IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Sep 2015 01:35

New shiny planes - The EF was newer but it was not the newness that decided MMRCA. JSF will have the American baggage of restrictions, inspections etc. Plus it was never on offer.

- Which begs the question, what makes the Apache, JSTARS, P-8I, C-130J, C-17, Chinook & S-70 kosher, but a limited number of F-35s non-viable? The latter comes with the same baggage, but will only form a small part of the fighter fleet.

- It was never on offer for the MMRCA contract. Both due to ToT/indigenization requirements and (then-existing) timelines. But the MMRCA has been scrapped now, and the current acquisition has no similar restrictions.

If the Rafale is for Nuclear deterrence , the delivery plans (battle tactics) from aircraft are far more sophisticated than what is being discussed here. Apart from actual battle tactics, there is the whole issue of having the capability to deliver Nukes from multiple platforms - not just the best platform. Keeps the enemy guessing and makes it that much difficult to develop counter measures.

CM's, BM's, SLBM's were developed despite the fact that only BM's would suffice for Nuke delivery. War time pushed to a Nuke scenario will not be so coherent and decision makers will rely on multiple options. The same will be true for the enemy too. Again, here it appears to be an assumption that Rafale = China.

There is absolutely no dearth of options when it comes to delivery of a nuclear payload. [No. of fighter types x No. of payload types + No. of GLCMs, + No. of GLBMs + No. of SLBMs]

However what we're discussing is a very specific mission i.e low-level toss-bombing, that can be performed by the IAF's current fighter fleet just as effectively. Buying an over-priced Rafale specifically for the job, is.. a dubious notion, to put it mildly.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2015 02:21

I know what Rafale will be used for. There will be 36 temples in India, housing one Rafale each. We will do arti daily, and perhaps during war time every hour. I wonder why did not French asked $100 billion a piece, perhaps we would have bought that, coz our head said, there is no plan b, as simple as that.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2015 02:22

Btw do we know, even though F-22 is not on the table, is Rafale costlier than that?

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 05 Sep 2015 03:50

Is rafale really 9 billion for 36 planes. That is more expensive than 250 million a pop F-22. Are there no cheaper options which provide 90% of rafales capability at lower costs. I say invest on a few battalion of homemade cruise missiles and deploy 2 more squadrons of souped up su-30mki
9 billion would get us 36 mki (3 billion)+ 1 billion upgrades of mki's + 200 nirbhays (1 billion at 5 million a pop) + 1 billion of nirbhays infrastructure + another 40 lca's (3 billion)

Another billion still left to play with.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Sep 2015 04:42

fanne wrote:Btw do we know, even though F-22 is not on the table, is Rafale costlier than that?

Unit procurement cost for the F-22 was about $180M in 2008. With inflation that'll probably be $200M+. With weapons and initial setup costs.. about $250M give or take. For a (theoretical) export customer, definitely more than the Rafale, but not by as much as one would have expected.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2015 05:34

fanne wrote:I know what Rafale will be used for. There will be 36 temples in India, housing one Rafale each. We will do arti daily, and perhaps during war time every hour. I wonder why did not French asked $100 billion a piece, perhaps we would have bought that, coz our head said, there is no plan b, as simple as that.

Actually the discussions here on BRF have thrown a lot more clarity on the issue and I thought may I will summarize what we have found out

1.Rafale is as expensive, if not more expensive than F-35.
2. There is no need to quibble over minor details like acquisition cost versus lifetime cost. Both are same.
3. Since Rafale is expensive and IAF likes losing pilots in cheap planes rather than expensive ones Rafale will not be used in risky combat. Daily/hourly aarti is a possibility as you have said.
4. Rafale is being bought only for strategic purposes
5. Strategic purpose means only nuclear bomb dropping
6. Nuclear bomb dropping will be done as toss bombing only

There are a few more issues that I hope the discussions over the next two hours on BRF will clarify
a. Since Rafale won't be sent on risky missions, even F-35 which is better at opening doors will not be used for the same reason. Both will be hangar queens. But if LCA is also hangar queen or invisible aircraft it will be as effective and Rafale and F-35. So I am looking for clarity on how LCA will be more effective except in allowing pilots to be shot down in cheaper aircraft

b.IAF will get 20% depreciation per year (like we get for new cars). So in 5 years, by the time Rafale enters squadron service its book value will be only 60 million dollars which I believe is cheap enough for BRF to allow on risky missions. Will we give IAF permission after 5 years?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 05 Sep 2015 05:42

^^^ Do they still paint below the canopy with white paint in hand written letters : "this aircraft cost the exchequer 1,X00 crores"? There might not be enough space for raffle in lakhs.

It would be great if all the raffle, maitri et al hang fire till next governmand sans modi at which point the number goes back up to 126!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2015 05:55

Shreeman wrote:^^^ Do they still paint below the canopy with white paint in hand written letters : "this aircraft cost the exchequer 1,X00 crores"? There might not be enough space for raffle in lakhs.

LOL! Who thinks in Rupees? We think in Dollars. Otherwise we are patriots.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 05 Sep 2015 06:07

1750 Crores!!, also written as Rupees 17500000000, makes it seem more expensive!! For one Rafale only!!

For all 36 of them it is Rupees 630000000000. Now, that is a nice round number!!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Sep 2015 06:17

arshyam wrote:Has anyone considered the Rafale being deployed from A&N during war time for strategic tasks? While it is true that Chinese mainland cities are hard to reach from our mainland bases flying over the Himalaya+Tibet/Myanmar, deploying from A&N puts Hainan and maybe Hong Kong/Shenzhen within reach, wouldn't it? Hainan is definitely a strategic high-value target, considering it is housing PLAN sub bases and a bunch of PLAAF bases to protect them. It's also not as much a civilian centre like Hong Kong (I don't see us targeting civilian targets unless left with no option), and still can deliver the loss of face that they want to avoid at all costs. Throw in a tanker and a few Su-30 MKI escorts for CAP, you have a nice package. Though the Su-30 themselves are capable of this role (see Vivek Ahuja's book Chimera), maybe the IAF has some reasons for choosing an alternate fighter, and I think this is an option they can exercise. What do gurus think?

Pitting 36 gold plated Rafales in an all out confrontation over Tibet is far-fetched. The Rafales will be too few and too expensive for us to do so, and we have other capable fighters to do that job. Again, Chimera has a detailed engagement covering this very scenario.

Interesting thought Arshyam, we have dealt with this issue every now and again on BR- but it is really doubtful that Hainan or for that matter Chengdu are reachable for any meaningful damage via the MKI, let alone the Rafale. From a quick eyeball of google, it is clear that both these places are about 2000km one way - would be very, very hard for anything like an MKI or Rafale to make that trip and back without adequate tanker support. The MKI would probably have the best chance thanks to the Brahmos.

THis might change in the near future if an air launched Nirbhay comes alone @ about 1000kg, in which case, both the Rafale and MKI should be able to carry 3-5 in the future. A flight of these birds with some IFR support might be able to launch a big enough salvo to cause some headaches

It is for this reason that the Backfire looks tempting to folks like karnad....

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 05 Sep 2015 06:22

And you have to overfly countries to make it even remotely possible distance wise. Countries may not want to get involved in a India-China fracas by giving India overflight rights to bomb China.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Sep 2015 06:32

Now that the Rafale deal has been approved for the nth time perhaps we can discuss what advantages it brings to the IAF - no bickering over whether it is a good deal or not, we armchair types don't have such luxuries, we work with what we get...36 Rafales.

Some quick thoughts.....

In operational sense, to my mind the Rafale/Mica IIR combo brings something very unique to the IAF bag of tricks. Would make things hard for both the PlAAF and PAF - at least for the present, and the near future, the Rafale provides the technological edge that the IAF desires since it cannot really have any superiority through numbers.

Another very neat little kit that the Rafale offers is the Scalp EG - will the IAF procure these - expensive but effective. Might just be the kind of stand off weapon required to deal with S300 types.

If procured quickly - within say, 3 years with IAF crews going to Istres for training etc., the Rafale might just give a serious boost to IAF capability and provide the Tejas mk1 much needed time to get the production woes under control.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2015 06:32

I get reminded of a fight that two six year olds were having:
Rahul (crying) "Daddy Rajiv bate (sic) me
Daddy: "he bate you? I will beat his daddy."

The threat of beating up daddy solves the problem. Same way when we attack Chengdu or Hainan with 4 aircraft carrying 6 tons of bombs each we end up devastating these cities by depositing a jaw dropping 24 x 1000 pound bombs - which should be enough to devastate the entire city.

More seriously it is totally absurd to send planes 2000 km up and back simply to drop peanuts. It ain't gonna happen as long as anyone stops to think for 1 more than 1 millisecond. If we send out 100 sorties against Chengdu and Hainan with 6000 kg bombs per sortie then we begin to do do some damage that people may notice. No one is going to be doing 4000 km round trips to drop a few hundred kg of TNT

No wonder nuclear weapons are the way to go if we really want to hurt.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Sep 2015 06:33

ldev wrote:And you have to overfly countries to make it even remotely possible distance wise. Countries may not want to get involved in a India-China fracas by giving India overflight rights to bomb China.

Not so much an issue when it comes to Chengdu, but yes, Hainan might need a more circuitous route.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 05 Sep 2015 06:49

More seriously it is totally absurd to send planes 2000 km up and back simply to drop peanuts. It ain't gonna happen as long as anyone stops to think for 1 more than 1 millisecond. If we send out 100 sorties against Chengdu and Hainan with 6000 kg bombs per sortie then we begin to do do some damage that people may notice. No one is going to be doing 4000 km round trips to drop a few hundred kg of TNT

No wonder nuclear weapons are the way to go if we really want to hurt.

The US dropped over 4 million tons of bombs on North Vietnam and over half a million tons on Laos. For Rs 63000 crores India can buy 6300 Nirbhay missiles at Rs 10 crores each, each carryng 1000 kgs of TNT. If you fire off all of them you get just 6300 tons of bombs. Fewer number of Agni 2s and 3s, maybe 2000-2500 of them, carrying a 1 ton payload for the same amount.

That is why I have maintained all along in this thread, that India has to have a strategy to employ all the tools that the IAF, IN, and IA have and then figure out how to get the maximum "bang for the buck" in terms of achieving its strategic objectives with a centralized defence staff planning it. Short of nuclear war, there has to be "shock n awe" versus the Chinese and the tools to do that.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Sep 2015 06:56

shiv wrote:I get reminded of a fight that two six year olds were having:
Rahul (crying) "Daddy Rajiv bate (sic) me
Daddy: "he bate you? I will beat his daddy."

The threat of beating up daddy solves the problem. Same way when we attack Chengdu or Hainan with 4 aircraft carrying 6 tons of bombs each we end up devastating these cities by depositing a jaw dropping 24 x 1000 pound bombs - which should be enough to devastate the entire city.

More seriously it is totally absurd to send planes 2000 km up and back simply to drop peanuts. It ain't gonna happen as long as anyone stops to think for 1 more than 1 millisecond. If we send out 100 sorties against Chengdu and Hainan with 6000 kg bombs per sortie then we begin to do do some damage that people may notice. No one is going to be doing 4000 km round trips to drop a few hundred kg of TNT

No wonder nuclear weapons are the way to go if we really want to hurt.

Yes, hence why the backfires are tempting....being russian, they were cheap (at least upfront costs

), can fly fast, can carry about 6tons+ of ordinance, and have a radius of about 2500km without IFR. With standoff missiles and such, would be enough to reach some interesting places.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Sep 2015 07:09

ldev wrote:And you have to overfly countries to make it even remotely possible distance wise. Countries may not want to get involved in a India-China fracas by giving India overflight rights to bomb China.

Even more. It'll mean flying down the Malacca Strait skirting around Singapore and flying up the South China Sea. 8-10,000 km round trip. Unless we can get overflight permission from Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam, in which case its 'only' a 4000 km round trip.

MAP - SOUTH EAST ASIA

Cain Marko wrote:It is for this reason that the Backfire looks tempting to folks like karnad....

Question is, how do you protect a Backfire flying in the South China Sea from PLAAF/PLAN fighters? They won't even need an early warning radar to cue the interception, a heads-up from the MSS should suffice.

Also, a combat radius of 2,500 km isn't sufficient (even equipped with Nirbhays) if its required to stick to international airspace.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2015 07:12

we miss an obvious plane in our inventory that can do all that (much more than the costliest plane in the world), we already have more than 200 of them. They can go and come back from 2500 km with a decent drop load.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2015 07:13

To make any difference you would need something like 4 sq of raf, the deal is then as much costly as 126 of them.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 05 Sep 2015 07:21

yup that's what I said, if we have to use a/c as nuclear delivery platform against lizard, supersonic bomber happens to be the most viable option and can act as a deterrence. the other options of doing the same is available with SFC.

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Sep 2015 07:24

X Posted from the “Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments” thread.

India’s Fighter Acquisition Troubles :

The price exacted due to such grandiose requirements and ambitiously outlined industrial offsets comes in IAF combat aircraft strength, which continues to dwindle as age, serviceability issues, and lack of concrete orders take their toll.

The obvious mismatch between security mandates and capabilities on hand amplifies the pressing need to identify future jet fighter solutions and expedite the procurement process. But instead, India’s woeful defense acquisition practices serve to impede progress toward meeting future air power requirements.

Even when the government attempts to cut through its own labyrinthine process to expedite a foreign military procurement, nothing is ever easy for defense acquisition in India.

From here:

Clicky

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Sep 2015 07:31

Cain Marko wrote:Now that the Rafale deal has been approved for the nth time perhaps we can discuss what advantages it brings to the IAF - no bickering over whether it is a good deal or not, we armchair types don't have such luxuries, we work with what we get...36 Rafales.

Well.. the MMRCA deal was also similar certain not too long ago. I find it hard to believe that no one in authority in the MoD and/or IAF HQ can see what is obvious to most of the forum, even considering the political aspects of the deal. Lets wait on the post-script until the ink on the contract dries.

Another very neat little kit that the Rafale offers is the Scalp EG - will the IAF procure these - expensive but effective. Might just be the kind of stand off weapon required to deal with S300 types.

If procured quickly - within say, 3 years with IAF crews going to Istres for training etc., the Rafale might just give a serious boost to IAF capability and provide the Tejas mk1 much needed time to get the production woes under control.

Exact costs are hard to pin down, but going by the costs of other French munitions, the SCALP-EG will be very expensive. (Roughly twice as much as the JASSM IIRC from the RAAF competition.) With a smaller time-to-target the BrahMos might be a preferable option, with off-board targeting if required.

If ordered, deliveries will start no earlier than 2018 (more likely 2019) and will probably conclude in 2021. Might be later if the Malaysians place an earlier order.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 05 Sep 2015 07:35

"यह विमान दो सौ मिलियन डालर की राष्ट्रिय संपत्ति है" -- doesnt read right, especially the Daalar bit. Although I suppose even the airmen would know both miliyan and Daalar. I wonder if any flt. lt. dhingra would fly it more carefully though, even if thus was written.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Sep 2015 07:48

You know if this was Bollywood or Hollywood - one attack with a couple of Backfires would defeat the Chinese comprehensively. But the IAF isn't as good as Bolly/Holly. They attack and then send recce to see if the target has been hit (because pilots who go out on attacks get needlessly distracted by extraneous considerations like ground fire and fuel management which never occurs in BollyHolly. Then if recce mission shows that the desired effect has not been achieved - another 6000 km/6 tons mission is sent and another recce. And if recce shows target has been hit then another 6000 km/6tons mission to hit something else and yet another recce and so on.

In ww2 500 to 1000 tons of bombs were dropped per day on cities and still they were not totally devastated. US dropped more tons of bombs on Vietnam than all of WW2 and still lost the war. Why do a I see this naive belief here that a few Backfires or MKIs or Rafales carrying a few thousand kg of bombs will cow down a city 2500 km away after 1 raid. Or even after 20 raids.

No point flying 2500 km unless you drop a nuke. If you are going to drop a nuke - use Agony mijjile.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 05 Sep 2015 09:08

Cain Marko wrote: Another very neat little kit that the Rafale offers is the Scalp EG - will the IAF procure these - expensive but effective. Might just be the kind of stand off weapon required to deal with S300 types.

If procured quickly - within say, 3 years with IAF crews going to Istres for training etc., the Rafale might just give a serious boost to IAF capability and provide the Tejas mk1 much needed time to get the production woes under control.

wiki says , hack even the M2k can launch Scalp EG , for our upgraded M2k it won't be that trouble . With rafale deal on , there won't be money left with IAF to carry on with three legged cheetah !!!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Sep 2015 09:23

Viv S wrote:
New shiny planes - The EF was newer but it was not the newness that decided MMRCA. JSF will have the American baggage of restrictions, inspections etc. Plus it was never on offer.
- Which begs the question, what makes the Apache, JSTARS, P-8I, C-130J, C-17, Chinook & S-70 kosher, but a limited number of F-35s non-viable? The latter comes with the same baggage, but will only form a small part of the fighter fleet.

- It was never on offer for the MMRCA contract. Both due to ToT/indigenization requirements and (then-existing) timelines. But the MMRCA has been scrapped now, and the current acquisition has no similar restrictions.

Okay, that point is actually helping the Nuclear / Strategic thing in the discussion. See, none of the the Apache, JSTARS, P-8I, C-130J, C-17, Chinook & S-70 are thought of as Nuclear thingy, so the American "voyeurism" of the Indian Armed Forces is not such a huge problem, but since the MMRCA is possibly "Ishtrategic" this kind of peeping (uncle) tomish may cause enough problems to exclude the F35.

But... the discussion is with the "assumption" that Rafale is for Nuke delivery etc. Personally, I am not sure.

Viv S wrote:
If the Rafale is for Nuclear deterrence , the delivery plans (battle tactics) from aircraft are far more sophisticated than what is being discussed here. Apart from actual battle tactics, there is the whole issue of having the capability to deliver Nukes from multiple platforms - not just the best platform. Keeps the enemy guessing and makes it that much difficult to develop counter measures.

CM's, BM's, SLBM's were developed despite the fact that only BM's would suffice for Nuke delivery. War time pushed to a Nuke scenario will not be so coherent and decision makers will rely on multiple options. The same will be true for the enemy too. Again, here it appears to be an assumption that Rafale = China.
There is absolutely no dearth of options when it comes to delivery of a nuclear payload. [No. of fighter types x No. of payload types + No. of GLCMs, + No. of GLBMs + No. of SLBMs]

However what we're discussing is a very specific mission i.e low-level toss-bombing, that can be performed by the IAF's current fighter fleet just as effectively. Buying an over-priced Rafale specifically for the job, is.. a dubious notion, to put it mildly.

Yes, if it is for Nuke delivery (and I have used "If" even in the above quote).

My take is: When the tenders were issued, no one thought of the cost. When the costs were "revealed" no one wanted to sign off on the deal and hence "passing the buck".

Finally, 36 is what we can afford. No other reasons. It is not that we were buying 126 Nuke delivery platforms earlier as MMRCA.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2015 14:04

But 36 cost as much as 90 of the original 126. It looks like French strategy was simple. Since Indian chief said that we have no plan b (or even if we could have we will not), French decided that they needed a big dollar from India. Even if we have just acquire 6 rafale it would have costed something like 6 billion dollars. After all same iaf and the goi ( govt of Sonia) bought 10 planes at insane prices, when a similar, but less cApable aircraft was available for 1/5 the price!!!
We asked for it.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 05 Sep 2015 21:43

Firstly, I still feel like this is a counter-offer from India. The French might find it acceptable, but then again, they might not. So this is still not a done deal.

Secondly, India's counter-offer may not be for just 36 aircraft since a larger number may make more sense.

Finally, given that the formal MMRCA tender has been cancelled, a possibility exists that if a deal cannot be salvaged or if a more attractive offer comes up, we might end up looking at a wholly different deal.

This deal has never been in isolation of India's other ongoing combat aircraft plans - all along this deal has been linked with help on transfer of know-how for aircraft engines and now it appears that there are linkages to this and/or other help with ensuring the long-term viability of the Tejas/AMCA programs. It also seems from Russia lobby articles that now there is competition for the same pot of money between the MMRCA and the PAKFA programs.

In short, too soon to break out the aarti platters yet.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Sep 2015 05:09

Cain Marko wrote:
Yes, hence why the backfires are tempting....being russian, they were cheap (at least upfront costs ), can fly fast, can carry about 6tons+ of ordinance, and have a radius of about 2500km without IFR. With standoff missiles and such, would be enough to reach some interesting places.

Everything is tempting. Except of course if you have to be in the cockpit. The Russians lost a couple of Backfires against the Georgians who used manpads. The Chinese have stouter defenses. This is like 'book cricket'.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Sep 2015 09:11

^The USAF lost a F 117 in the Balkans, so what?

Shaun wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Another very neat little kit that the Rafale offers is the Scalp EG - will the IAF procure these - expensive but effective. Might just be the kind of stand off weapon required to deal with S300 types.

If procured quickly - within say, 3 years with IAF crews going to Istres for training etc., the Rafale might just give a serious boost to IAF capability and provide the Tejas mk1 much needed time to get the production woes under control.
wiki says , hack even the M2k can launch Scalp EG , for our upgraded M2k it won't be that trouble . With rafale deal on , there won't be money left with IAF to carry on with three legged cheetah !!!

Brither, I pick up what you are putting down, i am not a huge fan of the raffle deal at current price, read my first para...all I was doing is trying to formulate what the iaf will get in terms of capability with 36 raffle

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Sep 2015 09:25

shiv wrote:You know if this was Bollywood or Hollywood - one attack with a couple of Backfires would defeat the Chinese comprehensively. But the IAF isn't as good as Bolly/Holly. They attack and then send recce to see if the target has been hit (because pilots who go out on attacks get needlessly distracted by extraneous considerations like ground fire and fuel management which never occurs in BollyHolly. Then if recce mission shows that the desired effect has not been achieved - another 6000 km/6 tons mission is sent and another recce. And if recce shows target has been hit then another 6000 km/6tons mission to hit something else and yet another recce and so on.

In ww2 500 to 1000 tons of bombs were dropped per day on cities and still they were not totally devastated. US dropped more tons of bombs on Vietnam than all of WW2 and still lost the war. Why do a I see this naive belief here that a few Backfires or MKIs or Rafales carrying a few thousand kg of bombs will cow down a city 2500 km away after 1 raid. Or even after 20 raids.

No point flying 2500 km unless you drop a nuke. If you are going to drop a nuke - use Agony mijjile.

Dont think iaf would be targeting entire city of Chengdu or whatever...just the mil installations...iirc, USAF sent a few b1s with cruise missiles in gw1 targeting specific nodes, can't see why a flight of long ranged, fast birds with enough standoff missiles can't do something similar...

If you read vivek ahujas scenario, china just lobs a large number of cms across the border targeting a number of critical targets in india in a surprise offensive. Unfortunately, there is no chinese city within reach of indian cms to do something similar, hence the need for long ranged, conventional strike platforms

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:It is for this reason that the Backfire looks tempting to folks like karnad....
Question is, how do you protect a Backfire flying in the South China Sea from PLAAF/PLAN fighters? They won't even need an early warning radar to cue the interception, a heads-up from the MSS should suffice.

Also, a combat radius of 2,500 km isn't sufficient (even equipped with Nirbhays) if its required to stick to international airspace.

That combat radius is witiut any ifr, top them up once and you have close to intercontinental range....I agree that targets in scs will be trickier, chengdu is more straightforward. As far as plaaf/plan threat is concerned, you have similar issues with any other delivery platform if you are targeting juicy, far off places..best bet would be top cover from mki via a and n or possibly via Vicky air group...very specialized stuff

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2015 09:53

Cain Marko wrote: Dont think iaf would be targeting entire city of Chengdu or whatever...just the mil installations...iirc, USAF sent a few b1s with cruise missiles in gw1 targeting specific nodes, can't see why a flight of long ranged, fast birds with enough standoff missiles can't do something similar...

If you read vivek ahujas scenario, china just lobs a large number of cms across the border targeting a number of critical targets in india in a surprise offensive. Unfortunately, there is no chinese city within reach of indian cms to do something similar, hence the need for long ranged, conventional strike platforms

The problem I have with this is as follows. Sending long range bombers to target say submarine pens in Hainan or some installations in Chengdu means nothing unless it can have an impact on a war that India is fighting with China.

What would be the nature of a war in which a few high risk attacks on Chengdu using long range bombers would affect the course of the war? If such attacks are not going to affect the course of a war why conduct them?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Sep 2015 09:58

why is the obsession to use rafale for delivering nuclear bums on chini land ?? Do you guys really think that these gold plated birds will fight its way in dropping those bums ?? If this is the case ,why can't the MKIs take that honor ??

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Sep 2015 10:04

Rafale will significantly add to EW ORBAT of IAF . This is the single most value addition i see this birds will bring and can play real havoc to chini eyes and ears when embedded with MKIs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 10:10

Cain Marko wrote: i am not a huge fan of the raffle deal at current price, read my first para...all I was doing is trying to formulate what the iaf will get in terms of capability with 36 raffle

We dont know really what is what of the deal and what is the final price something we might know once the deal is signed and GOI shows us something.

DO you know what would be the combat radius of Rafale with 1 T payload , 3 x 2000 L Drop Tanks + Internal Fuel , and couple of BVR's ?
I was looking at Lo-Lo and Hi-Lo Radius ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 10:40

In one of NATO exercise , Rafale and its EW was the only one able to defeat Slovakia S-300 , may be that is in IAF mind too

Slovakia’s sole S-300PMU (SA-10 ‘Grumble’) surface-to-air missile system was the main actor during the ‘Trial MACE XIII” electronic warfare exercise held in Slovakia from 16-27 April. The S-300PMU and its attendant ‘Flap Lid’ and ‘Clam Shell’ radars were sited at Nitra, with support provided by a Slovakian Air Force L-39ZAM from the 2nd Squadron at Sliac that flew as a target for the SAM crews. The exercise allowed NATO air arms to practise tactics to deal with the so-called ‘double digit’ air defence threat, while ground and flying personnel alike were exposed to operations under electronic jamming conditions.

Sliac air base hosted the tactical air contingent, which consisted of French Air Force Mirage 2000Ds and Rafale Bs, Royal Danish Air Force F-16AMs, a NATO E-3A and a French Air Force E-3F, a Royal Norwegian Air Force Falcon 20, resident Slovakian Air Force MiG-29AS/UBS, and

Slovakian L-39ZAMTurkish Air Force F-4E-2020s from 111 Filo. Also involved was the rarely seen Learjet 35A D-CARL of German firm GFD, fitted with two Cassidian EW pods, again operating from Sliac.

Aircraft involved in ‘Trial MACE XIII’ included 111 Filo ‘Panthers’ F-4E-2020 from Eskisehir equipped with an Elta EL/L-8222 electronic countermeasures pod. Special markings to commemorate 50,000 Phantom flying hours within the unit were applied during the exercise

http://www.kamov.net/general-aviation/t ... -slovakia/

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Sep 2015 10:45

^Can't we just buy the capability without buying the whole jet, i.e. just the jamming equipment, Spectra if I am right?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Sep 2015 10:50

With commis putting up s-300 and its variants for protecting its assets near our border , a strike package of MKI's with Rafale might be most the effective method to take out those SAMs . So is the reason IAF might have agreed with 3 squadrons and cost have ballooned because of the assorted EW equipments it will come up with.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 06 Sep 2015 10:56

Arun Menon wrote:^Can't we just buy the capability without buying the whole jet, i.e. just the jamming equipment, Spectra if I am right?

Spectra is a integral part of rafale not a plug a play device , even if it is so then how will france sell rafale ???

These pods might be with the package ( a brochure post )

DAMOCLES :The DAMOCLES laser designator pod designed by THALES, brings full day and night laser designation capability to the RAFALE, with metric precision. It permits laser-guided weapons to be delivered at stand-off range and altitude.

The IR sensor of the DAMOCLES pod operates in the mid-wave infrared band, allowing it to retain its effectiveness in warm and / or humid conditions.

DAMOCLES is interoperable with all existing laser-guided weapons.

AREOS – Recce pod with Quick Analysis Capability

For both strategic and tactical reconnaissance missions, the French Armed Forces have adopted the new generation THALES AREOS reconnaissance system for the RAFALE.

As demonstrated in Libya, Mali, the Central African Republic and Iraq, this high-tech, day and night equipment can be used in a wide range of scenarios, from stand-off distance at high altitude down to high speed and extremely low-level.

To shorten the intelligence gathering cycle and accelerate the tempo of operations, the AREOS pod is fitted with a data link which allows high resolution images to be transmitted back to military decision makers in real time.

The outstanding performance of AREOS in stand-off reconnaissance makes it a sensor with a true pre-strategic value.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 06 Sep 2015 11:47

I am somewhat annoyed at the French. They are intentionally pissing into our drinking cup after clapping us in the back pretending to be our friends.

With this kind of money, I could have easily upgraded ADA research facilities and HAL production facilities and crank out 400 LCAs MK IIs that could take the role of Rafales including its EW suite.

36 Rafales are going to do diddly squat and the price would not come down.

My response???

Fvck the French and look somewhere else who understand the needs of offsets and not raping us for such offsets.