IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2015 08:54

The famous saying,"a week is along time in politics",holds true today.The "Great fall of China" collapse on Black Monday mauling markets and economies as never before,since 2009 ,with a fall in the value of the Rupee too,will put a brake on expensive defence deals. Another famous saying about politics,"knowing one's onions" too also holds good with the soaring price of onions. perhaps the "10 days" statement may be famous last words.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2015 08:58

srai wrote:^^^

No Plan B "Import" Air Force desires Rafale at any cost!

And what can be this oft-repeated 'Plan B' as per your wisdom? What would be its cost and implication? And when should have been this 'Plan B' put into place to ensure it serves the purpose? And most important of all - What should be the trigger to abandon Plan A and switch to Plan B?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Aug 2015 09:25

^This is akin to politicians facing criticism sarcastically telling the critic "why don't you stand for election?" or like the famed Rahul Gandhi trick of bouncing the question back, when he is too stupid to answer.

It is the "job" of the IAF to have a plan B. Targeting people people who questions its painfully obvious absence does not absolve the IAF of coming up empty.

No one questions the IAF's skill or bravery (the kind of support and cheering it got for trouncing the poodlestanian pilots and their gold plated toys is ample proof of that). The question is whether the IAF knows/cares of other things besides just fighting?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 25 Aug 2015 09:40

srai wrote:...

Yes ... let's only indict Indian side of things

When it comes to LCA Mk 2, HAL is over burdened with on going projects but it was very keen on taking on Rafale!

It is not a blame game srai ji, it is time for some serious professional and consistent approach. HAL is not the only part of Indian Side and none on the Indian side did well (IAF included).

Rafale deal or the Rafale 'un'deal should go down in Indian history as an example of how bad we Indians are at managing projects. While we will never agree on anything internally, we find scapegoats externally.

I am sure you find defending HAL and blaming IAF obligatory (not in this case) but it should never have been so. When HAL is called out does HAL make sure that its deficiencies are ironed out? IAF certainly doesn't do that.

ADA and HAL are virtually co located and find it difficult to work together be it IJT, BTT, LCA with the designers not being able to address concerns of manufacturers. IAF has its own planet to live in. MOD has a parallel universe to run. Who is really working to get what India needs?

If the MMRCA does not happen (different question from whether it is required or not) whose fault is it? Who issued the tender? Who set the terms? Who selected Rafale? Who needs the planes?

We need to blame the Indian side as it is the Indian side which has botched its need. The foreigners will protect their interests. Why blame them?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2015 09:52

Arun Menon wrote:^This is akin to politicians facing criticism sarcastically telling the critic "why don't you stand for election?" or like the famed Rahul Gandhi trick of bouncing the question back, when he is too stupid to answer.

It is the "job" of the IAF to have a plan B. Targeting people people who questions its painfully obvious absence does not absolve the IAF of coming up empty.

No one questions the IAF's skill or bravery (the kind of support and cheering it got for trouncing the poodlestanian pilots and their gold plated toys is ample proof of that). The question is whether the IAF knows/cares of other things besides just fighting?

Long story short - you don't know anything about the subject but feel confident to pass sermons on the IAF and question its credibility and judgement making abilities.

If it is IAF's job to make Plan B and if it does not have Plan B, what is your basis of questioning this judgement? Unless, there is something, some teeny-weeny bit you know, or think you know, about the subject?

And BTW - I had asked a bigger question. Do try and put some thought to it. Many self-proclaimed experts on this forum have lamented about lack of Plan B and how there are X, Y and Z solutions but IAF is simply being pig-headed in wanting Rafale. Let them put their money where their mouth is and come up with something logical rather than usual breast-beating.

Let me reiterate the question:

1. What can be Plan B?
2. When should have the Plan B been triggered? And who gives the signal to switch from Plan A to Plan B?
3. What is the cost implication of Plan B?
4. Timelines for Plan B?
5. Long term implications in terms of capability of IAF in 2025 and 2030 basis Plan B?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Aug 2015 10:14

^So what you are basically saying is "you don't know anything (implying that you do know something), so who are you to ask questions?"

Nice way to head off difficult questions. Congratulations, you have taken BRF to new depths, you should be proud of it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Aug 2015 10:57

Arun Menon wrote:^So what you are basically saying is "you don't know anything (implying that you do know something), so who are you to ask questions?"

Nice way to head off difficult questions. Congratulations, you have taken BRF to new depths, you should be proud of it.

If you don't understand something, feel free to ask. Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Let me rephrase what you've alluded to me, into what I actually meant: ' If you don't know something, anything, about the subject, on what basis are you passing judgement on those who've taken a particular decision?'

Now, I'd be very happy if people ask questions rather than shoot of their mouth and pontificate on the subject...but then, we're in new season of BRF where half the Air Force and IA leadership has been summarily court-martialed and cashiered from service because it does not meet BRF's self proclaimed and exalted levels of being 'intelligent' enough to know their business! Not to mention the name calling and all.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Aug 2015 11:09

^There is only one person who has a tendency to "shoot of their mouth and pontificate on the subject" and that is certainly not me. If someone says something that you do not like, you tend to resort to name calling and questioning their credentials (like you are so full of it). You could have countered the person with a well-structured retort, but you think you are Rambo out here to teach all these idiots a lesson. If someone thinks that IAF should have had a plan B and questions the lack of one, instead of attacking that person, why don't you try using your enormous authoritative knowledge of the matter to explain why there is no plan B.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Aug 2015 11:40

deejay wrote:
srai wrote:...

Yes ... let's only indict Indian side of things
When it comes to LCA Mk 2, HAL is over burdened with on going projects but it was very keen on taking on Rafale!

It is not a blame game srai ji, it is time for some serious professional and consistent approach. HAL is not the only part of Indian Side and none on the Indian side did well (IAF included).

Rafale deal or the Rafale 'un'deal should go down in Indian history as an example of how bad we Indians are at managing projects. While we will never agree on anything internally, we find scapegoats externally.

I am sure you find defending HAL and blaming IAF obligatory (not in this case) but it should never have been so. When HAL is called out does HAL make sure that its deficiencies are ironed out? IAF certainly doesn't do that.

ADA and HAL are virtually co located and find it difficult to work together be it IJT, BTT, LCA with the designers not being able to address concerns of manufacturers. IAF has its own planet to live in. MOD has a parallel universe to run. Who is really working to get what India needs?

If the MMRCA does not happen (different question from whether it is required or not) whose fault is it? Who issued the tender? Who set the terms? Who selected Rafale? Who needs the planes?

We need to blame the Indian side as it is the Indian side which has botched its need. The foreigners will protect their interests. Why blame them?

deejayji, I don't have disagreement to what you are stating and I'm not supporting any individual party for that matter. There seems to be lack of cohesion on the Indian side giving foreigners the upper hand. The whole MMRCA has turned into a fisaco culminating in $200 million/plane (or around $7 to $8 billion dollars for just 36 aircrafts) without any offset or ToT. And India is ready to sign that deal!

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 25 Aug 2015 12:33

Rohit Sir Welcome back!

I have a more fundamental question, why the IAF does not have a plan B? This is not the usual way of operating for any military force.

Apologies but it sounds like a very basic question. I checked with some of the IAF kids I work with they mentioned few + things on Rafale
1. High Up time of Rafale
2. Low operating cost Rafale
3. High Survivability
Apparently they were not that happy with Su30 on these fronts.
On cost they agreed it is quite high but they were of view point that it is quality stuff and must come at a premium.

Regarding plan B, the response I got was, letting things go the way they are Su and may be LCA, but they did not have strong opinions.
The people I talked did not forget to provide the disclaimer that these are personal opinions.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 25 Aug 2015 14:13

Well IMVHO the IAF does seem to have had a plan B, C (and more ?)....

The LCA/AMCA program, The MMRCA option etc would not have happened if the only plan by the IAF was a one to one replacement of the aircraft with it's latest replacement type.

But non-military folk like us just have to make educated type of guesses at what they were, based on the info which keeps getting available to us in the public space. Mostly in the form of statements of the relevant authorities (political, military, ex-military, experienced military analysts etc)

Heaven knows it is complicated enough to run a huge military force but then to also take into account the kind of political strategy and dispensation and economic situation which will exist in the future decades and factor it into your plan (and backup plans) today, without the comfort of hindsight, would truly require brilliant strategic vision and the courage of conviction to stake your neck on it
(knowing that one would probably be close to retirement when those plans come to fruition)

Being on this forum for some time now, i have come to really believe in the 'Perfect is the enemy of good' and 'scope creep is the cancer of any product/project' dictums

PS: a humble request to Arun Menon and Rohitvats to pls. avoid the blue on blue (or red on red)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2015 14:49

The GOI always said they would go for MMRCA never once they said they would cancel it so IAF was banking on the deal to happen be it Rafale or something else.

Unless GOI gives some indication openly or in confidence that they plan to cancel MMRCA and IAF needs to look at alternatives then they wont be planning one.

MOD Parrikar surely once mentioned if Rafale deal gets cancelled then they might go for more MKI.

So the part of IAF not having plan B is just overblown , If MOD today says we cant afford Rafale go for more MKI or something else IAF will have to accept it and then plan out accordingly.

Since MOD now says they would atleast buy 36 Rafale that means IAF has to figure out how to take care of remaining 90 aircraft they might never get inducted , IAF would be planning to either bloster MKI fleet buy more Tejas or just operate with Reduced Squadron Strength

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2015 14:53

There was this anecdote from Vayu Magazine on Mig-23 induction , When IAF was in SU testing the Mig-23 as a counter to F-16 and even M2K was in recognisation , GOI made a decision to purchase 2 squadron of 23 immediately as counter to F-16 and deal was signed without consulting the IAF.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Aug 2015 14:54

Also, the MKI option need not involve intense long lead time negotiations so there is no real incentive to start talking about it now. It should be a relatively simple thing to do if the rafale does not come through.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2015 15:03

^^ I can bet and say Rafale deal will come through , So there is no plan B

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 25 Aug 2015 15:50

Austin wrote:^^ I can bet and say Rafale deal will come through , So there is no plan B

Dear Saar,
Lets Assume Rafale Comes . Even then its going to be 36 Onleee

. Requirement Is For 200 Plus MMRCA. And By time frame we have MKI only can come to Rescue.
So,
Down scaling Of Rafale Says There Is a Plan B

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2015 16:31

May be more of Tejas Mk1/2 and less of MKI.

I am hopeful though Rafale deal will go thorough

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 25 Aug 2015 16:39

Austin wrote:May be more of Tejas Mk1/2 and less of MKI.

I am hopeful though Rafale deal will go thorough

MKI deliveries Are Faster Than LCA .
More MKI and More LCA!!

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Aug 2015 16:57

Plan b is more Mki with more (real 100 %) indigenous content

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Aug 2015 16:57

Plan b is more Mki with more (real 100 %) indigenous content

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2015 19:50

ranjan.rao wrote: I have a more fundamental question, why the IAF does not have a plan B? This is not the usual way of operating for any military force.

Please pardon me for butting in to answer this question. Just my views. This harping on one statement "There is no plan B" on BRF only reveals utter ignorance on the part of BRFites who I believe have not spent a minute thinking about how and when that statement appeared in the media.

If I recall right the CAS was asked by an honest and upright media person, a member of the fourth estate who give us so much valuable information if there was a plan B if Rafale could not be obtained.

If I assume that the CAS is a stupid sod who is duty bound to give an honest straight reply to a journalist who is trying to get some information from him then BRF is right. The CAS is a stupid sod. The IAF has no plan B. Having declared our CAS as a stupid sod we can and should move on but the issues does not appear to be dying.

For that reason I would like to go back and ask, could the CAS have been under some constraint to keep his sodding ignorant mouth shut about the IAFs operational plans if the Rafale was not going to come thorugh? Since we of BRF are so mind numbingly smart and so much ahead of the curve and we might be able to show a spark of intelligence and ask if the CAS really has to answer a journalists question and say what the IAFs exact operational plans are?

But no, the CAS is a stupid idiot. We know and we believe every news item about falling levels and say that the Air Force is manned by utter morons, Congressis and desh-drohis. And of course we all know exactly how an Air Force should work unlike the moronic CAS who does not understand anything about how a military force normally works - something about which all of us are experts. As you rightly pointed out in an astounding revelation that the IAF would do well to learn from:

This is not the usual way of operating for any military force.

Atta boy! Tell it like it is.

Sometimes, it helps if people actually arrived at Aero India, or joined some fora on the net where they could meet and interact with real live IAF officers retired or in service and get their views on what is done. But no. We are too frigging too intelligent for that. We know the journalist trapped that idiot CAS and rightly so. It confirms our attitudes about the IAF and now we must rip this stupid moron Rohitvats a new asshole for daring to argue.

Now go ahead sir. Nothing personal.

I for one would drop the "plan B" issue, talk less and watch reports more for a period of months or years while increasing one's background reading to see how an air force preserves strength levels and compensates for unexpected exigencies or losses, and how some things are not revealed at all in public. But I am likely to be just phenomenally stupid and far far behind BRF's famous kick-ass curve.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Aug 2015 20:27

^With due respect, I don't think most of us believe that IAF doesn't have a plan B, it is just that we believe they are so fixated on the Rafale that they are unwilling to concede that they can make do without it. It seems as if they are putting pressure (US fear-mongering general style) to get the deal through with some genuinely aiming to acquire its advantages, others contemptuous of all things made in India and some others with commissions in mind. With this in mind, there is only one thing to do, ask why there is no plan B. This might seem like questioning IAF competence, but in reality it points out to the fact that since IAF is competent, it must have a plan B and are simply sitting on it to put pressure.

Sorry, for the rambling post, have had a long day.

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 25 Aug 2015 20:30

Plan B is more SU 30MKI. RM said this a few times.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2015 20:59

We demand that the press should show intelligence and fine judgement not because people are intelligent but because most people are incorrigibly dumb, and instantly believe what the press tells them as the truth.

The CAS answered one question asked by one reporter saying that there is no plan B. That means no plan B

It is quite easy to look at the possibilities that arise from here
1. There is no plan B and the IAF is stupid
2. There is a plan B that is not being revealed to us.

What any given person wants to consider as the truth is entirely one's own choice. If the IAF has a plan B no one has told us about it or there is no plan B. No matter how much this issue is thrashed about the same answers come up. Nothing can change. It feels like it did in second standard when I tried to look under the partition at the girls toilet and could hear the girls but could see nothing. Frustration. Plan A was to look up a few skirts. There was no plan B. Plan A did not work either.

"IAF has no plan B. CAS said so. I don't want to believe it. That is not how things should be. I know better. I am going to worry and I am going to break my head over it and I am going to attribute all sorts of reasons for this useless state of affairs. The cognitive dissonance is killing me. I thought our IAF was better but it is truly pathetic. Someone should answer my question and tell me something that makes me feel happy that the IAF has a plan B or else I have decided to keep the issue boiling because I am so so butt hurt at the idea. I can't be that wrong. Someone else is wrong. Not me."

This is BRF's "ahead of curve discussion" arising from one reply to one reporter's question

Of course the entire question revolves around the simple idea that I had heard that the IAF was going to get 126 Rafales - the "Plan A" that was branded into my brain. That was the reality. The surety. Nothing could be more solid and real than Plan A. There is no way that deal could have gone sour. The press and we talked about it so much and we even constructed war scenarios of how we would shoot down J-20s. I may have protested the expense but at least I was happy. Now they are not coming and I want to know right now what is going to be done. I was so sure that plan A existed and now you tell me there is no plan A and i want a Plan B explained to me right now or else I am going to be really angry and behave like a petulant child. I wasted so much time and brainpower working out tactics for the IAF and now they are screwing with me. I am not such a small person andI am not going to accept no for an answer. Anyone who cannot come up with an answer that does not satisfy my deep seated need to know exactly what the IAF will do if there are no Rafales is going to get snapped at and ripped apart by me because that does not fit in with the warm fuzzy I had all along thinking Rafale would come and if not something else would come and we would be told instantly and put out of our misery. We can then make 25 million posts about capabilities and weapons etc and how we will use plan B aircraft. Stupid CAS has really spoiled our fun and put a spanner in the works. I don't post tactics and stuff on BRF for fun. I put in a great deal of research and thought some of which the IAF may not know. I don't like being treated this way. I'm not such a cheapo.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Aug 2015 21:20

I don't buy the fact that the IAF is fixated on the Rafale. The Rafale wasn't their original plan A either. It was the M2k. The Rafale was selected only after the multi year long MRCA tamasha. Now if after making the IAF go through that "proper" acquisition process, the govt. finds out that we can't really afford the aircraft, I won't blame the IAF for that. I blame the process. It is a brain dead process that treats a multi-billion dollar aircraft acquisition in the same manner as they would a few million dollar tender for procuring shoes for the soldiers. The process itself leaves no room for "Plan B" since you don't know before you shortlist, what you can and can't afford. How could it not fail?

What should have been IAF's plan B? Gripen? F-18? Aircraft which failed its technical evaluations. Then why even have the evaluations and waste our time and money? MKI? HAL is already building them as fast as it can.

First figure out what we can afford and then choose from amongst them. But the mindless baboons only know that you should go by the approved procedure. Never mind that it only ends up in a wasted decade and no aircraft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2015 21:31

nachiket wrote:I don't buy the fact that the IAF is fixated on the Rafale. The Rafale wasn't their original plan A either. It was the M2k. The Rafale was selected only after the multi year long MRCA tamasha. Now if after making the IAF go through that "proper" acquisition process, the govt. finds out that we can't really afford the aircraft, I won't blame the IAF for that. I blame the process. It is a brain dead process that treats a multi-billion dollar aircraft acquisition in the same manner as they would a few million dollar tender for procuring shoes for the soldiers. The process itself leaves no room for "Plan B" since you don't know before you shortlist, what you can and can't afford. How could it not fail?

But I have spent 6 years making 25,000 detailed posts about squadron strength and tactics using the Rafale. I am large hearted enough to be willing to do another 25,000 posts about any other plan B aircraft. But please don't treat me like a fool. You are now telling me that all the research and planning I did for free of the IAF was a waste of time. You need to know that I am a successful man in my on right and in my company a man who makes me waste my brainpower in 25,000 posts only to tell me that it was a waste of time will have to pay. I am not stupid. Some one else must take the rap. The CAS is definitely stupid. I would not have reached my stage in my career if I could not judge these things. The fact that it is about the IAF is a minor detail - i can choose to comment on anything my experience in management and economics in industry is broad enough. So please don't make me more angry by taking the side of incompetent bums.

Only my patriotism keeps me on here with a generous offer of 25,000 or 50,000 more posts on tactics and strategy and economics - as long as I am not being hoodwinked by bums.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2015 21:32

I have a more fundamental question, why the IAF does not have a plan B? This is not the usual way of operating for any military force.

Politics. Put pressure on the then inept RM, perhaps. This RM has not taken that and therefore now there is a Plan B, albeit from the MoD, thrust down the throat?

Which military force?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2015 21:55

I don't buy the fact that the IAF is fixated on the Rafale. The Rafale wasn't their original plan A either. It was the M2k. The Rafale was selected only after the multi year long MRCA tamasha

* I think they were fixated. With the new RM, that fixation may have lost its fix
* M2K is old story. Just do not think it can be mixed with the Rafale
* MMRCA is a classic, legacy Indian process. Politics, middle-man, call it what you may, but one that had to happen - karma

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Aug 2015 22:00

NRao wrote: * MMRCA is a classic, legacy Indian process. Politics, middle-man, call it what you may, but one that had to happen - karma

....and one that had to fail. Since we are getting no aircraft out of this fiasco, I hope they at least re-evaluate and modify the process.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2015 22:25

My observation is that the processes are held constant, so they are not a topic for change. Failures are therefore acceptable. And, perhaps preferred by some minute sections of the populous?

Ashokk · Post by **Ashokk** » 25 Aug 2015 23:22

X-posting
France to Discuss Mistral Sale to Malaysia – Source

France's defense minister will discuss the sale to Malaysia of one of the Mistral helicopter carriers originally destined for Russia during a visit to the country, a source familiar with the talks said, confirming a report on news website latribune.fr.
On his return from Malaysia, Jean-Yves Le Drian will also make a detour to India to sign a deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets built by French group Dassault Aviation, latribune.fr added.
A source with knowledge of the talks told Reuters on Friday that India's Rafale purchase could be concluded in about 10 days.
India is also interested in the Mistral, latribune.fr said.
French President Francois Hollande confirmed on Tuesday that there were several potential buyers for the two Mistral. France cancelled the planned sale of the warships to Russia because of the Ukraine crisis.
No one was immediately reachable for comment at the French Defence Ministry, Dassault Aviation or Mistral manufacturer DCNS.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 26 Aug 2015 01:31

Whether there is an official 'Plan B' right now or not is irrelevant. If the need arises they can always create it. Saying 'There is no Plan B' is just trying to convey that they are committed to the current plan. HOWEVER, if the current plan falls through, well then of course they'll come up with something else.

nachiket wrote:What should have been IAF's plan B? Gripen? F-18? Aircraft which failed its technical evaluations.

It's important to understand what the standard was. It was a wishlist of everything the IAF wanted. Just because a plane didn't check every item on the wishlist doesn't mean it's not very capable.

For instance, the MKI would fail the MRCA evaluation (and no, I'm not just talking about the size limit).

nachiket wrote:First figure out what we can afford and then choose from amongst them.

Yes, the process must weigh capability vs affordability. Simply demanding everything you want with no regard for cost is guaranteed to end in disaster.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Aug 2015 03:22

^^^Mistrale sale to Malaysia. Appart from the fact that the Ringgit is crashing, the rear half of the Mistrales built for Russia is well, Russian. It is also built specifically for Russian needs. Good luck with spares.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 Aug 2015 03:28

Plan B is what you can and intend to do with the remains of the day.

Plan A has a 99% failure rate because it has too many wishes. Plan B is almost always making do with what you got left and it works because we deem it so.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 26 Aug 2015 03:56

With rupee bordering 66 dollars--- I am not sure what impact it is going to have an exchequer.... now I understand the MMRCA pricing was discussed as part of a fixed exchange rate--but now that MMRCA is cancelled the current negotiation must be on the current exchange rate-

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 26 Aug 2015 04:14

The latest (Aaj ki tajee khabar!!)

Breakthrough likely in Rafale talks as France softens stand

So this article says that the deal is likely to be Euro 8 billion for the 36 aircraft i.e. Euro 222 million per aircraft or US$ 255 million at the current exchange rate or Indian rupees 1700 crores per aircraft. There...France is not going to charge US $ 300 million which some people were afraid off, now its "only" US$ 255 million

they have softened their stand....so the IAF should be very happy!!

Added later:
The article also says that Messrs Modi and Hollande are now directly dealing with this matter FWIW assuming that its not DDMitis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2015 04:27

There...France is not going to charge US $ 300 million which some people were afraid off, now its "only" US$ 255 million they have softened their stand

Plan C for you. Which was always there .............. in the background. To be pulled out when everyone was so tired that $220 would seem like a steal.

That is 11 Scorpions!!!! 36 x 11 = 396 of them, Made in India, manufacturing know how, .............. Just saying. Not serious.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 26 Aug 2015 04:39

NRao wrote:
There...France is not going to charge US $ 300 million which some people were afraid off, now its "only" US$ 255 million they have softened their stand
Plan C for you. Which was always there .............. in the background. To be pulled out when everyone was so tired that $220 would seem like a steal.

That is 11 Scorpions!!!! 36 x 11 = 396 of them, Made in India, manufacturing know how, .............. Just saying. Not serious.

It's like, in an auction, "Going once...... going twice...... Gooone for Euro 222 million to the nervous looking gentleman from the IAF sitting in the back!!." Better buy now because next time the price will be more than 300 million...

On another note, since the French are not going to give any source code for integration of Astra, it is going to have to be the Meteor as the likely BVR missile of choice. I think the joke will be if the missile and one of its likely targets, the JF-17 Bandaar end up costing the same amount!!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Aug 2015 04:41

ashokk wrote:On his return from Malaysia, Jean-Yves Le Drian will also make a detour to India to sign a deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets built by French group Dassault Aviation, latribune.fr added.

A source with knowledge of the talks told Reuters on Friday that India's Rafale purchase could be concluded in about 10 days.

Hmm.. Neelam Mathews has a different take on the timeline -

Delhi has committed to signing the inter-government contract by the end of calendar year 2015, AIN has learned from sources close to the negotiations.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 26 Aug 2015 05:02

^The price of the Rafale deal, the modest technology acquired, the the measly numbers bought and our most likely dependence on gold plated french weapons, for the first time in my life makes me want the Govt to spend that money on roads and hospitals rather than on defense.