability to cut the services down to size and have pushed in their men where specialists were needed. A former CNS told me that when a certain country wanted us to design and build its new navy,it took the MOD one year to approve the visits by the tiny team of two experts! The opportunity was lost and we are now watching the Chinese steam all over us. To even get air tickets for important visits abroad,the MOD has tortured the services. Not too long ago we had reports that the IAF's wish that as in the past,senior retd/serving IAF AMs were placed on the board of HAL was rejected. Turf wars between the MOD,DRDO and services and between servcies themselves,have been the bane of our defence and security. But it is upto the regime in power to kick ass,crack heads and sack those who cannot or are unwilling to perform or fall in line with the GOI's directives. It ahs a great opportunity now.

i am not referring to a specific project. i am speaking of a general inertia, indian stuff - inferior, import - faster etc.. with no vision for a future of operational/strategic independance for themselves and the country.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Apr 2015 19:19

Philip wrote:Prag,I entirely agree with you.The IA and IAF have not dirtied their hands in the way the IN have.From my posts over a decade,you can see that. But were they given the opportunity to take charge as the IN managed to quietly do? Here one cannot underestimate the influence and power of babudom. Babudom have shown in the past their ability to cut the services down to size and have pushed in their men where specialists were needed. A former CNS told me that when a certain country wanted us to design and build its new navy,it took the MOD one year to approve the visits by the tiny team of two experts! The opportunity was lost and we are now watching the Chinese steam all over us. To even get air tickets for important visits abroad,the MOD has tortured the services. Not too long ago we had reports that the IAF's wish that as in the past,senior retd/serving IAF AMs were placed on the board of HAL was rejected. Turf wars between the MOD,DRDO and services and between servcies themselves,have been the bane of our defence and security. But it is upto the regime in power to kick ass,crack heads and sack those who cannot or are unwilling to perform or fall in line with the GOI's directives. It ahs a great opportunity now.

your post seems to have changed but i take your point specially with the bolded but my point still stays. if IN can work with the same babudom, same DPSUs, shipyards etc.. why can't others do? they want it quick, don't want to 'waste' time on development, inertia specially wrt indian, liberal/watered down requirements for imports in many cases - a liberty not extended to indian stuff etc..

ofc these are not the only factors and i don't want to blame only the services but their actions are a 'major' contributing factor.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Apr 2015 19:25

Austin wrote:The key is to have a MRO facility and spares availability and reserves , Atleast we dont have to send ti france for short and medium maintenance and repair.

In any case we need around atleast 5 squadron of Rafale or around 96 aircraft including some reserves , the rest can be filled with Tejas in major number and MKI in lesser number to reach 39-43 squadron

96 isnt that far off from 126. We just dont have the money for those many airframes currently. What I think will happen is we will order a few squadrons post 2019.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Apr 2015 19:48

partha wrote: I understand that. What I meant was just because Govt announced a Make in India policy people should not question every time Govt imports some manufactured goods which that article did. Our enemies won't wait for Make in India to take off so if we have to buy jets in fly away condition to address shortages, we have to do it. There is no other option unfortunately. These 36 jets will give some breathing time for further negotiations and in my opinion some Make in India is still possible.

I agree..think Make in India is dead as far as this deal is concerned, and offsets will compensate if GOI handles that well.
There are many other programs where Make in India can be done seriously and with tangible benefit.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Apr 2015 19:50

How come 36? Wouldn't they be atleast 40/42 to fill 2 squadrons a few extras for the training squadron.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Apr 2015 20:19

I believe it is 32 single seater aircraft and 4 two seat trainers. An even distribution would be 14 single seater aircraft per squadron, with two attrition/maintenance reserves and a pair of trainer aircraft. What would make better sense in my humble opinion would be all 36 aircraft as two seaters. The amount of money being spent in this deal...even to lose one to human error would be quite expensive. If something happens to one pilot, the other can take over and bring the aircraft home safely. Obviously this will not be true if there is a technical error onboard and both pilots have to eject as seen in all the previous Rambha crashes. Also given the strategic role (and not necessarily nuclear strike) these aircraft will serve in the IAF, sharing the workload makes sense. Katrina with her Spectra kit would be formidable in a SEAD role.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Apr 2015 20:21

Former Director General of the Defence Planning Staff, Premvir Das, writes (laments?) on the Rafale deal in Business Standard:

The sad reality is that the apparently transparent multi-vendor route for military purchases is wholly unsuited to the Indian way of doing business, literally. Experience shows that where we go the single-vendor governmental route, things move faster and with fewer complications. So, opaque as it may seem, until design capabilities are greatly enhanced, this Hobson's choice appears to be the only route to take.

All this may make for dismal reading. On the one hand, we want to manufacture modern military platforms in India; on the other, the essential capabilities required to do so either do not exist or are deficient.

From here:

Rafale deal - truths beyond rhetoric

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 23 Apr 2015 21:27

Karan M wrote: There are many other programs where Make in India can be done seriously and with tangible benefit.

That is correct and some moves are afoot in that direction , AFAIK.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Apr 2015 22:34

So basically we have now fulfilled SFC's demand for 40 units of Mirages that they wanted 10 years ago if this purchase happens.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Apr 2015 23:01

Philip wrote:Srin,PSU shipyards delays have been well explained by various reports,CAG,etc. Non-availability of specialised steel,changes,etc.,The fact is that the yards have delivered ,though late and over budget. P-15 class DDGs,P-17 class FFGs,P-28 ASW corvettes,OPVs,various missile/patrol craft,survey vessels, etc. have all been commissioned.

Whereas, HAL and co. are still struggling with the LCA,IJT,BTT,LUH,whatever.These have NOT even been commissioned into the IAF after decades of development. Moreover,these warships built by the DPSU yards are unique Indian designs ,even with their firang sensors,weaponry and eqpt.,and thus cannot compare with HAL's licensed manufacture-with small improvements ,of MKIs,Jaguars,etc.

You have a very basic misunderstanding of "design/development" vs "production".
Shipyards' job is to assemble ships as per the Navy Directorate designs (the time taken to design is essentially beneath the surface). This involves having a good supply chain, which includes having steel. They need a steady and reliable supplier of steel - that is the most basic requirement. So, how is it forgivable for a shipyard to not have a supply of steel ? That's a failure at the most basic level. So, having a retd Admiral as the head hasn't necessarily made them more competent.

Now to the HAL - I have no idea what you think they should be doing.
a) For ages, they just licence manufactured whatever IAF procured and MoD negotiated for local production.
b) Any profit they made was milked by the Govt in the form of dividends. With the Govt fully controlling the board, they just have to bow to the Govt diktat.
c) When they grow some spine and start investing in their own R&D for the first time ever, you complain about the delays. Sure there are delays and mistakes (IJT engine change), but this is an org which is doing R&D for the first time. Look at the delays of PAK FA for such a long time - despite Sukhoi having 70 years of design experience ! Do you know that the first Su-27 was overweight by a long way ?

R&D by definition is exploring into the unknown. There will be delays and mistakes and failures. It can be de-risked to a large extent by focussing on your existing capabilities and keeping new development to a minimum. That's the reason why Su-27 can evolve to Su-30 can evolve to Su-33, to Su-37/Su-30MKI and to Su-35 and to T-50. That's the reason why Agni-TD can become Agni-1 to Agni-2 to Agni-5. The first time is always a stab into the unknown. It comes easier later on when the competencies are built in and uncertain things become less and less. If you can't get it, then you don't get what it means to do indigenization.

If you think HAL is bad, then wait till you get a multi-million dollar jet developed by an L1 private vendor on Govt contract and squeezing profits everyway possible.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Apr 2015 02:04

Cybaru wrote:So basically we have now fulfilled SFC's demand for 40 units of Mirages that they wanted 10 years ago if this purchase happens.

Actually SFC is getting 42 Rambhas for the nuclear strike role. I don't see how 36 Katrinas will fit into the force structure of the SFC, with the Rambha + BrahMos combination already available.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2015 02:08

Cybaru, Its a gambit. Lets see how it unfolds.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Apr 2015 04:44

SEAD happens to be one of Katrina's true strengths. See below...

http://rafalenews.blogspot.ca/2011/05/l ... rated.html

It can be released at low altitude, and can also be fired up to 180 degrees off-axis in relation to the aircraft’s flight path, (‘backwards’) attacking targets from any direction, from standoff distance exceeding 50 km.

Another link...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%9D.html

To illustrate the Rafale’s networking capabilities, one pilot described how the aircraft can receive target coordinates from an AWACS or another aircraft via Link 16. To accept the assignment, the pilot pushes a button, and the coordinates are automatically programmed into the AASM guided bombs, with no further action by the pilot who, once in range (up to 30 nautical miles), again pushes a single button to launch all three – or all six – AASMs to their individual targets. “We can fire the AASM against targets abeam or behind us, and can hit up to six in a single pass,” the pilot continues.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Apr 2015 08:06

Rakesh wrote: Actually SFC is getting 42 Rambhas for the nuclear strike role. I don't see how 36 Katrinas will fit into the force structure of the SFC, with the Rambha + BrahMos combination already available.

The Brahmos is not known to be demarcated for strategic warheads?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Apr 2015 09:29

I guess if definition of SEAD involved only attacking predetermined static targets. For everything else the French can always call upon the American wild weasels and growlers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Apr 2015 10:10

Rakesh wrote:SEAD happens to be one of Katrina's true strengths. See below...

http://rafalenews.blogspot.ca/2011/05/l ... rated.html
It can be released at low altitude, and can also be fired up to 180 degrees off-axis in relation to the aircraft’s flight path, (‘backwards’) attacking targets from any direction, from standoff distance exceeding 50 km.
Another link...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%9D.html
To illustrate the Rafale’s networking capabilities, one pilot described how the aircraft can receive target coordinates from an AWACS or another aircraft via Link 16. To accept the assignment, the pilot pushes a button, and the coordinates are automatically programmed into the AASM guided bombs, with no further action by the pilot who, once in range (up to 30 nautical miles), again pushes a single button to launch all three – or all six – AASMs to their individual targets. “We can fire the AASM against targets abeam or behind us, and can hit up to six in a single pass,” the pilot continues.

Not really. Six bombs in one pass isn't that big a deal nowadays. The Eurofighter can do the same (since last year IIRC). The SH can employ as many as 10 JDAMs in a single pass. Also, while the AASM is a pretty nifty guidance kit (albeit horribly expensive), its range is still limited to just slightly over 50km. Compare that to a true blue SEAD weapon like the Kh-31 or HARM which are both in the 150 km bracket. Even the (now retired) ALARM had a range of about 100 km.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2015 10:35

Srin,the procurement red tape for material,etc in the MOD has also been a reason for delays. But surely having the IN teams current and retd. heading the shipyards has made a significant diff. in that we now design,devlop and build on our own almost the entire requirement of warships from carriers to patrol craft. As for the IAF/HAL,there have been reports in the media over the IAF's angst with HAL.Some xcpts. from an article from 2013,on BRF too..

HAL and the Indian Aviation Industry
Wg Cdr I M Chopra (Retd)

HAL has drawn a lot of flak of late. The organisation has failed on many counts and succeeded in a few projects. I have with interest read many comments/analysis on what Gp. Capt. Kapil Bhargava has written. Kapil and I spoke about the shortcomings of HAL and the reasons for the organisation not becoming world class. I agree largely with the analysis of Air Marshal B D Jayal (Brijesh). Kapil thought that having been in HAL I should write some comments on the status of the Aerospace industry.

I would like to analyse the industrial picture on a much wider canvas. HAL is no centre of excellence. Their design capability is limited and production skills are much better. In my opinion there are just very few centres of excellence in India. Indian Space Organisation ISRO) is one which competes with the world and IT industry also delivers service solutions to world standards. We also need to acknowledge that missile technology has been developed well to produce the Prithvi, Akash, Trishul, Nag and Agni. The missile programmme has been developed under the 'Integrated Guided Missile Development Program' (IGMDP). After the end of the IGMDP (on 8 January 2008), all the current and future missiles are being developed as independent projects *. The laboratories of Defence Research Development Organasition (DRDO) have delivered in case of missiles but not on schedule. In many other programmes their performance has been not up to the mark.

It is understood that in the recent reconstitution of the Board of Directors of HAL, two Directors (DCAS & AOM) from the IAF have been dropped. I consider this unwise and the reason for this move by the MOD is not known. The IAF Directors have a lot to contribute as the main user of HAL products.

Some comments have been made on the appointment of the Chairman, HAL. Serving Chief of Air Staff and serving/retired Air Marshals have been Chairman of HAL on many occasions and the performance of the company was no better than when others had occupied that position. However there should be no bar for serving/retired Air Marshals (but not of lower rank) being considered and interviewed for selection by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). HAL should have a succession plan for the top post. It is demoralising for the insiders not to be considered.

I had suggested in an Article published in the Deccan Herald newspaper that the HAL Divisions doing substantial civil business should be privatised. Even though HAL is a Navratna company I doubt whether it has greater autonomy. The growth/performance of PSUs suffers due to bureaucratic delays and interference. I think ISRO does not suffer from bureaucratic interference as Chairman is also Secretary of Department of Space reporting directly to the Prime Minister. I read a newspaper report of an interesting suggestion by Chairman SAIL that a holding company for all PSUs be created which will interact with the Government and PSUs will have complete freedom of action. I wonder whether the Government bureaucracy will consider such a suggestion.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Apr 2015 16:12

Livefist ‏@livefist 12m12 minutes ago

Statement in Indian Parliament today on the Indian Rafale deal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2015 16:22

>> one pilot described how the aircraft can receive target coordinates from an AWACS or another aircraft via Link 16

our fleetwide FDL is in unknown status and gone dark with no public info. an awacs can hardly scan or pass on info about ground targets except those of EM emitters, for the most part we need a ASTOR type GMTI solution on EMB145 and someday on a powerful HALE UAV as well. this would cover all land targets both moving and hidden under foliage/nets.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 24 Apr 2015 16:35

✈Anantha Krishnan M✈ ‏@writetake

Def Min in LS on Rafale deal.

Observe the date format.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2015 16:57

Quote from another td.

Sadly, this is not something that can be set right overnight or just by shifting tack from public to private sector. The Army and the Air Force, which do not have in-house design structures, must involve themselves more closely with the know-how already created with DRDO and others, send more people abroad for training and, together, focus on building complex platforms. This process may take several years but there are no short cuts; it has taken the Navy five decades to get here. To think that private companies can start designing and building fighter aircraft when DRDO/HAL, with decades of experience cannot, is to live in a world of make-believe.

The Air Force must also involve itself more closely through greater control of HAL entities just as the Navy has been doing all along for its shipyards. This synergised Plan-Design-Order-Build approach is essential if the other two services are to get anywhere close to where the Navy has reached and, yes, it still has some miles to go.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Apr 2015 17:12

I fully agree with the highlighted sentiment. We should not expect private firms to be designing and producing their own fighter without decades of experience. Indian Private firms don't even have the ability to setup a top quality production line for modern fighters on their own. Those are skills that come with decades of experience.

However, private firms can operate and deliver top quality Rafale designed by Dassault, production lines designed and set up by Dassault, staff trained by Dassault and production supervised by Dassault employees at least for the initial couple of years. The production line will be in India owned by an Indian firm and almost entirely run by Indians except for some key supervisors. With time the supervisory role too will pass on to Indians.

Not a new or earth shattering model really. Without knowing the details about the MKI project I will bet the Russians where involved heavily in the design and setting up of the production facilities, training of the Indian staff and hand holding production at least during the initial years. Am pretty sure the same model was employed with Scorpene line and will come into play with P75i too. Pretty standard across industries.