IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Oct 2015 03:29

Viv S wrote:
srin wrote:Putting aircraft on a flat-top doesn't necessarily make it a practical aircraft carrier. How much of jet fuel can it carry ? And how much ammo for the aircraft ? How many aircraft can be carried in its hangars for maintenance work ? And it is carrying an air wing, how often does it need to replenished at sea for its own fuel ?


If the ship has been designed from ground up to carry aircraft, there's no reason why jet fuel capacity should be an issue*. And the Juan Carlos type can be further customized for the job. That BTW is what the Turkish Navy has opted for. At roughly $1 bn each (up from $700 mil for the baseline variants), its still a very decent price for a 25,000 ton carrier packing upto 24 aircraft (compared to 36 for the Vik).


*The ship has an unrefueled range of 9,000 nm (16,000 km). Deploying to the Northern Arabian Sea (about 24 hours sailing time) with a full air wing should hardly be a challenge.


Three strikes against the JC: first it's not Russian; second it has to be reinvented in India at 3x the price for some PSU to learn how to build it with screwdrivers; and third it costs too little at $1bn.

Still reeling from how much more it costs HAL to 'build' SU30MKIs vs. buying them from Russia.

We have met the enemy....

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2015 08:10

>>>Still reeling from how much more it costs HAL to 'build' SU30MKIs vs. buying them from Russia.

HAL Su-30 MKI is around $65 Mn compared to claims of the Russian one being at $45 (which I doubt).

Its plain and simple infrastructure cost build up - machinery and human resource. The Soviet Union had the benefit of ordering more than the entire IAF order for Flanker airframes, and then equal numbers were ordered by the PRC. In our case, our costing by HAL includes the cost of building up a lot of that tooling and infrastructure cost to India, which HAL then has to "bill" the MOD for. The indigenization for the Su-30 MKI, component wise, is fairly high.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/w ... 954024.ece
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 636_1.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 552865.ece


This of course does not refer to the raw materials which by agreement have to be sourced from Russia (but which we can supplant if MOD coordinates this and asks HAL to fund efforts accordingly).

Strategic choices in short, do not come cheap. We are at 73% indigenization (parts) for an aircraft which is very complex and has a 1500km strike radius (with heavy payload and IFR/buddy refuelling). This is a phenomenal capability as we work out all the niggles and serviceability challenges. The new Govt (Parrikar and co) understand these issues and will fund both HAL & IAF accordingly (order enough spares & stockpile the imported units which have long lead times to make).

We are gradually indigenizing what we can - some of the avionics & so forth. Adding our own capabilities - Brahmos, Astra, HADF pods - all this is related to the "HAL cost".

In contrast, the PAF's pride and joy, the F-16 is pretty much 100% imported. It will be a cold day in .. before they can even think of putting SD-10s on them or add cheap Chinese bombs..

This is the same approach we wanted to employ for the Rafale as well. But the costs there will again add up. The Russians basically made a 38.8 Ton capable fighter with a 8T payload and made it huge. The Rafale carries around the same payload in a smaller airframe. The packaging & precision is an order of magnitude higher in many airframe components & will require huge investments as well.

News reports put it all on HAL saying 2.5x the labor etc hours. They critically miss out whether that's the initial workup & the overall breakout for TOT and tooling investments at HAL and elsewhere (Bharat Electronics eg for AESA). HAL has got around a lot of the capex for the Su-30 by outsourcing more and more to the private sector (as versus a "vertical structured build up" as it was hitherto doing).

In short, the "enemy is us", is somewhat an oversimplification - because even if Reliance or TATA were to make the Su-30, its fairly likely we would still be costing the Su-30 much higher than what the Russians would. You have to pay the piper, someplace.

My "bias" suggests the L&T and TATA workforce might be better trained and even more productive, hence costs would be cheaper, and aircraft available faster. Reason I say bias, is because TBH, I have no data on whether they can build something as complex as the Su-30, yet.

At $65Mn, the Su-30 is still very valuable, and we should now invest in the spares & basing infra as a priority. A 80% serviceable Su-30 fleet, some 300 airframes strong, with high grade avionics & weaponry, is enough to act as a PAF killer and a PLAAF deterrence fleet almost all by itself.
Last edited by Karan M on 25 Oct 2015 08:27, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Vivek K » 25 Oct 2015 08:21

Amazing how we are so against the development of domestic industry.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2015 08:39

And this is worth repeatedly stressing on - the amount of potential the Su-30 airframe has.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

From an 'information age' warfighting perspective, the basic Su-30 series airframe has some very attractive features absent in competing Western third generation fighters.

The first of these is its massive radar bay, capable of fitting a 1 metre class X-band phased array antenna. In the long range BVR combat game, radar range is a key factor and for any given radar technology, the larger the aperture the better. While the current N011M/ME BARS (Panther) and Pero (Plume) upgrades use passive array technology which delivers less peak power than competing active arrays (AESA) it is only a matter of time before NIIP and Phazotron adapt commercial GaAs MMIC technology (98% of the total GaAs chip market) to build an AESA variant competitive against the AESAs in the latest Western evolved 3rd Gen fighters.

With similar TR (Transmit-Receive) module performance, the fighter with the largest aperture size wins in this game - for instance the N011M has around twice the aperture size of the JSF AESA and F/A-18E/F's APG-79 and even with inferior TR module technology will be highly competitive.


It is worth noting that India is only the fourth nation worldwide to field a phased array equipped aigile air combat fighter, after France, the US and Russia.

Electrical power and liquid cooling have been issues for the integration of AESAs in Western fighters, especially so with smaller types like the F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F and Joint Strike Fighter. This is not an issue given the sheer size of the Flanker.

While the existing N011M has limitations in its older technology back end processing, the future is the path India has followed, retrofitting third party hardware with better performance than the Russian processor hardware. With widely available commodity processor chips in the 1 to 2 GHz class, we can expect to see many other Sukhoi users emulate the Indians in coming years, be it in MLUs or new build aircraft.


Another attractive design feature of the Flankers is the large IRST housing, which can fit an aperture larger than competing Western IRST systems - the more photons the IRST can capture, the greater its detection range potential. The baseline OLS-27 IRST can scan a 120x75 degree field of regard, and cover as field of view as narrow as 3x3 degrees but has poor sensitivity with a head on detection ranges cca 8 nautical miles. The integrated laser rangefinder is effective to about 1.5 nautical miles. Specifications for the OLS-30 have not been disclosed - it is known that further development is under way on an IRST/FLIR design similar in concept to the Eurofighter's Pirate system. As with radars, IRST and FLIR aperture size matters, and the Sukhoi is in a commanding position with the existing OLS-27/30 package. With commercial technologies such as Quantum Well longwave/multiband imagers of 800x600 pixel resolution in the EU market, it is only a matter of time before this technology finds its way into an OLS-30/31 derivative. Current US IRSTs using older MCT imaging arrays have detected fighters at distances of many tens of miles.


The cockpit of the existing Su-30 series provides plenty of opportunities for further growth, both in display technology and back end processing. With militarised commodity AMLCD display panels becoming increasingly available, the trend we have observed with the Sextant displays in the MKI is likely to grow over time, driven by the need to compete against US and EU cockpit designs. We should not be surprised to see India and Israel become prominent in the Sukhoi MLU market. The same will be true of mission computer equipment.

Upgrades available for Su-27/30 include the encrypted TKS-2/R-098 (Tipovyi Kompleks Svyazi) Intra Flight Data Link (IFDL) which permits the networking of up to 16 Sukhoi fighters. It is not known whether the 5U15K-11 datalink designed for networking the A-50 AWACS and MiG-31 has been adapted to the Su-27/30, or whether a unique equivalent design is used. The TKS-2 was used effectively during the 2004 Cope India exercise against US F-15Cs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2015 08:41

IMO, 72 Rafale + 300 MKI + 120 Tejas + Upgrades (60 MiG-29, 50 Mirage 2000, 100 Jaguars) - and the IAF really has a lot of punch viz its fighter fleet. The main aim then can shift to force multipliers and PGMs even while there is sufficient time to refine and finetune the FGFA and AMCA.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Oct 2015 21:15

Cosmo_R wrote:
Viv S wrote:
If the ship has been designed from ground up to carry aircraft, there's no reason why jet fuel capacity should be an issue*. And the Juan Carlos type can be further customized for the job. That BTW is what the Turkish Navy has opted for. At roughly $1 bn each (up from $700 mil for the baseline variants), its still a very decent price for a 25,000 ton carrier packing upto 24 aircraft (compared to 36 for the Vik).


*The ship has an unrefueled range of 9,000 nm (16,000 km). Deploying to the Northern Arabian Sea (about 24 hours sailing time) with a full air wing should hardly be a challenge.


Three strikes against the JC: first it's not Russian; second it has to be reinvented in India at 3x the price for some ..


Fine, use the viraat if she still has any life in her, from the reports we read, seemingly the bigger problem is lack of harriers, if JSF can be pressed in service here.....prolly won't work cause the size is rather different

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2015 13:57

That's why the Super-S version is on the cards,with BMos-M,etc. Reg. the Viraat.A grand old lady.I do not know the hull/eqpt. condition,but if it was hunky-dory,the IN would've planned for it for amphib ops,just as it was used in the Falklands campaign.We really missed out a few years ago when the RN early-retired all 70+ Harriers,the entire lot snapped up by the USMC.had we acquired a sqd. of these,we could've had them in service for another decade on an CV or amphib.

BK in his last missive,alleges that the 36 Raffys will cost us upto $9B.Some reports say $5B. Is there any reliable fig from official sources? Anyway,November/Dec. will be decisive for many acquisitions, the Rafale,FGFA,MTA,etc. I think that a lot of financial juggling is going on,with various options being considered depending upon the cost factor.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 710
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Y I Patel » 28 Oct 2015 07:13

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the deal is all but moribund. IAF, IMHO, is not going to get the Katrina at all - not 36, not 96... PAK FA? Maybe. Super Hornet? Maybe. Rafale? No.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2015 08:23

The last official reports indicated that the deal was on,but the fine print is yet to be finalised.I think that the GOI has budgeted for the 36 Raffys,but the after sales support,costs,etc. seem opaque. Other than the Raffy,selected by the IAF,what else is there apart from Russian birds? Only the Gripen. Too close to the LCA in form and style,but costwise? It may be a real cost-saving exercise if the Raffy deal cost skyrockets.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4886
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2015 10:08

^^^

Given current orders and schedules, 2018 onward would be good for the IAF:
  • 16/year x LCA -> one squadron/year (if HAL keeps its end of the bargain from production side of things)
  • 16/year x Su-30MKI -> one squadron/year (if follow-on orders are placed and current rates are maintained)
  • 8-10/year x Rafale -> half a squadron/year (if 36 Rafales are signed this year, it will take 36-months for the first lot to be delivered to the IAF and probably take 3 or 4 years from then to complete the order)

That's around 2.5 squadrons a year addition which would total to 10 new squadrons (4 LCA, 4 MKI and 2 Rafale) between 2018 and 2022.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2015 10:40

Some good advice being given to the British armed forces.The same holds good for India.
We too do not need Ferraris,or BMWs,but a large inventory of sturdy Fords,Mahindras,Tatas,and Marutis,with a smaller qty. of luxury wheels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... raris.html
Our Armed Forces need BMWs not Ferraris
As ministers consider the latest defence review, it is time to scale down some of the equipment on order.

By Con Coughlin
27 Oct 2015

As the Government puts the finishing touches to its latest attempt to ensure the nation is properly equipped to defend itself against future threats, trying to repair the enormous damage inflicted on our Armed Forces by the previous round of defence cuts will be no easy matter.

The last time the Government attempted to provide a comprehensive assessment of Britain’s future needs was when it published the conclusions of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). Far from providing a coherent view of our military requirements and threats we were likely to face, the process quickly unravelled as it became clear that the Coalition was more interested in cutting costs than defending the realm.

The challenge for the Government is to start rebuilding Britain’s military strength

Having convinced itself that Britain faced no immediate threat to its security or national interests, the Coalition set about slashing vital military assets purely to trim budgets. Thus the next generation of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and the Invincible-class aircraft carriers, together with their fleet of Harrier jump jets, were scrapped, while the Army has seen its standing strength cut by a third, reducing it to its smallest size since the start of the Napoleonic wars.

Today, senior officers inform me that they estimate Britain’s overall military strength has been reduced by one third as a result of the cuts, while threats to our national security have increased significantly.

Repairing the damage inflicted by the 2010 review, both in terms of rebuilding military firepower and adopting a more realistic approach to global threats, must therefore underpin the conclusions reached by the 2015 SDSR, which are due to be announced at the end of next month.

On one level, there are reasons for cautious optimism that these objectives might be achieved. George Osborne’s surprise announcement in his emergency Budget in July that he was committing 2 per cent of GDP to defence spending means that national security, like health and education, is now regarded as a ring-fenced area – one that can anticipate real increases in capital spending for the duration of this parliament.

The refugee crisis, caused in part by the Government’s failure to address the challenge of failed states like Libya and Syria, and Russia’s recent military intervention in Syria, means that ministers are now well aware of the very present threats to national security, quite apart from any that might arise in future.

The challenge for the Government is to start rebuilding Britain’s military strength while making sure future defence spending remains affordable, which will remain a challenge so long as military chiefs insist on having the most sophisticated kit, even when cheaper options are readily available.

For example, as part of the SDSR bidding process, the Royal Navy wants a new generation of Type 26 frigates – or what the glossy brochures call “globally deployable multi-mission warships” – at a projected cost of £4 billion. The Navy argues these state-of-the-art ships are vital for protecting the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, which are due to enter service at the end of the decade.

But not all of the new frigates will be used to protect carrier battle groups. Some will be deployed for more low-level operations, such as chasing drug smugglers around the Caribbean, or tackling Somali pirates. Does the Navy really expect us to pay for hi-tech warships to deal with criminals armed with machine guns and machetes when far cheaper alternatives would suffice?

Then there is the troubled Joint Strike Fighter programme, which is supposed to provide a new generation of jets to fly off the carriers.

The top brass will always opt for a top-of-the-range Ferrari when a mid-range Jaguar or BMW might also do

Apart from the significant technical issues, the project has encountered, there are growing concerns over how much the plane will eventually cost. Both the RAF and Navy, which will have joint ownership of the aircraft, remain committed to a programme that is now officially the most expensive weapons project in history. But far cheaper alternatives, such as the F-18 used by US Navy carriers, are available.

These are just some of the more obvious examples where, left to their own devices, the top brass will always opt for a top-of-the-range Ferrari when a mid-range Jaguar or BMW might also prove perfectly adequate.

I am not singling out the Navy especially for criticism, as all three Services are equally culpable of indulging in profligacy. But, in these straightened times, when the Government has demonstrated its support for the military by committing itself to spend 2 per cent of GDP, it behoves the heads of our Armed Forces to come up with proposals that are both effective and affordable as ministers consider their options for the next SDSR.

Buying state-of-the-art planes, ships and tanks is all very well if you can afford them. But expensive acquisitions quickly become a liability when you cannot afford the manpower and equipment to keep them fully operational.


Will the alleged (by some) $9B Rafale deal prove cost-effective in the long run?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Cybaru » 31 Oct 2015 01:02

If Pakfa deal gets signed and an extra sukhoi happens in the form of super-30, does it really leave any space or role for the rafale? What kind of role will it bet tasked with? is there a niche that others haven't touched or will touch?

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2803
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby JTull » 31 Oct 2015 16:00

First FGFA will come earliest in 6-7 years, while first Rafale will come in 18 months from date of signing. But Rafale increasingly looks like an interim measure.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Vivek K » 31 Oct 2015 20:47

Work with HAL to build additional LCA in quicker time. Buy tech from France and not Rafale. This stupid penchant for all things phoren has gone roof far.

We are wasting money that could be used for building infrastructure. India cannot afford the Rafale or the PAKFA

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby member_20292 » 02 Nov 2015 21:27

vina wrote:Cross Posting..

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Guys. In case folks are not able to read between the lines, let me put this out here in open, especially the "sensitive" one.

1. The Rafale requirement is NOT tactical. The Rafale is meant primarily for nuke strike role with air dropped /cruise missile equipped nukes.

2. That is the Air Force trying to remain relevant/retain a nuke strike role. Sorry, that is so mid 20th century and is not required anymore.

3. The nukes are going to be on IN subs and there will be land based component. That is the crux of it. The land based thing is probably going to be with the Army if the Prithvi stuff is any experiene.

4. The IAF is Nook Nood (or will be soon) after the Mirage 2K. That is the cold fact. And it doesn't like it.

Now remove the IAF's long-schlong measuring contests with the Navy and Army and recognise that the the IAF really has NO strategic strike role (oops, that must hurt for every airforce anywhere always pride itself as the long arm that can strike deep and hard into the enemy and historically had the strategic role, but that is what technology has done) and evaluate the IAF's role in the cold reality of it being a tactical force that will be focused on air dominance/ superiority and tactical strike and battlefield close air support (there too, it is getting squeezed by the army's air wings), then somethings stand out VERY clearly.

a. The Rafale is NOT needed. It is too expensive and really doesn't bring much to the table in a purely tactical role
b. The SU-30 and the LCA together serve our tactical strike needs (both longer range and short range) much better
c. Same is true with air superiority and battle field CAS, where the Rafale will be too few in numbers and also doesnt bring anything to the table the other two don't do to justify that acquisition.

Yes, Karnad and others are right. The Rafale /MMRCA is NOT needed. What you need are updated SU-30s and rolling out 250 LCAs in Mk1, MK1A (the MK1 will get upgraded into MK1A eventually) and Mk2.

The IAF frat boys who want long-schlong contests with the Army and Navy can go jump.

Yeah. If the HAL manages to take 200Kg off the landing gear, thanks to the design spiral which I wrote about earlier, the overall weight reduction will be much higher than 200Kg. For e.g., the 200Kg of the landing gear is behind the CG, so depending on the lever arm's length from the CG, you probably are looking at taking around 50 to 100kg off the ballast in the nose! . So your weight reduction is actually 250Kg. Now, that will probably go through another round of optimisation (your empty weight is no 250kg less) and you probably shave off another 20kg off the landing and 10kg of ballast (say), and you get something like 300Kg off! And if you put in OBOGs and take out heavy oxygen air tanks or whatever they are using the MK1, you probably are looking at more gains in the empty weight . Sure take off the remaining ballast and put in the AESA and you are done.


I'd refer you to the last Bond movie.

M gives Bond a gun and tells him that he is obsolete. Bond says , sure you can fire remotely, but you cannot tell remotely, when NOT to fire.

Similarly, dropping a nuke - a plane gives you options a missile does. not. refer to old ArunS posts if you like

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 02 Nov 2015 21:43

Is there even a single Indian bomb designed with the Rafale in mind?

All the above is just speculation, nothing else.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 03 Nov 2015 11:41

If dropping nukes was the objective,then an SU-34 would do the job admirably,even better a bigger bomber (Backfire/Blackjack type),which could take care of PRC targets. If tactical low-yield nukes is to be carried,our Prithvi Shourya,and Agni-1 missiles could do the business to deal with Pak. If The hinted at FGFA deal is also worked out for 3+ sqds of Russian std. aircraft,with manufacturing options looked at later on,plus large numbers of LCAs arriving in the future.The Rafale is also not designed to carry BMos,which upgraded MIG-29s,29Ks,Sukhoi MKIs and Super-Sukhois will deliver.The 2 sqds of Rafales will look innocuous in the total inventory.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Hitesh » 03 Nov 2015 19:57

I wish the MoD would come out and say we are not going for the Rafales. 36 Rafales is more harmful than any utilitarian value it would bring. 126 Rafales make sense but not 36.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 03 Nov 2015 22:15

plan is for 72, wait and watch

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2015 23:04

I think the French have not delivered on something that was promised. Most likely the Rafale will be at the low number or not at all.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Nov 2015 04:30

Rafale was always there in the mix to get access to "western" technology, perceived to be refined, finessed and efficacious to comparable options available to the IAF. The increasing challenge was to "prove" the capability gap for a given cost for the the objectives to be achieved. Do not think, the single point of a strategic delivery platform was its only main purpose. If that was the case the number requested would not have been 126. Also, do not think, the IAF is about to loose its role as a nuclear delivery arm. Indian is committed to a triad.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2015 17:36

There is some similarity (the cost factor) between the IAF's MMRCA quest and the ongoing Oz search for a sub to fulfill its "12 sub" requirement, that was derisively described by one commentator that a former Oz PM thought he could get for free! There are now 4 sub types competing for the prize.The Swedes are already also-rans with the failure of their much vaunted Collins class. To build them at home or buy them from abroad,still can't be decided by the Oz boffins who are now grappling with the astronomical estimate of $36B.....which doesn't include life-cycle costs. One wit had it that Oz was the only navy that sent its sub sailing a few thousands of KMs first,then going on patrol! The kind of large conventional sub with equiv capability of a nuclear boat "doesn't exist" said one commentator. The wizards of Oz have now decided that they need external assistance to find the best bet. Oz has now actually hired a former US admiral to assist them in their quest,a man who was a key figure on the team of the world's most expensive sub,the Seawolf.This looks like dejas vu Don Quixote! The entire exercise is providing watchers with much merriment.

The MMRCA when first envisaged,was thought that the aircraft selected would be available at a reasonable cost.The economy was also doing well and everything looked hunky-dory.Then came the extension of aircraft types from single-engine ones to twin-engine ones.Apples and oranges and pears thrown into the same basket. As time went by in the excruciating evaluation process,the cost kept spiraling upwards.No wonder that the entire exercise has gone "pear shaped"! So from a grand envisioned 126 with local manufacture,further orders upto 180+ aircraft,we have a princely total of just 36 for a fig. anywhere from $5-9M depending upon whom you believe. I think that hard economics more than welshing upon promised tech is responsible for the current situ,esp. when you factor in that Jet-Li handled the Def. Min portfolio initially.He would've been well acquainted with the contours of the entire deal and decided how much moolah could be spared for the same. MP also made his views clear about getting "2 Sukhois for the price of one Rafale".

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby member_29245 » 05 Nov 2015 20:16

i sincerely hope that we keep on debating when will the contract for 36 rafales be signed ?

this month end , next month end , this quarter end next quarter end, year end (calender year end or financial year end )

even in 2017

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4886
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby srai » 06 Nov 2015 01:03

Karan M wrote:plan is for 72, wait and watch


Is that a promise of paradise ;)

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby jayasimha » 06 Nov 2015 14:15

Harin wrote:i sincerely hope that we keep on debating when will the contract for 36 rafales be signed ?

this month end , next month end , this quarter end next quarter end, year end (calender year end or financial year end )

even in 2017


It is like when you are hungry, i give you bubble gum. You open the wrap and start chewing. It wont fill your stomach. But to a third party it looks like i have given a "lot" for you .....

I think this is what Modirkar are doing to all of us and dass-salt. Before we come to know, IAF will be having Tejas Under their belt ..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2015 19:24

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /75061854/

NEW DELHI — Under an offsets deal reached by India and France regarding the acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets, France has agreed that it will fulfill its obligations only within the aerospace arena and not partly through research and development projects, an Indian Defence Ministry source said.

With a final agreement reached on offsets, India and France are likely to sign a protocol by the end of this month to buy 36 Rafales and thereafter the price negotiations will follow, leading to a final deal in the next four to six months, the MoD the source added. :mrgreen: {At this rate, we are on track to sign the deal to confirm the deal, for the real deal which will lead to the deal...}

Ever since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in his April visit to Paris that India intended to buy 36 Rafales on a government-to-government (G2G) basis, talks between India and French were stuck on the issue of offsets, with the French initially not agreeing to discharge offsets at all.

India wants 50 percent of the total amount of the deal, estimated to be around $10 billion for 36 Rafales, including weaponry, to be matched by offsets involving purchases from the Indian aerospace sector, including tie-ups and cooperation with domestic defense companies to boost India's defense production base.

The French wanted 20 percent of the offsets to be discharged through R&D tie ups with India's Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), but the MoD rejected their request, the source added. The list of R&D projects in which the French had evinced interest to participate is not known.

But Dassault Chairman Eric Trappier said, "We are working with the Indian authorities on the offsets. Nothing has been decided. We are following the Make in India program. It's going in the right direction. Talks are still continuing."

The French Defense Ministry declined comment. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Thakur_B » 09 Nov 2015 22:05

Deal.won't happen. If the parties were into it, it might have happened by now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 09 Nov 2015 22:17

Which deal are you talking about? The deal to conclude the talks for the part of the deal that will allow the deal? Or the deal before that which got rolled up into the other deal? :mrgreen:

On a more serious note, the amount of effort being put in shows this has Modi's imprint & hence everyone is working towards it. Whether it is successful and the French cooperate is another matter altogether.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby SaiK » 09 Nov 2015 23:01

Q: did the French agree to 50% offsets or not?

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

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Viv S » 09 Nov 2015 23:09

Karan M wrote:India wants 50 percent of the total amount of the deal, estimated to be around $10 billion for 36 Rafales, including weaponry, to be matched by offsets involving purchases from the Indian aerospace sector, including tie-ups and cooperation with domestic defense companies to boost India's defense production base.


:rotfl:

Grows by $1bn every two months.

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

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Viv S » 09 Nov 2015 23:12

SaiK wrote:Q: did the French agree to 50% offsets or not?


They did agree. But with the 'fixed FMS cost' being dropped, they intend to fund the offsets by padding the cost to India.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby member_27581 » 09 Nov 2015 23:33

Viv S wrote:
Karan M wrote:India wants 50 percent of the total amount of the deal, estimated to be around $10 billion for 36 Rafales, including weaponry, to be matched by offsets involving purchases from the Indian aerospace sector, including tie-ups and cooperation with domestic defense companies to boost India's defense production base.


:rotfl:

Grows by $1bn every two months.

Wish our salaries and GOI revenues increased at same rate.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4886
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby srai » 10 Nov 2015 04:22

Karan M wrote:Which deal are you talking about? The deal to conclude the talks for the part of the deal that will allow the deal? Or the deal before that which got rolled up into the other deal? :mrgreen:

...

:D

Sounds like stalling tactics. When the price negotiation takes place, the French will again raise the price since they have to do 50% offset. They will say they won't be liable for Indian partners or that they need extra funds to help them absorb "high-end" technology etc. That was one of the things that killed the original MMRCA deal. The "lower" price (similar to French AF) they gave was for direct purchase with no offsets or ToT. That was at around $250+ million/unit, which was apparently quite a bit less than what was being negotiated for MMRCA (can only assume the price per unit was over $300+ million mark probably closer to $400 million/unit when LCC, offsets, ToT and weapons were factored in).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2015 19:06

Will we base them at the National Museum and sell them decades later like John Lennon's guitar for a profit?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19961
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2015 11:02

SRai - you nailed it. The French can now afford to walk away from the deal but being good salesmen they still want it but on their terms. Plus political push from French Gov. Our guys are busy nailing it down and won't give up either because of the political push from NM. IMO, it will still happen but with a lot of press and time taken. I still believe there will be a follow on order if NDA makes it in 2019.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Philip » 11 Nov 2015 17:44

If the price is the sticking factor,then Mr.Modi should leverage his visit to Russia next month ,firm up more aircraft deals,MKIs,FGFAs whatever ,which are much cheaper,already in discussion,and present the French with a fait accompli. That way if the French stick to a price of $7-10B for just 36 Rafales,then one can say "au revoir".

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1064
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Kailash » 12 Nov 2015 10:04

srai wrote:Sounds like stalling tactics. When the price negotiation takes place, the French will again raise the price since they have to do 50% offset. They will say they won't be liable for Indian partners or that they need extra funds to help them absorb "high-end" technology etc.


I hope this is the last medium weight fighter aircraft type we import. IMHO, investing in technoloty (even stealing tech) is much more simpler than negotiating for ToT, or navigating our bureaucracy/politics. NM or MP wont always be there to save the day. Next time someone talks of our inability to absorb "high-end" tech, we should have a mature cyber/intelligence cell and local MIC to leverage upon.

Everyone seems to have lost - IAF, GoI, french/indian companies involved, practically everyone. Only positives that came out of this wasted time was that Rafale didnt land up in China or Pakistan, and IAF looking at LCA little more favorably.

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby member_29245 » 12 Nov 2015 11:34

the major thing that came out of this fiasco is the realisation that

we cannot afford 190 + rafales

and also that going ahead we cannot afford Imported Air Force

we need Indian Air Force

arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby arthuro » 13 Nov 2015 01:24

According to UAE's air force commander general Ibrahim Nasser al Alaoui, its government is in the very final stage of negotiation with Dassault to acquire not less than 60 rafales.

http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt ... WH20151111


DUBAI, 11 novembre (Reuters) - Les négociations au sujet de l'achat d'avions Rafale par les Emirats arabes unis sont entrées dans leur phase finale, a déclaré mercredi à Reuters le chef de l'armée de l'air de ce pays du Golfe.

"Je pense que nous sommes dans la dernière phase des négociations", a dit le général Ibrahim Nasser al Alaoui, commandant des forces aériennes des Emirats, interrogé sur la perspective d'un accord pour acheter des Rafale à Dassault.


http://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soi ... -unis.html

http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servic ... 174172.php

http://www.europe1.fr/economie/les-emir ... le-2618755

http://www.letelegramme.fr/economie/raf ... 845984.php

This declaration from UAE authorities echoes a previous interview from Dassault's CEO (Nov 3rd) where he reiterates his confidence for the Indian deal and he hoped to sign another contract in 2016. Interview here:

"Je suis assez optimiste sur la signature assez rapide", a-t-il ajouté, en estimant qu'un quatrième contrat à l'export du Rafale pourrait être engrangé l'année prochaine.

"Je pense qu'il y aura un quatrième contrat qui se matérialisera l'année prochaine", a-t-il dit en prévenant toutefois que "rien n'est acquis tant que c'est pas signé."


http://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/201 ... -inde.html

Egypt, Qatar and soon India and UAE ? That would be quite a come back from Dassault...

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

Re: IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Postby Viv S » 13 Nov 2015 02:27

arthuro wrote:According to UAE's air force commander general Ibrahim Nasser al Alaoui, its government is in the very final stage of negotiation with Dassault to acquire not less than 60 rafales.

http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt ... WH20151111


I'm fervently praying it happens. That'll push India to fourth place in the delivery schedule and hopefully provide the MoD with the final incentive to conclusively kill the deal. And with a 100+ orders on the books, France will probably be more willing to let this one slide without a racket.

Me hoping for the big Rafale export victory.. how's that for irony, eh Arthuro?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests