IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Austin]

More Def Project with french in pipeline

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 618413.cms

[Austin]

So, life cycle cost calculations are an analytical way of reaching to a full cost of acquiring, and operating a system. It is not something that you would ever see in a bill, or in a contract that you sign with an OEM. The NDTV article by Vishnu is quite clear that the IAF is demanding a spare and support guarantee for a period of 5 or 10 years with a capability rate of 90%. That by itself demonstrates that they are signing a PBL like deal for 5 or 10 years and not paying life cycle cost of anything since that cost is a 'future years' cost and depends upon assumptions that may or may not hold true (what wold be the cost of fuel in 2030?).

MMRCA was selected on basis of LCC and the vendor that met most of IAF requirement was select in this case the Rafale and if media is to be believed Typhoon was runnerup , cost was not really a factor as merits was key consideration based on LCC and IAF requirement.
Rafale seems to be the most expensive buy in MMRCA but likely met most of IAF requirement as well.

[Indranil]

They don't really. The ASMP-A is used for nuclear attack. The Mirage & Rafale serve purely as missile carriers. The last french free-fall nuclear bomb i.e AN-52 was retired in 1994.

Our counterpart to the French model, is a BrahMos or Nirbhay with a nuclear warhead launched from a Su-30MKI.

If you carry a nuclear warhead you can't use the same aircraft., you got to hardwire that for nuke role with specific electronics PAL stuff, doesn't matter if they carry free fall or missile. Also harden it against emp effect

French use both M2K n Rafale for that role , we use the former and when Rafale comes in that would the case too

I got that from horses mouth so see no reason to doubt that

Austin, may I ask what is stopping us from "harderning" a Su-30 for in the same way?

[Austin]

Austin, may I ask what is stopping us from "harderning" a Su-30 for in the same way?

Nothing but it seems SFC need for 40 MKI for such role has not moved ahead .....having multiple platform for Nuclear delivery is good as it gives many options , even in 80's Jags and M2K was selected but Jags had some issue with adequate ground spacing as WOP mentioned IIRC hence M2K remain the sole contender.

[Indranil]

Then, it would make even more sense to have Su-30s+Mirages, rather than Mirages+Rafales. If the Mirages can soldier on for 15 more years, we can have AMCA+Su-30s, or AMCA+FGFAs.

[Austin]

Then, it would make even more sense to have Su-30s+Mirages, rather than Mirages+Rafales. If the Mirages can soldier on for 15 more years, we can have AMCA+Su-30s, or AMCA+FGFAs.

I would probably would have gone for 5 squadron of Rafale with gradual easing of 21',27 and older Jags this decade and LCA production taking over.

Rafale is quite good for nuclear role and there is history of IAF working with Dassult and linking for its aircraft in strategic role.

Any way neither I or you take a call on such things , IF MOD thinks they need to buy Rafale for these roles then there must be good reason.

Back in 80's even the 27 was not considered for Nuclear Role although SU used it for tactical N bombing. I am not sure if MKI even exist in that role atm as we dont have any standoff weapons system ( with Nukes ) to compliment it which means limited to free fall ones perhaps with Super MKI , SCF would have one more aircraft rigged for nuclear role besides the M2K and Rafale.

[Thakur_B]

If you carry a nuclear warhead you can't use the same aircraft., you got to hardwire that for nuke role with specific electronics PAL stuff, doesn't matter if they carry free fall or missile. Also harden it against emp effect

French use both M2K n Rafale for that role , we use the former and when Rafale comes in that would the case too

I got that from horses mouth so see no reason to doubt that

Austin, may I ask what is stopping us from "harderning" a Su-30 for in the same way?

Revenue reports stated that it is being done to two Brahmos launching sukhoi.

[member_20453]

Indeed the 2 MKI being modified to carry the Brahmos are the test aircraft for the follow-on SFC Super MKIs. These 2 are indeed being hardened. SFC will operate the Super MKI with N-armed Brahmos and eventually Nirbhay for Strategic strikes. I also believe, these 2 test aircraft are also being kitted out with Super MKI upgrades including AESA, uprated engines, upgraded OLS, hence the delay in progress. Hopefully by March they can fire the Brahmos.

Moreso, Russia will not allow Brahmos to be deployed on the Rafale.

[Austin]

Indeed the 2 MKI being modified to carry the Brahmos are the test aircraft for the follow-on SFC Super MKIs. These 2 are indeed being hardened. SFC will operate the Super MKI with N-armed Brahmos and eventually Nirbhay for Strategic strikes. I also believe, these 2 test aircraft are also being kitted out with Super MKI upgrades including AESA, uprated engines, upgraded OLS, hence the delay in progress. Hopefully by March they can fire the Brahmos.

Moreso, Russia will not allow Brahmos to be deployed on the Rafale.

I am not sure if Rafale HardPoint is rated at 2.5T plus to carry brahmos its centerline has enough ground clearance , Integrating Brahmos with any issue is not a problem as its Brahmos is Indian org but due to its weight length ground clearance likely MKI is the only one that will carry till we have Brahmos-M

[brar_w]

So, life cycle cost calculations are an analytical way of reaching to a full cost of acquiring, and operating a system. It is not something that you would ever see in a bill, or in a contract that you sign with an OEM. The NDTV article by Vishnu is quite clear that the IAF is demanding a spare and support guarantee for a period of 5 or 10 years with a capability rate of 90%. That by itself demonstrates that they are signing a PBL like deal for 5 or 10 years and not paying life cycle cost of anything since that cost is a 'future years' cost and depends upon assumptions that may or may not hold true (what wold be the cost of fuel in 2030?).

MMRCA was selected on basis of LCC and the vendor that met most of IAF requirement was select in this case the Rafale and if media is to be believed Typhoon was runnerup , cost was not really a factor as merits was key consideration based on LCC and IAF requirement.
Rafale seems to be the most expensive buy in MMRCA but likely met most of IAF requirement as well.

Again, you are repeating the same thing. I agree that the rafale was selected on the basis of LCC and again, most source selection around the world these days involve some level of LCC analysis. However, that does not automatically mean that a contract is signed with the vendor based on some version of the LCC which includes a lot more than the vendor is responsible for delivering. Fuel costs are taken as part of the Life Cycle Cost analysis. Will Dassault provide all the fuel for the rafale throughout its life? What about manpower costs? Will dassault provide that portion of the O&S costs?

Once again, LCC is a source selection ANALYTICAL method to determine the best financial value. Let me give an example. Lets say you have two fighters (fighter X and fighter Y) and fighter X costs 20% more to procure than the other. Fighter Y is a single engined fighter and has a MTOW that is 25% lower and has an SFC advantage of higher X. During source selection both are deemed to meet the technical requirements of the operator while fighter Y consumes less fuel over its lifetime, requires less manpower to keep it flying, and requires less in spares etc. Here the LCC advantage goes to fighter Y. The air--force selects fighter Y on the basis of LCC and awards its produced a contract that consists of the aircraft, weapons, spares for a period of 10 years and support contracts. This does not mean that the air-force pays the OEM what it had calculated to be the life-cycle-cost of the aircraft multiplied by the number of aircraft. Similarly, if I pick a hybrid based on fuel-consumption as opposed to a V8 I won't be paying the maker of the hybrid the life-time cost of fuel that I used to justify my decision. Hence, LIFE CYCLE COST is not a fixed cost that is exchanged between the operator/source-selector and the OEM. It is an analytical way of deriving to the best-value. That is exactly what happened with he MMRCA, which was one of the first (from what I have read) competitions in the Indian defense establishment that factored in life-cycle-cost into its decision making. The analytical method however, is not something that is based on a transaction with he OEM. While many air-forces around the world now prefer to build up long term spare inventory or better still sign a PBL-like contract that takes care of long term spare delivery, the contract/transaction done with the OEM is in no way representative of a unit price that equates to LCC. Lets use the F-35 as an example. The Life-Cycle cost of the F-35 fleet for the three US services hovers at around $1 Trillion (All costs added up in respective THEN YEAR dollar amounts with constant dollar (2012) costs being around $800 Billion) dollars for 2000+ aircraft each with a life of 8000 hours. This includes the cost to develop the aircraft, the cost to procure it, the cost to fly it (includes spares, fuel, support manpower etc), the cost to develop future variants of it and finally the cost to dispose off each of the 2000+ aircraft once they have finished their life-time of use. Lockheed does not get $1 trillion dollars. They get at best the development contract, and the aircraft and whatever performance based logistics is signed with them. The other components of the LCC are consumed internally by the USAF, USN and USMC over the 30-40 year life-time of the aircraft . Things such as fuel, manpower costs, and maintaining a depot level capability to support the aircraft.

Vishnu Som's article on January 14th could not have been clearer in that the MOD is negotiating a bulk spare buy or a PBL for 5 or 10 years that would ensure a fixed mission capability rate. Two ways to go about this. one way is to just buy all those spares and do your inventory. Another is to agree to pay the OEM an annual amount over 5 or 10 years for assured delivery of spares to meet a pre-defined, contractually agreed mission capability rate. Both are equally good but the former involves huge capital expenditure in one go and running the logistics yourself, while the latter spreads the cost over 5 or 10 years and leaves the responsibility of logistics to the OEM. This again is one component of O&S, which is one component of Life-Cycle-Cost. Again unless Vishnu is wrong, the iAF would have to sign a similar contract or buy a similarly high volume of spares after the 5 or 10 year period to extend service MC rates beyond the 5 or 10 years that they are currently negotiating. A true Life-Cycle cost would have meant that Dassault provides life-time worth of spares, life-time worth of manpower to run the Rafale, life-time worth of depot and overhaul services, life-time worth of fuel and life-time worth of upgrades...The graphic below sort of shows the different components of life-cycle cost.

MMRCA was selected on basis of LCC and the vendor that met most of IAF requirement was select in this case the Rafale and if media is to be believed Typhoon was runnerup , cost was not really a factor as merits was key consideration based on LCC and IAF requirement.

There are various ways of using LCC into your source-selection. One way that was practices even in the west a decade or two ago was to first find the technical best-fit and then choose the version that remained in contention based on the lowest life-cycle cost i.e. the process of choosing lowest cost among the technically acceptable system. Another way to do this is to mix acquisition and operational/technical folks into one integrated source-selection team and give them the trade space and authority to make technical and financial trades within their own group. For example if a Mach 1.5 top speed is getting you a 30% better value in terms of lower life-cycle cost the operator may be tempted to lower technical parameters by say .2 mach in order to get 20-30% larger force. This is just one example. Both methods of source-selection are employed around the world with the latter now being increasingly preferred as a means to arrive to better decisions...

[Austin]

Again, you are repeating the same thing. I agree that the rafale was selected on the basis of LCC and again, most source selection around the world these days involve some level of LCC analysis. However, that does not automatically mean that a contract is signed with the vendor based on some version of the LCC which includes a lot more than the vendor is responsible for delivering. Fuel costs are taken as part of the Life Cycle Cost analysis. Will Dassault provide all the fuel for the rafale throughout its life? What about manpower costs? Will dassault provide that portion of the O&S costs?

You seem not to understand what I am saying , the cost of purchase of Rafale is based on Life Cycle Cost which includes calculation its cost over 6000 hrs of life or 30 years which ever is earlier , When you make those LCC you take a notional value for fuel cost because no one knows what is the cost of fuel 1 year from now forget about 5 10 or 20 years but you use a value to calculate it keeping the base same across.

The cost of armament is fractional to cost of the aircraft but the cost of spares , support and reserves of 5-10 years with guranteed uptimes of 80-90 % takes most of the cost , an armament can be used or may not be used as long as they are within the usuable life time but spares ,rotables maintainance have their own fixes schedule as mandated by OEM including overhaul , engine change etc, These have been taken into account for the current deal , hence the cost quoted is around 3-4x times the cost of just the aircraft.

[brar_w]

what I am saying , the cost of purchase of Rafale is based on Life Cycle Cost which includes calculation its cost over 6000 hrs of life or 30 years which ever is earlier , When you make those LCC you take a notional value for fuel cost because no one knows what is the cost of fuel 1 year from now forget about 5 10 or 20 years but you use a value to calculate it keeping the base same across.

Yes there are assumptions involved in LCC (that can at time be grossly wrong) but the contract with Dassault has little to no relation with LCC is the point that I have been making all along. LCC was used to determine best value, but the contract as per the last few reports involves

- Aircraft
- Some spares and support (5 or 10 years)
- Weapons

That is in no way LCC x 36 since you said -

Vishnu Som figure of $8 billion with Life Cycle Support and 90 % uptimes looks more credible for now but would still wait till they sign on dotted lines.

Life-Cycle Support is not what he said in his Jan. 14 article. he said spares and support for 5 or at the maximum of 10 years.

The cost of armament is fractional to cost of the aircraft but the cost of spares , support and reserves of 5-10 years with guranteed uptimes of 80-90 % takes most of the cost , an armament can be used or may not be used as long as they are within the usuable life time but spares ,rotables maintainance have their own fixes schedule as mandated by OEM including overhaul , engine change etc, These have been taken into account for the current deal , hence the cost quoted is around 3-4x times the cost of just the aircraft.

Assuming a 300 hours of utilization per year (notional), a 5 year supply of spares would constitute 25% of the cost of spares over the LIFE CYCLE. A 10 year supply of spares would contribute 50% of the cost of spares over the LIFE CYCLE. Spares themselves only make up a portion of the O&S cost that itself makes up a portion of the Life-Cycle-Cost (though the majority of it in deals like the MMRCA).

When you make those LCC you take a notional value for fuel cost because no one knows what is the cost of fuel 1 year from now forget about 5 10 or 20 years but you use a value to calculate it keeping the base same across.

That is why you develop a range with the best case and worst case scenarios. Its tough to nail down on a projection but you can develop models where you account for very high cost, and very low costs and you can use that to inform your decision making process. For the purpose of the LCC on the MMRCA finalists it would not have made a drastic difference given the two aircraft selected were in similar categories. Had the finalists been a Gripen E, with its single 20,000 lb thrust engine vs a substantially higher powered rafale or typhoon these assumptions would have been more critical in deciding the advantage the gripen had one the rafale on fuel costs.

[Austin]

Yes there are assumptions involved in LCC (that can at time be grossly wrong) but the contract with Dassault has little to no relation with LCC is the point that I have been making all along. LCC was used to determine best value, but the contract as per the last few reports involves

- Aircraft
- Some spares and support (5 or 10 years)
- Weapons

That is in no way LCC x 36.

It is LCC and it is not some spares but complete spares and support for 5-10 years of its life providing guaranteed uptime as per IAF requirement eventually hidden cost like hardwiring it for Nuclear Role and Associated integration of indian electronics system for the role

[brar_w]

It is LCC and it is not some spares but complete spares and support

If it is spare supply and support for 5 or 10 years how can it be Life Cycle spare and support? Think about it for a second. If the IAF is negotiating a deal for around $10 Billion that includes spares for 5 or at the maximum of 10 years, unless the IAF plans to only operate the aircraft for 5 or maximum of 10 years how can this be construed by you to be LIFE CYCLE supply of spares? Will dassault be also providing all manpower to the IAF? What about the cost of fuel? (For it to cover LIFE CYCLE COST). True Life-Cycle-Cost involves all O&S costs which are essentially the costs incurred by the operator, that would not have been incurred had the system not been acquired - System specific operating and support cost.

The last two Vishnu Som articles (Jan. 14/16 and Sept. 01/15) do not include any mention of LIFE CYCLE COST. The former just talks about the deal being $8-$9 Billion, while the more recent one talking about the deal being around $10 Billion but also including some sort of arrangement (either a PBL or a large bulk buy of spares - he wasn't clear on that) to provide support and spares for 5 or 10 years. That itself is a firm contradiction to the claim that the IAF gets full Life-Cycle Support (leave LCC aside since that includes a lot more than spares and support) and spares for the aircraft. Its like saying that the IAF which signed up for the C-17 GSP for 5 years paid Life-Cycle Cost for the C-17 even though they are guaranteed 80% mission capability rate and all the spares associated with that through the PBL deal inked with Boeing. The IAF in that case paid just the cost to procure it, and paid the OEM through its PBL an yearly amount for spare supply pegged to an availability rate. The IAF didn't pay Boeing for its manpower cost associated with the C-17, didn't pay boeing the fuel cost to fly X fleet hours per year and didn't pay boeing any infrastructure cost required to support the aircraft at the various bases where it operates. In sum, what boeing got through the contract+PBL was a small fraction of the total cost to the IAF of acquiring the C-17 into its fleet..and nothing that even remotely resembles the system LCC.

Life cycle of any product is defined as the total time period it remains in operation from the day you acquire it (get it in your hands) to the day you dispose of it...Rafale's life-cycle is unlikely to be 5 or 10 years and is more likely to be 30+ years. Even the Life-Cycle spares and support cost is not covered here (which is perfectly fine since you don't sign such contracts upfront for such long duration). In the best case scenario, assuming a 30 year operational life , the deal covers at best a 1/3 of the total life-time cost of spares and support and at worst 1/6 of the total life-time supply of spares and support - assuming what Vishnu reported on January 14th is accurate.

Also, you seem to be using the lower of the two $ amounts from Vishnu and pairing it up with the deal for spares mentioned in his second article that had added to the cost by around $1 - $ 2 Billion from what he had reported back in September 2015. His latest article pegs the cost at $10 Billion for 36 aircraft, a weapons package, and a spares and support deal for 5-10 years that guarantees a MC rate of 90%.

[Austin]

The IAF does not have to pay for fuel or manpower that is taken into consideration to calculate the LCC of aircraft in the MMRCA race , As Rafale os the winner , IAF has to pay for Aircraft + Weapons + Training + Manpower + Complete Support ( for Spare , Maintenance , Engine ,Rotables for necessary uptimes IAF needs for 5-10 years ) + Customisation ( Weapons IAF wants to integrate , Hardwiring for Nuclear Role and associated cost of electronics that India would integrate as part of the role ) + Infrastructure Cost to build 2 Bases plus assosiated infra cost for support equipment

Generally speaking this covers most of all Rafale deal but not everything , most part of Rafale Package cost not all will go to Dassult some IAF will have to spend locally like building bases but it forms part of larger Rafale package.

These cost would be staggered and payed across agreed upon timelines , We will have to wait for the final cost but largely speaking what I mentioned is what is covered as part of deal.

[brar_w]

The IAF does not have to pay for fuel or manpower that is taken into consideration to calculate the LCC of aircraft in the MMRCA race

Thats what I have been saying all along. So whatever Dassault gets, is not Life-Cycle-Cost of the Rafale over its service life of the IAF as had been mentioned here , here and here. Those numbers (either $8 Billion or $10 Billion) are NOT LIFE CYCLE COSTS figures.

As Rafale os the winner , IAF has to pay for Aircraft + Weapons + Training + Manpower + Complete Support ( for Spare , Maintenance , Engine ,Rotables for necessary uptimes IAF needs for 5-10 years ) + Customisation ( Weapons IAF wants to integrate , Hardwiring for Nuclear Role and associated cost of electronics that India would integrate as part of the role ) + Infrastructure Cost to build 2 Bases plus assosiated infra cost for support equipment

Hence a portion of the Life-Cycle-Cost as I had been saying. Lets break LCC down further since we have agreed that the numbers do not represent LCC but only a portion of it. Life-Cycle spare and support costs form a large portion of O&S costs which form the largest portion of Life Cycle Costs for systems and deals such as this. Here, as previously mentioned the IAF pays Dassault for only a PORTION of the life-cycle spare and support cost to be incurred by it. As mentioned in my previous post, assuming a 30 year life-cycle (could be more but is unlikely to be less) the $10 Billion deal represents at best 1/3 of the Life-Cycle SPARE AND SUPPORT cost, and at worst a 1/6 LCC Spare and support cost. This obviously assumes two things:

- Vishnu Som's source is accurate
- The cost of maintaining a high MC rate does not become higher as the system ages - Historically high-performance aircraft tend to consume way more O&S resources as they age but for the sake of this discussion lets assume spare and support costs are uniform throughout the service life of the Rafale.

Generally speaking this covers most of all Rafale deal but not everything , most part of Rafale Package cost not all will go to Dassult some IAF will have to spend locally like building bases but it forms part of larger Rafale package.

That is why the notion that the IAF is paying LCC as was being claimed was an inaccurate description of the deal and the notion that I had been trying to correct through the last few posts. You are now correct that the cost represents a fraction of the total life-cycle cost of acquiring, operating, supporting the Rafale in the IAF over its life-cycle. It also includes a weapons package. Acquisition and source selection involve an analysis and LCC is one of them that is extremely popular in determine best-value for a range of systems. It is however something that is never reflected in a bill or in a contract signed with a vendor. What you see is always a portion of the LCC while the true cost remains hidden in your various expenditure accounts over the life-time of the aircraft. The reason LCC is important is because O&S cost is 50-60% of your total post R&D cost and therefore no comparison/analytical tool is worth anything it does not use this cost-component to determine best value.

[Prem]

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... afale-ice/
PM Modi’s hotline to Hollande broke Rafale ice

According to those in the know of the developments, France has offered the aircraft at a price at which its own air force buys the jets. The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the deal is expected to be signed during Hollande’s Republic Day visit to New Delhi, beginning January 24. Once signed, the Rafale deal could be India’s biggest offset contract till date. Modi had announced India’s decision to buy 36 Rafale jets during his visit to France last April. The Indian and French sides subsequently created two working groups to work out the fine print of the contract. While most of the details — financials, delivery schedules, add-ons and service schedules, among others — have been agreed upon, consensus could not be reached on the 50-per cent offset clause, which India wanted to help its domestic industry as part of the Make in India programme. France, however, had been contending that there is no mechanism for offsets in inter-governmental deals such as Rafale. Prime Minister Modi was informed at this point and he used his rapport with the French President to break the deadlock,” the source said. “The French have now agreed to the offset clause.” Inking of the IGA will be succeeded by follow-on contracts between private entities, which involves a joint venture between Dassault, the French aircraft manufacturer, and an Indian major. Sources said the Indian side has pressed for a delivery schedule beginning three years from the date of signing of the IGA. Six aircraft are slated to be delivered each year. The Indian Air Force will raise two squadrons of the fighters, the first one being in Ambala.

[Viv S]

France, however, had been contending that there is no mechanism for offsets in inter-governmental deals such as Rafale. Prime Minister Modi was informed at this point and he used his rapport with the French President to break the deadlock,” the source said. “The French have now agreed to the offset clause.”

:groan: There's been a standard offset element to every (govt-to-govt) FMS deal we've concluded so far.

It worries me that the PM is too personally vested in the deal, with the French passing off standard working terms as special concessions resulting from his intervention. Let's just hope the RM isn't overruled in the final analysis.

[member_20453]

Indeed the 2 MKI being modified to carry the Brahmos are the test aircraft for the follow-on SFC Super MKIs. These 2 are indeed being hardened. SFC will operate the Super MKI with N-armed Brahmos and eventually Nirbhay for Strategic strikes. I also believe, these 2 test aircraft are also being kitted out with Super MKI upgrades including AESA, uprated engines, upgraded OLS, hence the delay in progress. Hopefully by March they can fire the Brahmos.

Moreso, Russia will not allow Brahmos to be deployed on the Rafale.

I am not sure if Rafale HardPoint is rated at 2.5T plus to carry brahmos its centerline has enough ground clearance , Integrating Brahmos with any issue is not a problem as its Brahmos is Indian org but due to its weight length ground clearance likely MKI is the only one that will carry till we have Brahmos-M

Brahmos being an majority Indian owned Org. doesn't mean Russia doesn't have a say, no way Mini Brahmos makes on the Rafale. Everything from exports of the Brahmos to integration on any other platforms need to be discussed with the Russians. M-Brahmos will make it on board the Mig-29K, PAKFA, MKI and if they keep the weight under 1200KG also on the LCA MK-2. Integration on the Rafale won't be allowed by the Russians.

[JTull]

I am not sure if Rafale HardPoint is rated at 2.5T plus to carry brahmos its centerline has enough ground clearance , Integrating Brahmos with any issue is not a problem as its Brahmos is Indian org but due to its weight length ground clearance likely MKI is the only one that will carry till we have Brahmos-M

Brahmos being an majority Indian owned Org. doesn't mean Russia doesn't have a say, no way Mini Brahmos makes on the Rafale. Everything from exports of the Brahmos to integration on any other platforms need to be discussed with the Russians. M-Brahmos will make it on board the Mig-29K, PAKFA, MKI and if they keep the weight under 1200KG also on the LCA MK-2. Integration on the Rafale won't be allowed by the Russians.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I think India's experience with Astra and airborne version of Nirbhay will help here. As per reports in Oct, French had relented on integrating Astra. Nirbhay should be possible given the ASMP capabilities of Rafale. If we can successfully integrate these two then you may as well consider Brahmos-M as integrated, whether Russians like it or not.

[brar_w]

Lets wait for the final picture to be clearer. It was reported back in sept. and oct. that the french had relented on a 50% offset clause as well and we now know that the deal will be structured as per the standard 30% offset practice.

[Austin]

Brahmos being an majority Indian owned Org. doesn't mean Russia doesn't have a say, no way Mini Brahmos makes on the Rafale. Everything from exports of the Brahmos to integration on any other platforms need to be discussed with the Russians. M-Brahmos will make it on board the Mig-29K, PAKFA, MKI and if they keep the weight under 1200KG also on the LCA MK-2. Integration on the Rafale won't be allowed by the Russians.

They was already news in AW&ST of India wanting to integrate Kh-31PD ARM variant and Astra , Russia is least of problem here as brahmos corp is itself planning to export to other countries when internal demand is met.

Right now Brahmos cant be integrated with Rafale just the flanker when they get the Brahmos-M ready then integrating it with any platform is really not any issue as long as they see the need to do it.

[SaiK]

Viv S, this deal is slight off bounds to new DPP as it was a means to get off from the mother of all BS deals scenario. IMHO, no future deals should be run like we did the MMRCA.

Make a squadron deal, with a huge possibility of makeInIndia move for the rest. To a squad, we should not spend more than a year to purchase process and reviews.

There is a big time politics in getting this MMRCA settled down. I hope LCA maturity and AMCA getting off the drawing board quickly will make us ease better for IAF requirements.

[Viv S]

$10 billion according to Vishnu's article published on 14th Jan. But yes lets wait and see.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the deal will be dropped and Modi-Hollande would instead sign an MoU for a batch of Scorpenes. Although that could just be wishful thinking on my part.

Well at least one part of my ^ prediction seems to be coming true.

Dassault, DCNS officials to accompany French President

Top officials of Dassault Aviation and DCNS will accompany French President Francois Hollande for his visit to India this week, raising hopes for progress on the Rafale fighter aircraft deal with France.

The company officials will be part of the delegation that will be arriving with Hollande on January 24. There is speculation that the two countries may announce an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) regarding the Rafale deal.

“Officials of Dassault and DCNS will be a part of the team of 100 that will accompany the French President. Hollande will be accompanied by diplomats, ministers and government officials besides 18 official media representatives,” a defence ministry source said.

During his visit to France last April, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced that India would buy 36 Rafale jets from that country.

This was followed by formation of committees by the two sides which deliberated on various aspects such as offsets, costs, serviceability.

While the French side had reservations regarding offsets in the deal, the same were resolved later in 2015. Expectations are thus high that a significant announcement could be made in this regard during Hollande’s visit.

[Vipul]

India To Evaluate Rafale for Navy.

directed the Navy to undertake detailed briefings with Dassault Aviation regarding the Rafale aircraft.

An Indian Defence Ministry source said the government wants commonalities between logistics and spares for fighters with the Navy and Air Force.

A detailed briefing on Rafale for the Indian Navy is planned here for Jan. 29, he said, but declined to comment if India will buy Rafales for the Navy as well.

A Navy official said the service needs 54 fighter aircraft but refused to say if Rafale has been shortlisted.

Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande will arrive in India Jan. 24 along with French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to sign the protocol agreement (an inter-governmental agreement ) on purchase of 36 Rafales and a formal agreement will be signed in New Delhi Jan. 25.

Last week, India's National Security Adviser Ajit Doval flew to Paris to give final approval on the protocol agreement and to finalize the offsets and weapon package.

Besides providing 36 Rafale fighters over three years, Dassault Aviation will also set up new facilities for Rafale aircraft at two Indian Air Force bases.

The MoD source added that the entire deal, including weapons package, would cost over $9 billion. But he gave no time frame when the final contract will be signed.

The governments of India and France have been working on the Rafale deal since April under which France will provide an offset of under 50 percent.

Funding of the 36 Rafale fighters will be a big challenge, said another MoD source.

The funding time line has not been decided yet, he added.

The Indian MoD is also drafting new guidelines under which the French defense companies involved will have to pay penalties if spares are not available

[Austin]

It would make sense to go for Rafale in Naval Variant , Need a Carrier based Nuclear Deterrent

[Singha]

Last week, India's National Security Adviser Ajit Doval flew to Paris to give final approval on the protocol agreement and to finalize the offsets and weapon package.

^^ sounds a bit strange its the job of deputy defence or defence minister. unless some "package" and "under the sheets" things are being talked of incl scorpene and other wink wink stuff

[Austin]

The Rafales would be used for Nuclear Deterrent Role and is helped by back that French use the same ( unlike our MKI ) , Also news of 2 Scorpene with AIP fitted plus French N Reactors

[JTull]

Austin, it is difficult to visualise a fighter coming in to land on the deck of a AC with a nuclear bomb on it's belly. Too risky!

[member_20453]

If the IN decides to acquire the Rafale, where will they base them really? INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant will be at full capacity with a total of 45 Mig-29K and some test versions of the LCA Mk-1 Navy. INS Vishal and IAC-2 are still on the drawing board, they won't be ready for another 12 years give or take, to induct Rafale, a 4.5 gen aircraft in 5.5 gen timeslines around 2027 is silly.

[Karan M]

The Rafales would be used for Nuclear Deterrent Role and is helped by back that French use the same ( unlike our MKI ) , Also news of 2 Scorpene with AIP fitted plus French N Reactors

Why would a Scorpene have AIP AND a nuclear reactor?
Or do you mean 2 Scorpenes with AIP and additional nuke subs or assistance with our program?

[Austin]

The Rafales would be used for Nuclear Deterrent Role and is helped by back that French use the same ( unlike our MKI ) , Also news of 2 Scorpene with AIP fitted plus French N Reactors

Why would a Scorpene have AIP AND a nuclear reactor?
Or do you mean 2 Scorpenes with AIP and additional nuke subs or assistance with our program?

On I mean French Civilian Nuke Reactors , The Additional 2 Scorpenes will be fitted with MESMA AIP.

[Karan M]

Oh, LOL
So no DRDO AIP? That was in user trials? Navy IIRC wanted it as it was 2nd gen fuel cell based vs MESMA
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 558305.ece

[Austin]

Oh, LOL
So no DRDO AIP? That was in user trials? Navy IIRC wanted it as it was 2nd gen fuel cell based vs MESMA
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 558305.ece

DRDO will have to trial the AIP on land and at Sea and using operational Sub like scorpene to trail it is not a good idea assuming they had a successful land trial so far , DRDO will have to take some old sub if IN can spare and do under water trials of its AIP and its a long drawn out affair with risk involved. Right now for Scorpene they will go for MESMA which is pretty much proven for some time now though Fuel Cell based on diesel is next big leap which will have to wait for some time , Hopefully they would retrofit older Scorpene with DRDO Fuel Cell may be 8-10 years from now in its major refit.

[Karan M]

Makes sense..! Though reports noted DRDO AIP on last 2 Scorpenes itself. Lets see.. is the MESMA news confirmed?

Also, did any of the journos mention > 36 Rafale? Plan was IIRC 72 by 2019

[brar_w]

The Marine version of the Rafale definitely makes sense from a logistical and interoperability stand point but it does sort of question the diversity in aircraft with the Mig-29K, Rafale-M and the Naval LCA.

[Karan M]

^^ MiG-29K has been a suboptimal purchase in many ways. Public dog and pony show for dignitaries apart, I wouldn't be surprised if the airframes were still not fully serviceable.

[Austin]

Considering IN is purchasing 45 29K for Vikrant and Viraat ( probably 18 on each plus reserves ) and interviews with F mag IN is high praise for 29K then its certainly more than dog and ponny show purchase , If they wanted to diverisy they would have gone for Rafale types for Vikrant.

In any case till we have starting building 60+ K Carrier for IN , Rafale wont be coming in as we will have adequate numbers of 29K and N-Tejas for the two new carrier by 2020

[Austin]

Makes sense..! Though reports noted DRDO AIP on last 2 Scorpenes itself. Lets see.. is the MESMA news confirmed?

Also, did any of the journos mention > 36 Rafale? Plan was IIRC 72 by 2019

ET had the news on MESMA ,when President comes we might hear more on this .....beyond MESA there is no choice too who will pay for integration testing of other AIP in market and delays etc that comes with it , MESMA is proven and works coming from DCN they will do it double quickly

[Karan M]

Those 45 purchases were made before the extent of problems became known. High praise - even big talk of it being superior than Su-30MKI (LOL).

In the past India has purchased many such hanger queens.

The Vijayanta tank was a perfect example. Joke was if engine works, we will go to war.