IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 21 Jul 2015 09:11

ramana wrote:
Rakesh IAF wanted English Electric Lightning. It was well known then. Mig 21 was forced on IAF as FSU was willing to set up mfg in India.

You're partially right, the IAF wanted the EEL after it had been denied the F-104.

Don't know which was better. Both were lawn darts.

I have had one joyride in an EEL. I have commanded a MiG21 squadron. The Mig wins in comparison hands down.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2015 11:06

Rakesh is spot on.As I've just mentioned in another td.,it is the innovative manner in which you use the weaponry you have that matters in the end. The past wars with Pak have shown the Indian armed forces to be highly innovative,improving upon the parameters of eqpt. in service.The great Adm. Gorshkov congratulated the IN on the raids on Karachi after ,saying that "your boys have taught us new tricks" (first person quote).He was also reported to have danced a jig in Moscow when he heard the news of the attacks by the Osas. Lumbering AN-12 transports were used as bombers. "Sam the Man" and Gen's Aurora,Jacob etc.,swept through E.Pak's riverine terrain like lightning using PT-76s and heli-drops,capturing 95,000 Paki troops,the largest capture since WW2!

Innovation was shown at Kargil too,MIG-29s as top cover scaring off the Paki F-16s as they were known to be better in A-2-A combat,allowing the M-2000s to burn and blast the backsides off the Paki scumbags (with precision munitions) who invaded our Himalayan heights. The IA's accurate arty fire using Bofors guns was also a novel first for such terrain.

With the Indian economy in the last 2 decades improved from CW days,there has been a trend for us to want the "best of the West".But these come at significant cost, unlike Chinese/Russian wares at "friendship" prices in the past,as we're finding out with the Rafale deal. I came across an interesting titbit from a recent Vayu issue. The Kazakhs have just acquired 7 SU-30s ,equiv to MKI std.,at cost of just $250M.This works out to just $35M an aircraft.It was mentioned that the Russians have a special "rouble rate" for the countries aligned to it from Central Asia,part of its security circle.This special rate was also mentioned for India. The services must learn how to divide their requirements according to their share of the budget and the MOD/GOI to establish what the highest priorities are in terms of eqpt.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 21 Jul 2015 11:15

As somebody said in this thread
1 Rafale =2 Mkis=4 Mig29s
36 Rafale = 144 Mig29s
So, if IAF does not want Tejas , give them Mig29s.
Squadron deficit and Budget deficit will be all under control.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 21 Jul 2015 17:46

India to get Rafale planes from France with IAF-approved configuration: Government

The 36 Rafale combat planes and associated systems and weapons would be delivered in the same configuration as had been tested and approved by Indian Air Force, and with a longer maintenance responsibility by France, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on Tuesday.

As per the India-France Joint Statement issued during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to France earlier this year, the Indian government conveyed to France that in view of the critical operational necessity for multirole combat aircraft for IAF, it would like to acquire 36 Rafale jets in fly-away condition as quickly as possible.

The two leaders agreed to conclude an inter-governmental agreement for supply of the aircraft on terms that would be better than conveyed by Dassault Aviation, manufacturer of the combat plane, as part of a separate process underway and the delivery would be in time-frame that would be compatible with the operational requirement of IAF, he said in a written reply in Rajya Sabha.

The aircraft and associated systems and weapons would be delivered on the same configuration as had been tested and approved by IAF, and with a longer maintenance responsibility by France, he said.

A negotiating team has been constituted to negotiate the terms and conditions of the procurement of 36 Rafale jet planes and recommend the draft agreement.

The meetings of the Indian negotiating team with the French side have commenced, Parrikar said

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 21 Jul 2015 18:01

Now that Vayusena wants 80 Raf minimum, it is getting 36, I hope it does not hold induction of any new ones till it gets its 80 (like MKI or LCA). MKI prod in India comes to end this year (per plan). They should order more as we are 50% of our desired strength (500 short). Maybe IN can use 1 SQ of MKI in place of Jag (or keep the jag as well), longer reach, strategically located in A&N. It can enforce panchsheel from there.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2015 19:39

SU-30MKIs as Rafale alternatives to "beef" up sqd. strength and capability.But what is the actual cost of an MKI? There are varying figs.

As briefly mentioned elsewhere.Vayu 3/15 has a report on the Kazakh acquisition of further SU-30SMs,which arrived in May this year.Russia and Kazakhstan are both members of the JTCS (Joint Treaty of Collective Security) and the first to have acquired combat aircraft from Russia signifying its importance as a Russian ally.

Price: A recent Russian contract with Irkut for 7 SU-30SMs was 12B Roubles ($240M). The report says that it is clear that there are special rates for JTCS member states payable in Roubles,conducted in a so-called "Indo-Russia Transaction" mode.

The Kazakhs have now acquired 60 SU-30SMs (with operational capability with the RuAF) and the RuN 12. if these figs are corrrect,then the cost of an SU-30SM is just approx. $35+M. Our DM earlier said that the cost of an MKI was half that of a Rafale.
However,these are the media reports about local manufacture by HAL.

IT 3 years ago:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/home ... 23960.html

The 42 new Sukhoi-30 MKI combat jets that India is looking to produce at home are going to cost much less if purchased directly from Russia.

The price negotiations with Russia have been completed and each of the top-of-the-line aircraft will cost more than Rs 350 crore, almost double the cost of the original aircraft first ordered 12 years ago.

The aircraft, which has emerged to be the mainstay of India's air power, is produced under licence by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

But the delay on the part of HAL in absorbing the technology has led to a situation where the new Sukhois will cost at least Rs 60 to Rs 70 crore less if they are procured directly from Russia, said sources. The aircraft are expected to be delivered by 2018. The original order was for 40 aircraft but two were added later.

Higher price is being paid for the new equipment that will be fitted in the aircraft and negotiators had to toil hard to bring down the price being asked by the Russians. But HAL's inability to augment its production facilities has led to an additional burden on the exchequer.

Air chief NAK Browne said last week that four new Sukhoi squadrons are being raised.

India had signed a contract in 2000 with Russia for purchase of 140 aircraft for Rs 22,12,278 crore and as per the cost escalation risk calculated by HAL in 2005, the price of the deal would have gone up to Rs 39,224.09 crore.

Here's a comp. report:
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... icost.html

How much does a Su-30MKI cost?

The Russian origin Sukhoi-30MKI is Indian Air force's Primary multirole fighter. Many deals were signed with varying costs and other factors. Here is a comprehensive research on how much it costs.

Deal 1(30th Nov 1996): 40 Su-30 jets(8 Su-30K(or MK1), 8 Su-30MK2, 12 Su-30MK3 & 12 Su-30MKI) costs Rs 5,122 crore($1,462 million).
Deal 2(Sep 1998): 10 Su-30K jets costs Rs 1,187 crore($277.01 million). Unit cost $27.7 million.
There was also an additional expenditure of Rs 1,188 crore for indigenous development and import of avionics system for the Su-30MKI. A new deal worth $270 million for replacing the Su-30K acquired in Deals 1 & 2 with new MKIs, was reported. But the status of this deal is unknown.
Reference 1

Deal 3(Oct-Dec 2000): 140 Su-30MKI jets to be manufactured by HAL at a total cost of $4,809 million(Rs 22,122.78 crore). $4,809 million includes: Cost for license, ToT(Transfer of Technology), assistance & for setting up the production line in HAL(Hindustan Aeronautics Limited), $350 million or less for components procured from Irkut which wasn't manufactured by HAL, 26 aircraft kits supplied by Irkut & assembled by HAL, and the actual production in HAL. So the average cost of the HAL manufactured fighter is $34.35 million.

But that's not the whole story. Rs 22,122.78 crore for 140 aircraft in 2000 had to be revised to Rs 39,224.09 crore in July 2005. The cost is now estimated to be more than Rs 45,000 crore. For exchange rate of 46 Rupees for every U.S dollar that translates to $4809 million, $8527 million & $9783 million respectively. So price of each HAL manufactured Su-30MKI has increased from $34.35 million in 2000, to $61 million in 2005, to finally $70 million currently, according to CAG's(Comptroller and Auditor General of India) estimation.
Reference 2

Deal 4(March 2007): In addition to licensed manufacture of 140 SU-30 aircraft by M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a contact for procurement of additional 40 SU-30 MKI was signed with M/s HAL in 2007. M/s HAL would be procuring the technical kits from Russia and assembling the aircraft. The cost of the deal was Rs 9,036.84 crore. The aircraft were to be delivered in a phased manner between 2008-11. At an exchange rate of 44.2 in March 2007, that translates to a cost of $51.1 million for a single MKI.
Reference 3
Reference 4

Deal 5: Initially it was reported that 50 Su-30MKI jets are to be acquired from HAL. Unit flyaway cost around $45 million. So the total cost will be around $2250 million. However the deal was revised to only 42 jets, which includes several upgrades. The cost of the deal is reported to be over Rs 20,000 crores or over $4 billion. That translates to an unit cost of more than $95 million!! It appears CAG's estimation of cost overruns in Deal 3 is finally allocated in this deal, or is the price of a single Su-30MKI really over $95 million? In the end it turned out that the price escalation had a simple explanation and had nothing to with "Russian Treachery" or MOD corruption. It was as usual, dumb reporting from unprofessional Indian media outlets. The deal stipulates that the 42 Su-30MKI will be delivered to India, by Irkutsk, in semi-knocked down condition, at a cost of only 38 million dollars each.
Reference 5
Reference 6
Reference 6
Reference 7 - Each MKI to cost 38 Million dollars each

But we're now manufacturing MKIs 70% material from local sources.Can someone provide the latest official figs please?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Jul 2015 19:55

Abhibhushan wrote: ....
I have had one joyride in an EEL. I have commanded a MiG21 squadron. The Mig wins in comparison hands down.

I was opining that both the EEL and the F-104 were lawn darts. The Luftwaffe had ~300 F-104 crashes.
Not go OT here but some interesting chatter on why

http://yarchive.net/mil/german_f104_losses.html

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 22 Jul 2015 23:54

Rakesh,

This conversation is worth having. I will be electronically off the grid for a bit but will return to your reply when electrons permit.

As a summary, I leave this here:

1. There is no argument about "future" course that product development should take. Only diverse opinion of the "interim" -- upgrades and such. This needs to be discussed and laid to rest first.

2. We disagree on the technology level of the "enemy" against whom "war" might occur today -- Either it is ghosts or biplanes.

3. We disagree that there are such things as "negotiation devices", plan B projects that are never meant to become products.

Feel free to add if I missed something, whether results of an exercise would be replicated in operation, or what aircraft is combat proven or not are really not material disputes of points of view.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jul 2015 19:02

Indian demands put Rafale deal in jeopardy, say sources
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Industry

http://www.janes.com/article/53244/indi ... ay-sources

India's differences with France over the cost of 36 Dassault Rafale fighters are believed to have been further complicated by Indian Air Force (IAF) demands to 'customise' some of the platforms' on-board systems, industry sources have told IHS Jane's .

They said the IAF wanted some avionics and weapon systems in the Rafale "modified and reconfigured" to enable the eventual installation of indigenously developed and commercial-off-the-shelf systems and weapons.

This could include India's 80 km-range Astra beyond-visual-range-air-to-air missile, which is under development.

Industry sources told IHS Jane's that these projected modifications, and the attendant re-certification to accommodate them, would hike the cost of the Rafale deal, which remains unsigned due to the issue of offsets.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jul 2015 19:53

It's an old plane and old design. If it was contemprary, changing would have been easy.

Hello IAF and welcome to your troubles with off the shelf purchases!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2015 19:58

This should be one acquisition lesson as far as baking these sorts of things into the RFP is concerned. But then the initial purchase was supposed to allow technology transfer that could have potentially allowed for a much smoother integration of capability.

Full article -

India's differences with France over the cost of 36 Dassault Rafale fighters are believed to have been further complicated by Indian Air Force (IAF) demands to 'customise' some of the platforms' on-board systems, industry sources have told IHS Jane's .

They said the IAF wanted some avionics and weapon systems in the Rafale "modified and reconfigured" to enable the eventual installation of indigenously developed and commercial-off-the-shelf systems and weapons.

This could include India's 80 km-range Astra beyond-visual-range-air-to-air missile, which is under development.

Industry sources told IHS Jane's that these projected modifications, and the attendant re-certification to accommodate them, would hike the cost of the Rafale deal, which remains unsigned due to the issue of offsets.

These proposed alterations would also delay Rafale transfers to the IAF, which is third in Dassault's delivery queue after Egypt and Qatar.

Meanwhile, under the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) through which the 36 Rafales are being acquired, India is insisting that Dassault invest 50% of the overall contract price as offsets in its domestic defence or internal security sectors.

France, however, is believed to have told the Indian delegation that is in Paris for negotiation that offsets would make the Rafale purchase more expensive than the deal the two countries' leaders agreed in April.

Industry sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Francois Hollande had reportedly decided that the IAF would buy 36 Rafales for the same price that Dassault sells them to the French Air Force. The two leaders are also believed to have agreed that the terms and conditions of the fighter sale, including maintenance responsibilities, would be largely similar.

Since that meeting, however, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has said in a number of media interviews that India had secured a "bargain" USD8 billion deal for the Rafale that include a 50% offset obligation.

On 24 July Parrikar told parliament that under the IGA, the terms of the Rafale purchase would be "better than [those] conveyed by Dassault Aviation as part of a separate process underway" but declined to elaborate.

The minister was referring to negotiations that began in early 2012 - but have since been discontinued - to import 18 Rafales and licence-build 108 to meet the IAF's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement.

He did not place a timeframe on concluding the deal, but said the government aimed to acquire the Rafales "as quickly as possible".

Comment

The recent statements by Indian officials on the Rafale deal has unnecessarily raised expectations and once again led the negotiations towards deadlock.

"Second-guessing the under-negotiation Rafale contract in public statements was erroneous on Parrikar's part and has made it difficult for the negotiation process to continue smoothly and be swiftly concluded," a senior industry official said.

In particular, Parrikar's public claims of offset obligations will force the government into a corner if the final contract cost excludes offsets. However, if it does include offsets then it will almost certainly result in a substantially higher purchase price, which would also be difficult for Parrikar to justify.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2015 20:15

Philip wrote:SU-30MKIs as Rafale alternatives to "beef" up sqd. strength and capability.But what is the actual cost of an MKI? There are varying figs.

As briefly mentioned elsewhere.Vayu 3/15 has a report on the Kazakh acquisition of further SU-30SMs,which arrived in May this year.Russia and Kazakhstan are both members of the JTCS (Joint Treaty of Collective Security) and the first to have acquired combat aircraft from Russia signifying its importance as a Russian ally.

Price: A recent Russian contract with Irkut for 7 SU-30SMs was 12B Roubles ($240M). The report says that it is clear that there are special rates for JTCS member states payable in Roubles,conducted in a so-called "Indo-Russia Transaction" mode.

The Kazakhs have now acquired 60 SU-30SMs (with operational capability with the RuAF) and the RuN 12. if these figs are corrrect,then the cost of an SU-30SM is just approx. $35+M. Our DM earlier said that the cost of an MKI was half that of a Rafale.
However,these are the media reports about local manufacture by HAL.

.......

36 Rafale's buy you 252,000 operational hours before you need to go and spend money on SLEP. To match that the MKI fleet needs 63-84 aircraft depending on whether the airframe is a 3000 hour frame or a 4000 hour frame. From a fleet planning point of view, the Rafale gets you capability that goes out much beyond the MKI..without you having to resort to buying more a decade to two down the line to fill up future_year utilization. The argument that 84 Sukhois will be at different places than 36 is of little utility here since you do not buy them all at once without running the risk of using all of their net-operational life in equal amount of time. Operational availability is another factor in determining fleet priorities.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jul 2015 20:24

If that is the argument of buying 36 rafales vs 63 MKI's, I wonder how many LCA are required to retire the whole assortment of mig-21 fleet? 20?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2015 20:29

Lets say the Mig-21 fleet numbers 50 and has40,000 fleet cumulative hours left. Each aircraft flies 150 hours per year for a total fleet life is around 5 and a half years. The LCA strength isnt determined by the 40,000 hours but by the annual flying each one of those Mig-21 pilots needs beyond his particular airframe. So you need a number that is around 50 just to maintain that capability (won't go into availability for now since it adds another layer of complexity, but you may well require less number of LCA's because they have higher availability due to being more modern, and young). The LCA is going to serve in the IAF much beyond whatever hours are left on the Mig-21 frames (if any) when they are retired as the LCA comes in. Simply put at 200-250 hours per aircraft per year, a 3000 hour airframe will need a major life extension as early as 12 years and even with it is going to retire a 1000 or so hours later. A 7000 hour airframe will last you 28 years before requiring a SLEP that may also add 1000 or more hours to its life.

When you make fleet decisions you take such things into account. Spending 50 Million on a fighter (just as an example) that is good for maybe 12 +6 years needs to be properly compared to something that can costs $100 Million (again an example) and doesn't require a SLEP for 28 years. The reason why the west adopted the higher airframe life model (one of them anyway) that even Russia is now moving towards with the flanker family was because the future year cost of buying the same aircraft was significantly higher due to inflation and other factors...The trick was to get the airframes performing well within the performance and cost margins even at higher airframe lives..and this is something that has been a learning process that is improved over time.

Cybaru wrote:If that is the argument of buying 36 rafales vs 63 MKI's, I wonder how many LCA are required to retire the whole assortment of mig-21 fleet? 20?

You don't buy all 63 (I think the number may be 80+ since the MKI may be designed around a 3000 hour airframe life) at once unless you have the need to i.e. you need 63 aircraft. If you do buy them at once, you still loose them around the same time once the 3000 hours are exhausted leaving you to begin another round of acquisition around the 15-20th year post initial purchase. Of course this does not in any way diminish the importance of buying 63 or 84 if you need 63 or 84 but that is a requirements thing. If the requirements is for 100 MMRCA type fighters and the IAF will ONLY BE Getting 36 then yes it makes a little more sense to buy a cheaper acquisition program and buy more numerical aircraft. But when you compare cost you have to do an apples to apples comparison and when you compare a 3000 hour frame to a 7000 hour frame for example on pure acquisition cost you are missing the point that the latter airframe has been designed to last more than 2x longer and there is a cost component to get to that. The same would apply if you compare the MKI to another hypothetical fighter that has a 1500 hour airframe life.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Jul 2015 22:04

Is it not that Astra integration is going to provide more options to future customers of Rafale helping France to sell more fighters and hence we must get the aircraft for a lesser price?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jul 2015 22:45

brar_w wrote:Lets say the Mig-21 fleet numbers 50 and has40,000 fleet cumulative hours left. Each aircraft flies 150 hours per year for a total fleet life is around 5 and a half years. The LCA strength isnt determined by the 40,000 hours but by the annual flying each one of those Mig-21 pilots needs beyond his particular airframe. So you need a number that is around 50 just to maintain that capability (won't go into availability for now since it adds another layer of complexity, but you may well require less number of LCA's because they have higher availability due to being more modern, and young). The LCA is going to serve in the IAF much beyond whatever hours are left on the Mig-21 frames (if any) when they are retired as the LCA comes in. Simply put at 200-250 hours per aircraft per year, a 3000 hour airframe will need a major life extension as early as 12 years and even with it is going to retire a 1000 or so hours later. A 7000 hour airframe will last you 28 years before requiring a SLEP that may also add 1000 or more hours to its life.

When you make fleet decisions you take such things into account. Spending 50 Million on a fighter (just as an example) that is good for maybe 12 +6 years needs to be properly compared to something that can costs $100 Million (again an example) and doesn't require a SLEP for 28 years. The reason why the west adopted the higher airframe life model (one of them anyway) that even Russia is now moving towards with the flanker family was because the future year cost of buying the same aircraft was significantly higher due to inflation and other factors...The trick was to get the airframes performing well within the performance and cost margins even at higher airframe lives..and this is something that has been a learning process that is improved over time.

Cybaru wrote:If that is the argument of buying 36 rafales vs 63 MKI's, I wonder how many LCA are required to retire the whole assortment of mig-21 fleet? 20?
You don't buy all 63 (I think the number may be 80+ since the MKI may be designed around a 3000 hour airframe life) at once unless you have the need to i.e. you need 63 aircraft. If you do buy them at once, you still loose them around the same time once the 3000 hours are exhausted leaving you to begin another round of acquisition around the 15-20th year post initial purchase. Of course this does not in any way diminish the importance of buying 63 or 84 if you need 63 or 84 but that is a requirements thing. If the requirements is for 100 MMRCA type fighters and the IAF will ONLY BE Getting 36 then yes it makes a little more sense to buy a cheaper acquisition program and buy more numerical aircraft. But when you compare cost you have to do an apples to apples comparison and when you compare a 3000 hour frame to a 7000 hour frame for example on pure acquisition cost you are missing the point that the latter airframe has been designed to last more than 2x longer and there is a cost component to get to that. The same would apply if you compare the MKI to another hypothetical fighter that has a 1500 hour airframe life.

Thanks for the explanation, I will have to go through it again to understand it all.

Where did you get the number of 3000 hours of Sukhoi? Is it total life without extension? What is it's total life with extensions? What about rafale? Wouldn't that be a better metric to compare?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2015 23:22

I don't have the exact data on the airframe hour life, but I have 3000-4000 numbered being thrown around. I'll try to find something more definite later this week.

http://www.russiadefence.net/t2431-su-30mki-vs-su-35s

Is it total life without extension? What is it's total life with extensions? What about rafale? Wouldn't that be a better metric to compare?

Number is without life extension. For the Rafale I have seen both 6000 and 7000 hours pre SLEP. SLEP will prolong the life of both. The F-16 for example has already been cleared for 12000 hour service life, however SLEP costs money and your O&M cost rises...For the LCA I have been told (here) that it is 4000 hours.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jul 2015 00:04

It would be silly for the manufacturer to make a frame that does not even last 20 years and to put that in a brochure and try and sell it. Airframe is the cheapest portion of the unit anyways. I have heard the 3000 hour number for the engine, but I would think that airframe would have 200 hours * 30 years minimum = 6000 hours whatever you buy today.

I remember reading 6000 hour engine life for the 404/414 engines that we were buying. I would think the LCA airframe would be atleast outlast the engine.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2015 00:09

4000 hours is what I have been told. The engine on western fighters stays as is with parts being replaced. I have a detailed post on what components are replaced (and when) on the F404/414 family earlier. The engines do not last 6000 hours without overhaul of sections.

As for the MKI's engines, JANES IHS has the life (of the 3rd batch of MKI's engines) @ 2000 hours, with an overhaul at 1000 hours (Flanker for India and beyond: a modern fighter case study - Janes IDR2005-02-04).

BTW, I have also see a6000hour airframe life after 3 overhauls for the MKI being thrown around, although I am not sure if the structural testing has been conducted for that much life. I have read that the Su-35 has been cleared for 6000 hours, and the F-16 block 50's that were designed for 8000 hours have recently been given a clearance for up to 12,000 hours.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jul 2015 00:17

Yeah, that seems right 4000 hours before overhaul and 6000-7000 hours with overhauling. But that is the life of the engine correct? 6000 hours? I would think the LCA frame would alteast be that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2015 00:18

I have no idea on the LCA, all I remember is asking this on this forum and the number I got was 4000..But back to the question of cost comparison, it is always wise to level the playing field. If one aircraft has been cleared to last longer without major structural overhaul then it should get credit for it, be it 25%, 15% or 50% in terms of acquisition cost.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jul 2015 01:57

Also need to figure the actual service stress levels the airframe is being subjected to in order to determine air craft service life.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2015 02:26

ramana wrote:Also need to figure the actual service stress levels the airframe is being subjected to in order to determine air craft service life.

Correct! the modeling is done per a defined Estimated airframe hours or equivalent airframe hours. 1 hour of straight and level flight is a lot different from 10 minutes of high G or high stress maneuvering in the supersonic regime. It is essential to develop a model. Of course all models are only as good as assumptions. The USN and USMC (to a lesser extent the USAF) got butchered over the last 15 years through combat deployments that completely overshot their models for airframe fatigue and durability. As a result they had to make significant investments in overhauling and depot level capability or take an availability hit. If you are constantly deploying for 15 years to harsh conditions it will have an impact. Not every hour of flight is the same

that is why it is essential to do proper durability testing, construct solid models and keep on updating them as and when stress signs appear.

srin · Post by **srin** » 29 Jul 2015 06:35

Ajai Shukla had mentioned Sukhoi as having 6000 flying hours. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/10/ ... ashik.html

A Su-30MKI is overhauled after flying 1,500 hours or 14 years, whichever is first. Over its total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, each fighter undergoes three overhauls. Eventually the IAF’s fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs will undergo 816 overhauls --- three per fighter.

In 2010, the first IAF Su-30MKI fighters, which had joined the fleet in 2000, were due for overhaul, in accordance with the original schedule, which was 1,500 flying hours or 10 years. Since the fighters had flown far less than 1,500 hours, Sukhoi was approached to extend the time period between overhaul. After numerous inspections and “accelerated aging tests”, Sukhoi revised the overhaul schedule to 1,500 flying hours or 14 years, whichever comes first.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 30 Jul 2015 20:14

According to Reuters quoting a source involved in rafale export negotiations, two more export contracts could be signed before end of 2015 on top of the indian one : UAE and Malaysia which are at a very advanced stage in terms of negotiations acording to this source.

This source says the 36 rafale for india are a first batch and follow on orders are to be expected. Dassault CEO also reasserted that he expected a signature of the indian deal soon.

http://www.air-cosmos.com/rafale-deux-a ... 2015-41219

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 30 Jul 2015 23:25

Government withdraws tender for 126 medium multi role combat aircraft: Manohar Parrikar

NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today informed the Upper House that the Centre has withdrawn the multi-billion dollar tender for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircrafts (MMRCA), for which Rafale was shortlisted in 2012.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2015 00:04

This source says the 36 rafale for india are a first batch and follow on orders are to be expected. Dassault CEO also reasserted that he expected a signature of the indian deal soon.

Oh, why oh why?

We just got rid of the MMRCA clouds. Now these clouds?

Banish them.

I guess clouds don't learn.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jul 2015 03:05

Rafale deal: July target missed on pricing issues, India’s insistence on 50% local spending by France

NEW DELHI: The Rafale deal, rescued by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he visited France in April, has hit a government air pocket. India's insistence that France spend 50% of the value of the Rafale deal in Indian defence sector (called an offset requirement) and pricing issues have meant that India and France have missed the July target of finalising the agreement on purchasing 36 fighter jets.

Officials familiar with Rafale negotiations said higher political intervention may be required to hasten the process.

These officials did not want to be identified. While the old Rafale deal — buying 126 aircraft — has been cancelled, progress on buying 36 French jets is stalled because the French say spending 50% of the value of the deal in Indian defence sector will push up the total deal cost for India. The 36 Rafale jets were offered at just over $200 million each when the PM visited France in April, a price 25% lower than that offered to the UPA government.

The French understanding was, officials say, that the standard 30% offset obligation will apply and it will met while creating the infrastructure for Rafale.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar, however, has been insisting on 50% offset (he told ET this in an interview published on May 11) and Indian negotiators have been asking for this as well. The French have argued 50% offset obligation will not allow them to sell the jets at the price agreed upon in Paris in April. The deal size — less than $8 billion, as agreed during Modi's France visit — will also go up, officials say, if the Indian Air Force plan to create two bases for Rafale jets is accepted. Two bases will require separate, high-cost infrastructure as well as two sets of maintenance, training and armaments storage facilities.

There's also the issue of integrating third country weapon systems in French-made Indian Rafale jets. This integration will also drive up costs.

Economic Times

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jul 2015 03:08

Government withdraws tender for 126 medium multi role combat aircraft: Manohar Parrikar

NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today informed the Upper House that the Centre has withdrawn the multi-billion dollar tender for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircrafts (MMRCA), for which Rafale was shortlisted in 2012.

"The Request for Proposal (RFP) issued earlier for the procurement of 126 MMRCA has been withdrawn. In the multi-vendor procurement case, the Rafale aircraft met all the performance characteristics stipulated in the RFP during the evaluation conducted by the Indian Air Force," Parrikar said in a written reply to Rajya Sabha.

The move comes just months after the Defence Minister indicated that the over $20 billion MMRCA tender has virtually been scrapped after the government decided to purchase 36 Rafales under a government-to-government contract.

The talks for the 36 Rafales have already commenced, the Minister said.

Defence sources said that a letter was sent out to the six vendors shortlisted for the RFP, which was then the biggest aviation contract globally.

The RFP for the procurement of 126 MMRCA, at a then estimated cost of Rs 42,000 crores, was issued in 2007 to six vendors - Russia's MIG-35 (RAC MiG), Swedish JAS-39 (Gripen), Dassault Rafale ( France), American F-16 Falcon (Lockheed Martin), Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon (made by a consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian firms).

Under the terms of purchase, the first 18 MMRCA aircrafts were supposed to come in a 'fly away' condition while the remaining 108 manufactured under Transfer of Technology.

While initially the tender was valued at about $10 billion for 126 aircraft, the current price is estimated to be over $20 billion.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in April announced purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts in fly-away condition from the French government directly, sidestepping the grueling three-year negotiations for the MMRCA tender.

Economic Times

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jul 2015 03:10

Now all we need to do now is to drop this 36 aircraft poisoned chalice and we can get on with buying something that delivers value-for-money.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 31 Jul 2015 03:34

to be fair to IAF, maybe the SU30MKI may not be what it is touted to be, keeping in mind, availability, maintenance, munitions (R-77 and AG weapon), electronic ware fare etc and they need Raf. Both Mig29 and Mirage 2000 were bought at the same time, on paper Mig 29 is superior AA fighter than Mirage 2000, but in Srilanka crisis in 1987(?) it was mirages that were escorting our transport planes dropping supplies in jaffana, Again Mirages escorting transport planes to Maldives, also in Kargil, where among other thing the most important job was blasting the pig position, it was done by Mirages. So who knows

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 31 Jul 2015 05:08

With the MRCA tender being officially cancelled, it is basically an open slate now. Other aircraft, other foreign vendors, other Indian companies as collaborators, are all open now. If Rafale deal doesn't happen, there can be Govt-to-govt deals with USA, Russia, Sweden, or Germany, whoever offers best terms.

Even if offsets are agreed upon, HAL may not get any.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Jul 2015 09:08

^^^

It's unlikely that other MRCA contenders will be brought into the fray. Look both sides (France and India) have conducted extensive negotiations on ToT, 50% offsets, price, customizations, etc. for over 4 years now. All issues are well understood and lot of them have been worked out. If any deal for MRCA happens it will be Rafale. Others will take another decade to materialize if negotiations are going to start tomorrow. At that point, the IAF might as well go for the JSF.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Jul 2015 09:09

Mean-a-while ...

BureaucracyBuzz ‏@BureaucracyBuzz 10m10 minutes ago

IAF pushes for 20 more Rafale fighters from France http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 289304.cms … via @timesofindia

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jul 2015 09:16

the more lca foc delays, the more rafale gets in.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Jul 2015 09:22

BTW ... Now that the original proposal for 126 MMRCA stands withdrawn what happens if the negotiations with the French fail on pricing or localization?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jul 2015 09:37

srai wrote:It's unlikely that other MRCA contenders will be brought into the fray. Look both sides (France and India) have conducted extensive negotiations on ToT, 50% offsets, price, customizations, etc. for over 4 years now. All issues are well understood and lot of them have been worked out. If any deal for MRCA happens it will be Rafale. Others will take another decade to materialize if negotiations are going to start tomorrow. At that point, the IAF might as well go for the JSF.

The negotiations between 2011 and 2014 took place with an entirely different set of assumptions and focus was primarily on ToT and local production. The current set of negotiations in contrast are just a month old and while some of the ToT proposals may carry over (others will have been nixed by the cancelled indigenization effort), its still a fresh program encumbered by everything that normally entails.

Also, if they decided to go shopping at LockMart today (assuming the AHQ & MoD took a break from their typically incorrigible decision-making), they could get the first aircraft as early as 2019 with all 36 delivered within 24 months.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Jul 2015 09:54

Euro bird has a better chance than any American bird in case Rafale falters ... already tested and approved by the IAF.

Plus there are other issues with JSF like those 3/4 lettered agreements, TOT, localization, code sharing, customization, future weapons integration, etc

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2015 09:57

Rafale wont falter as too much water has flown and neither MOD or Dassult is hinting at it.

Most likely both parties would end in some compromise and we would end up getting 80 Rafale for the IAF and perhaps more the IN later.

I see remote hope for Eurofighter much less for JSF or any other stuff.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 31 Jul 2015 10:02

pankajs wrote:Plus there are other issues with JSF like those 3/4 lettered agreements, TOT, localization, code sharing, customization, future weapons integration, etc

All these negotiations will take time especially those having to do 3/4 lettered agreements, code sharing for later DIY, customization, future weapons integration.

TOT and 50% localization too are going to be huge hurdles. Will the Americans part with their latest and greatest tech. especially when they don't need the Indian order to sustain their production? Is the JSF supply chain geared to allow 50% localization on an order of 36/56 planes?