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

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

Postby svinayak » 24 May 2015 19:48

What about Maverick & Goose?...


Maverick: Yes ma'am, the data on the MiG is inaccurate.

Charlie: How's that, Lieutenant?

Maverick: Well, I just happened to see a MiG 28 do a...

Goose: We!

Maverick: Uh, sorry, Goose. *We* happened to see a MiG 28 do a 4g negative dive.

Charlie: Where did you see this?

Maverick: Uh, that's classified.

Charlie: It's what?

Maverick: It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.



(They have a POLAROID to prove it)

------------

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk.

-Tuco, aka Juan Maria Ramirez, aka the Rat.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 24 May 2015 19:56

Karan M wrote:If you can't handle the truth and its painful to you whilst you think you are some power, get some treatment asap. Delirium clearly.


That you can't make your point without resorting to personal attacks says a lot . . .

Here's a hilarious thought: if the SH is so bad, what does that make the LCA?

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 24 May 2015 20:43

^^^^
The LCA is Light, and MkII will meet ASR.

F-18E/F is a great plane, just not as good as the Rafale or the Typhoon.

As for cost, LCA is by a long way the most economical, the Rafale is unaffordable, and the F-18E/F is not in the picture

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

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

Postby Austin » 24 May 2015 20:51

I think DM Parikar is doing the same mistake that we did in 80's by not option for lic build Mirages and we have regretted that since.

Buying such small numbers of Rafale would simply add up to the logistics nightmare of the types IAF operates , Life Cycle Cost would be high as most spares would be imported and maintenace beyond a certain level have to be done in France.

DM should bite the bullet and go for 5-6 squadron of Rafale with Lic Build at HAL and TOT/Local Manuf and MRO built in India.

Its good and heartening that DM wants to support Tejas but it should not be at the cost of short sighted gains and MOD should take into account 30-35 years of life cycle operations for the Type.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 24 May 2015 21:00

Austin wrote:I think DM Parikar is doing the same mistake that we did in 80's by not option for lic build Mirages and we have regretted that since.

This is a stop gap temporary policy.

With this they are trying to remove the lobby and middle men who had infested the previous govt

After that they can work on the long term plan. They are watching if the lobby will strike back. AK is the first one.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 24 May 2015 21:08

^^^^
For the Gandhis to send their naukar chaakar to shout in the bazaar, the pain must be quite acute ... I'm loving it

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

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

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2015 21:29

eklavya wrote:As for cost, LCA is by a long way the most economical, the Rafale is unaffordable, and the F-18E/F is not in the picture


That about sums it up.

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

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

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2015 21:31

Austin wrote:DM should bite the bullet and go for 5-6 squadron of Rafale with Lic Build at HAL and TOT/Local Manuf and MRO built in India.

Its good and heartening that DM wants to support Tejas but it should not be at the cost of short sighted gains and MOD should take into account 30-35 years of life cycle operations for the Type.


The cost of 2 squadrons is over $6 billion (without weapons). 5-6 squadrons with local manufacturing and overhaul would be $20bn+. That's far too steep a price to pay for a 4.5 gen aircraft.

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

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

Postby Austin » 24 May 2015 22:01

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:DM should bite the bullet and go for 5-6 squadron of Rafale with Lic Build at HAL and TOT/Local Manuf and MRO built in India.

Its good and heartening that DM wants to support Tejas but it should not be at the cost of short sighted gains and MOD should take into account 30-35 years of life cycle operations for the Type.


The cost of 2 squadrons is over $6 billion (without weapons). 5-6 squadrons with local manufacturing and overhaul would be $20bn+. That's far too steep a price to pay for a 4.5 gen aircraft.


IT would be WELL Worth the cost if one looks at M2K experience in IAF....... $20 Billion paid over 10 years for an economy that grows at 8 % is affordable

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 22:08

brar_w wrote:So that begs the question, Where was the performance data taken from given it is classified, and if they did not use Harpoon 3 what unique simulator did they use? and why does the same author now advocate a fighter that is in fact exactly like the unsubstantiated capability he was claiming the F-35 had??


Actually one of the authors. If you don't have the answers, then go find them, instead of trying to run down the analyst in question.

This forum is littered with poorly written analysis that gets debunked including claims by former military pilots or high ranking officials....


A lot of words thereafter to just say "I believe the F-35 is bestest ever and anyone else who says otherwise and points out its glaring flaws is a @#$%!!!".

PS: One of the guys whom you were busy arguing with about the F-35 and what not, and how great it is, has probably forgotten more about aerodynamics than most folks ever learn.

PPS: That RAND study was a masterpiece in terms of how to do a cogent, to the point analysis. And was recognized as such by many.
Last edited by Karan M on 24 May 2015 22:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 24 May 2015 22:15

eklavya wrote:As for cost, LCA is by a long way the most economical


To quote an esteemed poster on this board 'Cheap junk is still junk.'

(Not directed at you, just yanking Karan's chain a little ;))

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

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

Postby Viv S » 24 May 2015 22:19

Austin wrote:IT would be WELL Worth the cost if one looks at M2K experience in IAF....... $20 Billion paid over 10 years for an economy that grows at 8 % is affordable


The Mirage 2000 was cutting edge tech when we bought it, which was just an year after it went operational with the AdlA. (And it was still never competitive with the F-16 when it came to value-for-money.) The Rafale in contrast became operational in late 2000. While still very modern, its still half a generation behind the newest entrants that will enter the market over the coming decade. Point being, its NOT a Mirage analogue for India.

Also, we may be able to come up with the cash but that doesn't mean we can afford to be irresponsible with it. The Chinese are going to outspend us by at least a factor of 3, so every last rupee needs to count. And fact is, at $200 mil each (more for a locally assembled unit) the Rafale simply isn't cost effective.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 22:24

GeorgeWelch wrote:That you can't make your point without resorting to personal attacks says a lot . . .


Oh please, spare me the martyr routine.

You routinely fib (calling the IAF liars, say the MMRCA was rigged and what not with ZERO evidence apart from your pongo interpretations) and then post statements verging on megalomania (speaking truth to power and what not) when your fibs are called out.

Pointing out how pathetic all that is not a a personal attack, its calling a spade a spade.

Here's a hilarious thought: if the SH is so bad, what does that make the LCA?


It would be hilarious, because the joke is on you. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. :lol:

The LCA Mk1 is a light fighter, meant to replace India's MiG-21s coming in at $22-25Mn apiece. What's the price of the SH again? Or that turkey, the F-35?

Oh wait, the US spent gazillions of $ to make its MMRCA and HCAs with aero performance equivalent to the LCA Mk1? :rotfl:

Pack those turkeys full of fuel, and spend gazillions more on avionics to make them capable, declare everything else doesn't count and then huff and puff on the internet about "hey y'all my truck didn't win in y'alls F-1 race, ah'm calling it rigged". :rotfl:

But never mind, since you guys can't get your act together, the Chinese will do it for you. They'll take your plans and probably make a good fighter. You can buy it from them. After all, pretty much everything you have is made by them anyhow. :mrgreen:

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 22:27

GeorgeWelch wrote:
eklavya wrote:As for cost, LCA is by a long way the most economical


To quote an esteemed poster on this board 'Cheap junk is still junk.'

(Not directed at you, just yanking Karan's chain a little ;))


Cheap junk in the MMRCA class = junk. Light fighters are different. Paying MMRCA prices for light fighter capabilities = that MMRCA being junk. Simple. :rotfl:

Oh wait, so now you also acknowledge the SH and F-16 are cheap junk? :rotfl:

How the mighty have fallen.

Good to know that you acknowledge the F-16/SH were by no means suitable for an expensive MMRCA style acquisition given how pathetically obsolete they are versus the Eurocanards in the MMRCA class. :lol:

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 24 May 2015 22:42

Karan M wrote:You routinely fib (calling the IAF liars, say the MMRCA was rigged and what not with ZERO evidence apart from your pongo interpretations)


Denying Lockmart a chance to rerun the engine change test while cutting the Euros all sorts of slack on capabilities that aren't ready makes it pretty blatant.

Karan M wrote:and then post statements verging on megalomania (speaking truth to power and what not) when your fibs are called out.


You have done nothing to disprove me besides resorting to name calling

Which, as I note, you continue to do.

Karan M wrote:Pointing out how pathetic all that is not a a personal attack, its calling a spade a spade.


You have pointed out nothing besides your continued desire to engage in name calling instead of an actual debate on the facts

Here's a hilarious thought: if the SH is so bad, what does that make the LCA?


It would be hilarious, because the joke is on you. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. :lol:

Karan M wrote:The LCA Mk1 is a light fighter, meant to replace India's MiG-21s coming in at $22-25Mn apiece. What's the price of the SH again?


What's the price of the Rafale again?

So the huge gap in capabilities between the LCA and the SH is ok because the LCA is cheaper.

But the small gap between the SH and the Rafale is just atrocious even though the Rafale is twice as much.

Sure, completely logical.

You can either argue that we have to judge cost effectiveness or you can argue that 'cheap junk is junk', but to argue both simultaneously shows rather remarkable mental flexibility.

Oh wait, the US spent gazillions of $ to make its MMRCA and HCAs with aero performance equivalent to the LCA Mk1? :rotfl:


The SH is faster, carries more and travels further. If you want to call that 'equivalent', then surely the SH is 'equivalent' to the Rafale, no?
Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 24 May 2015 22:44, edited 2 times in total.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 24 May 2015 22:43

You can't deny that it is galling that a third-world country that has traditionally fed on diet on Russian planes discarded the famed F16s and F18s. Not due to cost, not for lack of lobbying, but as technically deficient. Yes, the same fighters that are the harbingers of righteous wrath of Khan known as "shock and awe". That's a whole new level of hurt that can't be easily forgiven.

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

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

Postby GeorgeWelch » 24 May 2015 22:50

srin wrote:You can't deny that it is galling that a third-world country that has traditionally fed on diet on Russian planes discarded the famed F16s and F18s. Not due to cost, not for lack of lobbying, but as technically deficient. Yes, the same fighters that are the harbingers of righteous wrath of Khan known as "shock and awe". That's a whole new level of hurt that can't be easily forgiven.


You might have a point if those were our best, but those are yesterday's models and we're already moving on.

I have never denied that they may be slightly better depending on the mission. What I have argued is that they are so much more costly that you can't justify their purchase.

What difference does it make if the Rafale is slightly better if it's so costly you can only buy a tiny subfleet?

India would be better served buying SH directly and getting a decent sized fleet that is far more capable than what it is replacing and getting it quickly.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 22:56

GeorgeWelch wrote:Denying Lockmart a chance to rerun the engine change test while cutting the Euros all sorts of slack on capabilities that aren't ready makes it pretty blatant.


If the trial criteria said that engine changes were not allowed, then the people asking for the test should have prepared better.

Instead of whinging and being a crybaby, perhaps it would help to understand why the other competitors didn't face this problem.

Clearly, their engine and airframe integration was ahead.

But then again, this sort of sore loser behavior is visible each time Airbus wins a deal as well. :rotfl:

You have done nothing to disprove me besides resorting to name calling


If a man starts jumping around and starts raving and ranting in the middle of a dinner, calling his hosts liars for no reason at all, people look around and call the pysch ward. Deal with it.

Which, as I note, you continue to do.


Speaking the truth about your dodgy claims. Get used to it. If you can't come up with facts and fib 24/7, you will be responded to accordingly.

You have pointed out nothing besides your continued desire to engage in name calling instead of an actual debate on the facts


You have brought no facts to the table apart from whinging and calling the IAF liars, and the MMRCA competition rigged.

What's the price of the Rafale again?


Suitable for the MMRCA class.

So the huge gap in capabilities between the LCA and the SH is ok because the LCA is cheaper.

But the small gap between the SH and the Rafale is just atrocious even though the Rafale is twice as much.

Sure, completely logical.


ROTFL, the claims that the SH is half priced as versus the Rafale only exist in your imagination.

Show the actual proposed price for the SH vs the Rafale for the entire MMRCA config. Otherwise, put up or shut up.

Facts - MMRCAs are expensive.
Facts - the SH/F-16 were turkeys in that competition and flunked criteria
Facts - you clearly can't deal with this and are hence calling the IAF names for a while now
Facts - deal with the response that comes as a result

You can either argue that we have to judge cost effectiveness or you can argue that 'cheap junk is junk', but to argue both simultaneously shows rather remarkable mental flexibility.


Clearly, one must get to the basics with your "mental inflexibility". Oh well. People expect a certain level of performance for what they pay for. Clearly the levels between the MMRCA class and the LWF class are different. And in the MMRCA class, your dodgy claim of "cheap junk matters because its cheap" etc is completely irrelevant.

So, you put up two really crappy contestants for a premier competition and they came out last. Instead of whining how bad the competition was, perhaps it would be better to look at why they were so crappy?

The SH is faster, carries more and travels further. If you want to call that 'equivalent', then surely the SH is 'equivalent' to the Rafale, no?


Glad to know that. At least the SH is good for something.

Oh wait, did you just acknowledge the Rafale is faster, carries more and travels more than the SH?

Wonders never cease.
Last edited by Karan M on 24 May 2015 23:03, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8970
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 24 May 2015 22:58

Denying Lockmart a chance to rerun the engine change test while cutting the Euros all sorts of slack on capabilities that aren't ready makes it pretty blatant


That would have merely made it compliant, not superior. In most instanced the Typhoon and the Rafale would have better performances than the F-16 in most envelopes. Only area where the F-16 is still superior is below 10K feet (according to Typhoon pilots) The only real world advantage the F-16 has over these two is cost.

The development path the F-16 has taken is in support of the USAF requirements. Mission systems have been given a priority because its heavily utilized in the strike role. Had the USAF agreed to buy a couple of Squadrons of F-16U as the UAE wanted, the actual F16Uwould have been a highly capable all round fighter. Its an aircraft that Eurofighter Gmbh claimed "would have killed them" in the export market. The current Block 60/61 is a highly capable bomb truck and if you strip it down to get the best bang for the A2A mission it fails to be an impressive performed when it comes to range or supersonic performance (Burners). The F-16 is also maxed out as far as growth is concerned and without a considerable redesign (such as the F-16U) you cannot expand and add capability. The Typhoon and the Rafale (and the Shornet for that matter) have a lot of capability growth room left in them. Even the Gripen NG does.

Image

In a way the F-16 is an abandoned child with the USAF having decided in the late 90's to not invest in the platform and move to an all 5th generation fighter force. For good or bad, the Europeans have to remain invested in their 4.5 generation fleets because they didn't have the political will or the finances to fund a single large, or multiple 5th generation programs like the US, Russia or China.

What's the price of the Rafale again?

So the huge gap in capabilities between the LCA and the SH is ok because the LCA is cheaper.

But the small gap between the SH and the Rafale is just atrocious even though the Rafale is twice as much.

Sure, completely logical.

You can either argue that we have to judge cost effectiveness or you can argue that 'cheap junk is junk', but to argue both simultaneously shows rather remarkable mental flexibility.


The IAF was required to choose the best performers in its technical evaluations which it did. The price argument would show up in some cases such as those for the USN that is looking at a fleet of F-35C's, and F-18E/F's. It makes sense for them to have the F-18E/F's as affordable as possible because its the low end of their fighters force that will eventually be replaced by the FA-XX. For the IAF, they had to chose the best performing 4+ generation fighter which they did in the Rafale and the Typhoon. I don't think anyone else would have chosen differently unless there were cost or political considerations.

The SH is faster, carries more and travels further. If you want to call that 'equivalent', then surely the SH is 'equivalent' to the Rafale, no?


The Super Hornet is essentially an advanced development of the Hornet, that the USN could get away with without having it canned by the congress. Its a great bomb truck, its a pretty good air to air fighter in their CONOPS because they require lots of range..A rafale or a Gripen in USN's colors would likely be loaded with a lot of fuel thereby negating much of the performance. The IAF however may not have the same constraints. The Super Hornet is superior to the Rafale, for the USN given what they were looking at and what they have in the pipeline given their future capability plans (F-35C, NIFC-CA, UCLASS & FA-XX), for everyone else unless cost is an issue the Rafale is superior. The Super Hornet makes little sense unless you are extremely cost concious (such as the USN), or are a current operator of the Hornet and want a smooth transition (Kuwait). There is a reason the USAF and the USN are moving to a 5th generation fleet of F-22's and F-35's. The 4th generation fighter are not competitive against advanced 4th generation aircraft both from an adversarial pov and from an export pov.

The Asia-Pacific re-balance or whatever it is called now is forcing the Pentagon to invest in the next generation of capability to fly along side the F-35 and eventually replace the F-15C's, F-22A's (long term) and the F-18E/F's that are being heavily utilized at the moment. The Aerospace Innovation Initiative is going to be producing two X-Planes to meet those requirements over the next couple of years. The Rhino is great now, it gave the USN an advanced capability fighter with features that European Air-Forces are only now getting. It gave them excellent reliability and modern maintain easy. It does all that, but given the trend in air-combat and where the focus is going to be in the 2020-2060 time frame (ASIA PACIFIC) they are going to find it extremely outclassed. The Growler is the only aircraft that they will invest significantly in through the Next Generation jammer Inc. I and II. The Future for them for the Asia Pacific does not reside with the Shornet but the F-35, UCLASS and F-XX. You develop & buy today's weapons for tomorrow's wars, for the USN that is the F-35C acquisition and the UCLASS and FA-XX development over the next 5-20 years (UCLASS in the short term, FA-XX in the medium term). The Rhino will hold the ground till then, and offer the USN a low-cost, reliable, weapons system with high availability and with eh features that they really want in the 2010-2025,30 time frame.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 May 2015 23:41, edited 6 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 23:01

srin wrote:You can't deny that it is galling that a third-world country that has traditionally fed on diet on Russian planes discarded the famed F16s and F18s. Not due to cost, not for lack of lobbying, but as technically deficient. Yes, the same fighters that are the harbingers of righteous wrath of Khan known as "shock and awe". That's a whole new level of hurt that can't be easily forgiven.


Srin, exactly. The fact that the hated Oiropeans who were fed phreedom phries in WW2 by the glorious liberators who saved the world and demo-crazy**, beat them fair and square in this combination.

Its a kick, a big one to the collective ego.

And you can see that in George Welch's responses. He just can't admit that the EC and Rafale were far far ahead of these two flying turkeys which would be obsolete for the price in the 2020s and 2030s.

**PPS: Lets just ignore the Russians (UKRAINE y'all) and the largest all volunteer Army (the Indian Armed forces) as well. Doesn't play to the script.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 24 May 2015 23:12

^^^^^
Karan, the IAF was never told: "look, the budget is $8bn, work out what you want."

The IAF was told "you can have 126 fighters, evaluate these 6 and tells us which 2 are technically the best, we will work out which of these 2 is cheapest, and buy you 126 of these".

Turns out we can't afford 126 of the two best planes. So the entire MMRCA contest is a HUGE failure of defence planning.

If IAF is given a choice of how to spend the $8bn, it may well opt for 80 F-18E/F or more F-16IN. It's wrong to call these fighters junk. They are actually absolutely deadly fighters.

36 fighters is too few.

Let's hope LCA Mk II works out. If it doesn't, we are dead. It's that serious.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 23:22

Eklavya,

We have been told by his highness George Welch, that a) the MMRCA was rigged (subtext: the F-16/F-18 weren't given an equal playing field) B) that the IAF are fibbers who don't know how to run a program or evaluate what is what (fighter pilots don't know avionics, lookie the US fighters have AESA :rotfl: ) and other such gems.

Such blatant rubbish deserves to be treated in the same vein its dished out.

PS: Anyone thinks that the F-16/F-18 aren't junk is "wrong" or whatever. In the 2020s-30s, that's what they are, for a price @80-100 Mn$, these aircraft are JUNK for that price. We would have paid several times that amount for lifecyle costs.

And all in return for what?

The Pakistanis would continue to get freebies of similar configurations (ours would be merely marginally ahead in some areas) and we would be held to ransom at times of tension.

The IAF by judging purely on technical grounds cut both these turkeys out and thank goodness for that.

They face upgrade issues, their aero performance is already geriatric since their original classic designs have now got tons of additional stuff jury rigged into them from CFTs to all sorts of short term fixes and the only reason they remain relevant in our context is because the UPA and its corrupt antics delayed IAF modernization.

Otherwise, if the economy was doing well as it should have been, this entire thread would have been closed and we would just have a pure Rafale thread.

There is sufficient evidence out there to point out how badly the F-16/F-18 platforms are outclassed today in several criteria, especially the air to air one, where kinematic performance of the launching platform is a key determiner in an era where all sides are adding more and more avionics and longer reached weapons. Look up the Eurofighter & its F-pole, the Flanker family and its supersonic endurance and the pieces start falling in place.

Even today, the F-16/F-18 are not exactly overperformers versus the Flankers & several other fighters out there.

In the future era, which is what the MMRCA was designed for, even the Rafale and Eurofighter will struggle against the newest PRC platforms in some respects. The F-16/F-18 will be thoroughly outclassed.

In short, they are JUNK.

PS: 36 fighters is a first purchase. More will come but not currently. The GOI will see how Dassault behaves with its offsets and supports and a follow on order will be placed in due time. But only once the economy stabilizes.

Currently with the money available, the IAF can't get everything & this rationalization will free up money not just for the LCA but also for items like PGMs, force multipliers (tankers, Phalcons, Project India) and so forth. It was much required.

Also, the IAF will not be asked how to spend their money. They were asked already and got enough support - whats being dished out to all stakeholders (including HAL) is rationalization. After a long time, there is a strict GOI in place which doesn't feed off the nice commissions imports bring in & even the IAF needs a change in mindset to make the LCA Mk2 a success. Otherwise we'd have more of the usual hand waving from all concerned with the IAF thinking imports around the corner would save them. There needs to be a change in mindset across the board and things need to be done.

For instance, the IAF needs to focus on serviceability of existing types - instead of splitting its scarce resources across multiple new programs. That alone + induction of new PGMs and force multipliers will make a sea change to the IAFs combat edge.
Last edited by Karan M on 24 May 2015 23:36, edited 1 time in total.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 24 May 2015 23:34

Raksha Mantri says 36 is it, so that is what IAF plans have to assume. So there is a 90 plane gap; for now it's to be filled by LCA Mk II. MOD has to allocate resources to get design completed and manufacturing capability established in good time, or the IAF will get dangerously weak.

It's pointless to debate about F-16/F-18. All I will say is that IAF has a lot of respect for these planes too. The PAF F-16 Block 52 with AMRAAM is a deadly opponent. Add AESA, etc and it becomes even more dangerous.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 24 May 2015 23:42

eklavya wrote:Raksha Mantri says 36 is it, so that is what IAF plans have to assume. So there is a 90 plane gap; for now it's to be filled by LCA Mk II. MOD has to allocate resources to get design completed and manufacturing capability established in good time, or the IAF will get dangerously weak.


Suffice to say the Raksha Mantri in private and detailed consultations with the IAF will have more data to present. The Su-30 deal went from 40,to 50, to another 140, then another 80 odd aircraft. Plans change but the balls in Dassaults court now.

It's pointless to debate about F-16/F-18.


If its pointless, then go tell that to George Welch who has been whinging for days now about those pore babies got badly treated by the mean IAF and namecalling the IAF for having the temerity to reject these icons of excellence. :rotfl:

All I will say is that IAF has a lot of respect for these planes too. The PAF F-16 Block 52 with AMRAAM is a deadly opponent. Add AESA, etc and it becomes even more dangerous.


The IAF will even consider Ghauris and Nodongs from North Korea, as antiquated as they are, dangerous for the overall capability they represent. Doesn't change the fact that they are obsolete.

This rationale is one of the big reasons the MMRCA deal was thrown open & the IAF started looking beyond the Mirage 2000 - as good as that plane is today, its not sufficient for tomorrow.

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

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

Postby Cosmo_R » 24 May 2015 23:48

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
Karan, the IAF was never told: "look, the budget is $8bn, work out what you want."

The IAF was told "you can have 126 fighters, evaluate these 6 and tells us which 2 are technically the best, we will work out which of these 2 is cheapest, and buy you 126 of these".

Turns out we can't afford 126 of the two best planes. So the entire MMRCA contest is a HUGE failure of defence planning.

If IAF is given a choice of how to spend the $8bn, it may well opt for 80 F-18E/F or more F-16IN. It's wrong to call these fighters junk. They are actually absolutely deadly fighters.

36 fighters is too few.

Let's hope LCA Mk II works out. If it doesn't, we are dead. It's that serious.


+1

You've said it perfectly.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9507
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 25 May 2015 04:49

eklavya wrote:Karan, the IAF was never told: "look, the budget is $8bn, work out what you want."

The IAF was told "you can have 126 fighters, evaluate these 6 and tells us which 2 are technically the best, we will work out which of these 2 is cheapest, and buy you 126 of these".

Turns out we can't afford 126 of the two best planes. So the entire MMRCA contest is a HUGE failure of defence planning.

If IAF is given a choice of how to spend the $8bn, it may well opt for 80 F-18E/F or more F-16IN. It's wrong to call these fighters junk. They are actually absolutely deadly fighters.

36 fighters is too few.

Let's hope LCA Mk II works out. If it doesn't, we are dead. It's that serious.


Eklavya: There is a fundamental disconnect in what you are stating.

1) There is no way you are going to get 80 Rakhi Sawant (F-18) or Mallika Sherawat (F-16) for $8 billion. You are talking about setting up a maintenance infrastructure, spares, logistical support, weaponry. You cannot put the R-77, R-73, Magic II or whatever else the IAF has presently on the F-teens. At least not without some serious re-engineering which the Khans will not allow. So you have to buy the AIM-9X and the AIM-120C/D. And this is just air to air weaponry. And yes, I do realize the same is true for the Rafale as well. Not even in Neverland, will you get such a deal for $8 billion. The F-teens are legacy fighters, however they are not junk. But you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig. You can upgrade them only so much. If the Viper is such an amazing aircraft, how come the USAF is not buying the UAE spec Block 60 or the proposed Block 70 variant that was in contention for the MMRCA? Our enemy is not the United States which sends into battle not just the aircraft (F-teens) themselves, but a military and logistical capability that overwhelms the enemy. We are dealing with TSP whose most modern aircraft, is the very capable Block 52 F-16. However, to think even for a minute that the Rafale or even the Eurofighter cannot hold its own against it, is downright laughable. We might as well shut the air force down and pack our bags if that is the case.

By the way, even George Welch will not sell them to you for $8 billion :mrgreen: We call that voodoo mathematics.

Let me provide the analogy of a high end sports car (a crude example and I do realize that a fighter aircraft is a lot more complex than a high end sports car). The Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 has a power to weight ratio of 438 bhp/tonne. The Lamborghini Countach 5000 QV has a power to weight ratio of 301 bhp/tonne. The Aventador will run circles around the Countach. You can even do an engine swap - remove the Aventador's engine and put it in the Countach's engine bay (if it fits) - and still the Aventador will beat the Countach. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig. You will get laid in either car…but I can guarantee you are getting laid a lot quicker (not the actual act itself) in the Aventador. Losers (F-teens) always whine about their best, but winners (Rafale) go home and f**k the prom queen. The F-teens are great aircraft though. For example, I would feel safest in a Growler if I am going in for a SEAD mission.

2) Two successive governments are to blame for this mess. The first - the Vajpayee govt which had His Holiness George Fernandes at the helm of the MoD - made the monumental blunder of changing this into a multi aircraft competition, when all the IAF wanted were 126 Mirage 2000s to begin with. In 2004, along came His Beatitude AK Antony who made the mess even worse and now he has the audacity to question Manohar Parrikar’s judgement (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/former-d ... nce-765520) on the deal. There is stupidity and then there is delusion. I don’t know which H.B. Antony is suffering more from.

3) The way you guys (not you eklavya) are whining about the cost is as if it is your own money or money you got from your wife’s family as dowry. Please. Stop PMSing. And yes I know, the GoI earns some ( :) ) of its money from taxes, so it is actually our money. But the GoI loses way more than $30 billion - the last proposed figure for the 126 aircraft from Dassault - in scams and yet none of you guys whine about that. Relax. The GoI is a big boy. They can and will manage. The IAF is bleeding squadrons and the current govt is doing what it can, with what it can afford.

4) If anyone thinks only 36 aircraft are coming, then I would humbly suggest you take a walk along the yellow brick road with Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of the Oz. I do not think it is going to be 90 additional aircraft, but perhaps another squadron or two more. And yes I realise you are quoting Manohar Parrikar, but things do change. None of us can predict the future, not even the honorable Raksha Mantri himself.

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 » 25 May 2015 05:11

The focus has to e LCA (and AMCA) and NOT Rafale.

IF one were to look at the Rafale in isolation it is bound to be a very expensive proposition - no doubt.

RM has already provided the proper equation: spend on the 36 Rafale planes - which has got to account for the life-cycle costs and spend the rest on an Indian plane. The ONLY way this is going to be a bad deal is if the LCA is a dud.

Q: Do we expect the LCA to be a dud?

I do not think it would be.

I expect some delays, perhaps planes that do not conform to ASRs 100%, etc, but not a dud (I, do not accept that the LCA is late, it took 30 years to build and is not there yet, etc - so please refrain from such args - they are silly at best).

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9507
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 25 May 2015 05:14

NRao wrote:The focus has to e LCA (and AMCA) and NOT Rafale.

IF one were to look at the Rafale in isolation it is bound to be a very expensive proposition - no doubt.

The same is true for the F-teens, the Eurofighter and the Gripen. It is no doubt very expensive.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 25 May 2015 08:42

Its simple mathematics. When two aircraft cost approximately the same to develop i.e. $40-$60 billion, but the projected sales of one total 2400-3100 and the other projects sales of 200-300, guess which aircraft will be be sold cheaper? Not to add that besides recovery of development costs, the marginal cost of production for each aircraft will be obviously lower for the aircraft sold in larger volumes simply because materials and components will be cheaper as they will also be ordered in bulk. That is the story of the Rafale and the F35.

There is no way with the scale of production that France has that it's aircraft will ever be cheaper than the US. The reason Airbus has similar pricing to Boeing is because of similar volumes of scale, allegations of Government/military subsidies from both sides notwithstanding. Unless Rafale sells in the thousands, its pricing will always be more expensive.

There is a belief that India has an aversion to buying frontline US fighter aircraft. While that may or may not be true, the fact is that India is caught between a rock and a hard place. The hardening US position and sanctions against Russia (post Ukraine) have resulted in the Russians moving closer to China with inevitable sharing of ever higher levels of Russian technology with the Chinese. If US-Russian relations do not improve, Russia will be forced to stay close to China resulting in a negative impact on Indian Russian military relations. And in the absence of an equation with the US, the only other game in the world for India are the Europeans - prohibitively expensive due to low volumes. That is the 36 Rafale story and it doesn't matter if India buys 360 Rafale, it will theoretically not be possible to reduce the flyaway cost per unit by a huge margin, though there will be economies of scale at the operating end.

Either the LCA Mk 2 and AMCA succeed to an extent that they are capable of handling whatever the PLAAF develops with Russian help and whatever else they steal as they always do or India has to rethink its aversion to US frontline aircraft.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

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

Postby Nikhil T » 25 May 2015 09:57

Rakesh I agree with your sentiment that the teens might not be right for us but can't agree with
If the Viper is such an amazing aircraft, how come the USAF is not buying the UAE spec Block 60 or the proposed Block 70 variant that was in contention for the MMRCA?


USAF has completely different needs than IAF. They've always strived to be a whole generation or two ahead of anything Soviet/Russian/Chinese forces can throw at them. We have no such aspirations. USAF also has tens of billions of money to spend each year- IAF has $3b in capital outlay for planes this year (not just fighters, mind you) and 90%+ of our budget is for existing commitments. Anyone who claims that finding $30 billion is not a problem because the GoI is a 'big boy' now is ignoring the realities. Our budget documents will show how little money is actually available.

Point is we need to extract the biggest buck for our buck especially with a rapidly growing PLAAF and more capable PAF. I'm not sure 36 odd Rafales is the best bet considering we're paying a long way upwards of $150M for each bird. We should've gone for something cheaper and acquired in at least 4 squadrons.

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

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

Postby kmkraoind » 25 May 2015 18:08

Russia's Landmark $2Bln Deal With Egypt for MiG Fighter Jets

Russia has agreed to deliver 46 MiG-29 air superiority fighters to Egypt and is soon expected to sign a deal worth approximately $2 billion


It means, Russia had tried to rip-off India. By this calculation 138 Miggies cost just 6 Billion.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_22539 » 25 May 2015 18:14

^Ah, but for th MMRCA they offered super duper thrust vectoring AESA carrying (paper) plane the Mig-35.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 25 May 2015 18:31

Forgotten Arun boy,didn't you see it perform at one the previous the Aero_Indias? It did! :rotfl:

Now that Egyptian deal if accurate,gives you an excellent idea what the MIG-29 costs today. The RuAF had earlier ordered MIG-29s for approx. just under $30M a pop. 16 aircraft at around $480M, it included ground support and test eqpt.
(Russian Air Force orders MiG-29 SMT Fulcrum multirole aircraft. 17 April 2014
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ft-4216311)
India's MIG-29Ks,heavier with added features for carrier ops have a unit cost for approx. $32M each.

The MIG-29 in its many avatars,is probably the most cost-effective med fighter today. I would expect some keen observing of this deal by the MOD/IAF with the scarcity of funds in the kitty.Simplest way to augment numbers barring desi LCA MK-1s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9507
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 25 May 2015 19:51

Nikhil T wrote:USAF has completely different needs than IAF. They've always strived to be a whole generation or two ahead of anything Soviet/Russian/Chinese forces can throw at them. We have no such aspirations. USAF also has tens of billions of money to spend each year- IAF has $3b in capital outlay for planes this year (not just fighters, mind you) and 90%+ of our budget is for existing commitments. Anyone who claims that finding $30 billion is not a problem because the GoI is a 'big boy' now is ignoring the realities. Our budget documents will show how little money is actually available. Point is we need to extract the biggest buck for our buck especially with a rapidly growing PLAAF and more capable PAF. I'm not sure 36 odd Rafales is the best bet considering we're paying a long way upwards of $150M for each bird. We should've gone for something cheaper and acquired in at least 4 squadrons.

Nikhil, where in my post did I ever claim that the GOI needs to spend $30 billion for 126 fighters? What I did say and I reiterate again here - The IAF is bleeding squadrons and the current govt is doing what it can, with what it can afford. The reality is that we cannot afford 126 Rafales for $30 billion. Perhaps H.B. Antony thought he could just print money. Who knows! But another reality is that the IAF is bleeding and what are we going to do to stop the bleeding? Bring in the Tejas that the IAF is reluctantly accepting in the Mk.1 avatar? Not a chance.

So what is the solution? We are mixing up a whole host of issues and then parsing it as stone cold truth.

Myth #1: We need to buy F-18s or F-16s or whatever else, as they are more cost effective.
Truth: Is the fact that the Super Hornet and the Super Viper went through a stringent testing process by the IAF along with the other contenders (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-35) completely lost on BRFites here? Did we just all go through a form of collective amnesia? Or are posters here claiming that they know better, than the IAF who will actually use these aircraft in the varied terrain that the IAF operates in? The IAF's goal was to test all the aircraft and find out which was the best one suited to its needs. Another truth is that none of the aircraft - even the Rafale and the Eurofighter - met all the parameters that the IAF wanted. The Eurocanards were the closest and thus by virtue of merit, they were selected to move on to the next stage which was cost negotiation, in which the IAF plays no part whatsoever. Raksha Mantri Parrikar himself stated that in plain English a while back.

Myth #2: 36 Rafales are not going to do anything for the IAF.
Truth: Going by that logic neither were the 49 Mirage 2000s that the IAF bought in the mid-80s. But it was the Mirage 2000 and the Bofors gun that won the war in Kargil. Both weapon platforms that were maligned for being too expensive when they were bought. When your H&D is being saved, who is really thinking about cost at that moment? And may I remind everyone that after these 49 Mirage 2000s were purchased, it was decided that no more will be bought. This was in the 80s, after the MiG-29 came on board. Surprise, Surprise...an additional 10 Mirage 2000s were bought in 2004. And prior to that - in 2001 - the IAF wanted to license produce 126 Mirage 2000s in India. I really wonder why!!!! Dassault even agreed to transfer the entire production line to India, but that went the way of the dodo and out came the MMRCA RFP. What a waste of an opportunity, but only in India do we never follow the adage - a bird in hand, is worth more than two in the bush. Even if we can establish at least a first line of servicing for the Rafale in India, imagine the opportunities that could come our way. Qatar and Egypt are also customers. Think of the possibilities. Allow the current govt to work out the deal, let us read the fine print and if it is just a screwdriver-giri relationship...then I will be the first to criticize. We complain about DDMitis, but I think we need to apply that term to some in here as well.

So where do we go from here?

1) IMHO, get all the used Dash 5s we can get our hands on. Qatar was interested in selling back in the mid 2000s. Go back there again and see if they are still interested in selling. Greece does not have two pennies to rub together. Perhaps they may be willing to offload some of their Dash 5s as well. Knock on the door of the UAE-AF as well. No harm in asking, they are donating Mirage 2000s to Iraq for crying out loud. You are talking about a force build up rather expediently, much more than Katrina, Tejas, PAK-FA or whatever else. Maintenance infrastructure is already set up, spares are available, pilots are there. And if this goes through, point 3 (see below) may not even be necessary. It is a win-win situation for all parties.

2) Ramp up production of the Tejas, even in its Mk.1 form it is infinitely better than the MiG-21. Stop waiting for the Mk.2 to arrive. And if there is an objection, force the decision. And if the objection still continues, request the resignation of the concerned individual(s). You are taking it, warts and all. We will remove the warts later.

3) Sign the Rafale deal. Expensive, but then the same would be true for the Eurofighter as well. The only two fighters that came close to the IAF's technical requirements.

4) Learn from this lesson. An expensive lesson nonetheless. Dassault is gonna rape us when it comes time to upgrade the Katrina, just like the Dash 5 upgrade we just got raped on. We SDREs are like this onlee.

ldev wrote:Its simple mathematics. When two aircraft cost approximately the same to develop i.e. $40-$60 billion, but the projected sales of one total 2400-3100 and the other projects sales of 200-300, guess which aircraft will be be sold cheaper? Not to add that besides recovery of development costs, the marginal cost of production for each aircraft will be obviously lower for the aircraft sold in larger volumes simply because materials and components will be cheaper as they will also be ordered in bulk. That is the story of the Rafale and the F35.

Dev Saab: The only reason why Rakhi Sawant is cheaper, is because of the massive USN order (500+ aircraft). You are correct. It is economies of scale. I just happened to look at her operators and apart from the USN, it is only the RAAF and now the Kuwait Air Force that are flying her. She is in competition in other countries and against other aircraft as well. A great aircraft, and I say again - I would feel most safe in the Growler variant, if I was going in for a SEAD mission - but not suited for India as per the IAF's own technical evaluation. That combined with the fact, a purchase like this brings in a whole host of geopolitical considerations and let's be honest - the Khan is really not that reliable in times of war.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby member_22539 » 25 May 2015 20:21

Philip wrote:Forgotten Arun boy


Oh thank you :D , the gray hairs were worrying me these days.

The Egyptians need russian flying crap to fight ISIS and their own terrorists, but with anything worthwhile in it, it will become expensive russian flying crap. The stuff our IAF and Navy guys have to do to keep it flying is a sad testament to the levels MIG has sunk to.

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

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

Postby chaanakya » 25 May 2015 22:34

I inherited stalemate from Antony, Manohar Parrikar says

NEW DELHI: Taking on his predecessor AK Antony, defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Monday said the Congress leader cannot "escape" the responsibility for the "stalemate" that he created during his tenure.

The minister accused Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi of raising important issues including "one rank, one pension" (OROP) without understanding it.

A combative Parrikar, who has been accused by the Congress of "compromising national security", said it took the brief spell of Arun Jaitley as the defence minister to start "moving the wheels" in the sector.

However, he said, he will not assess the damage caused due to the "stalemate".

"He (Antony) cannot escape the responsibility but I will not assess the level of damage because everyone has a style of functioning," Parrikar told PTI in an interview.


"What I inherited was stalemate. Arunji had tried and started moving the wheels. But in many issues, there was hardly any time for him because he was there only for five months. But he had started moving the wheels. I think I have started putting speed on that."

READ ALSO: Congress assails Modi govt over Rafale deal, downsizing of attack corps along China border

He also wondered how can "anyone get away from the responsibility if something has not gone well".

Parrikar said he can give an excuse of paucity of time if somebody questions him why he has not completed the unfinished tasks since he has been in the ministry only for seven months.

"After one year, I still can complain that I could not complete many of my tasks. But if after two years, I complain that still many are pending, then I think I have no right to complain," he said.

READ ALSO: Army making targeted kills of terrorists in J&K, Parrikar says

Last week, Antony attacked Parrikar for compromising on national security and questioned the high-profile Rafale warplane deal Prime Minister Narendra Modi clinched with French President Francois Hollande last month.

The minister also took on Rahul saying he was raising issues without understanding the subjects.

"These people don't have deep study," he said, adding Congress has been talking about many things without knowing what it is.

READ ALSO: 'Make in India' plan lacks clarity, admits Parrikar

"Yesterday, their general secretary (sic) Rahul was talking about OROP. He says he had kept Rs 500 crore. I will sign it tomorrow if it is Rs 500 crore," Parrikar said
.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 25 May 2015 22:41

He should bloody well expose Antony for the disaster he was.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19664
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 25 May 2015 22:53

kmkraoind wrote:Russia's Landmark $2Bln Deal With Egypt for MiG Fighter Jets

Russia has agreed to deliver 46 MiG-29 air superiority fighters to Egypt and is soon expected to sign a deal worth approximately $2 billion


It means, Russia had tried to rip-off India. By this calculation 138 Miggies cost just 6 Billion.


LOL, in a few years time, expect the Egyptians to complain about how:

- The MiG-29s don't work as promised (Algerian MiG-29s) and requires more work which customer has to pay for (IN MiG-29K)
- The spares support is abysmal (India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Poland, Czech republic and whosoever has purchased MiG-29s)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests