IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

[Bhaskar_T]

Mithai has to wait.

Rafale deal not complete as yet: Manohar Parrikar after BJP tweet.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 923196.cms

A day after BJP claimed the Rafale aircraft deal with France has been "finalised" at USD 8.8 billion (Rs 59,000 crore), defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Thursday said it is not complete as yet but at an "advanced stage" and the intention is to "close it quite soon".

In a lighter vein, he told reporters here that the BJP tweet only indicates that journalists write stories very convincingly.

BJP had on Wednesday tweeted a graphic, saying that the Rafale combat aircraft deal has been "finalised" and the Narendra Modi government had saved over Rs 21,000 crore in the "re-negotiation" with the French government.

Defence ministry sources had earlier said the deal was at an advanced stage and both India and France had narrowed down their differences over the pricing issue.

"I can only tell you this much that while the deal is in quite an advanced stage, and we intent to close it quite soon, I still can't say that negotiations are totally cleared until we sign the deal or at least the deal is forwarded to the Cabinet for approval," Parrikar told reporters here.

The deal is expected to be finalised by May end. India has been bargaining hard with France over the pricing of the 36 fighter planes, a deal that was announced first by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April last year.

The cost of the 36 Rafales, as per the earlier tender while keeping the cost escalation into account, comes to around Rs 65,000 crore. India has been bargaining for a price that is less than 8 billion Euro (Rs 59,000 crore).

"The deal to buy 36 state-of-the-art Rafale aircraft from France at 12 billion dollar (Rs 80000 crore) was re-negotiated and finalised at 8.8 billion dollar (around Rs 59000 crore)," the BJP tweet had said. The government "saved" public money and the deal resulted in gain of "technological knowledge" and "strengthening the air power to defend the border", it had said.

[VishalJ]

Has India Finalised Rafale Deal At $8.8 Billion?

[Vivek K]

Please K,I am NOT a tout for Ru arms vendors.Nyet! I adopt a pragmatic approach,no ideology involved........
.....

For the cost of the 36 Rafales,a simple table of alternatives will show that we can get over 120+ aircraft ( a mix of MIG-29/35s and MKIs) for almost half the cost. Similar alternatives can be done for a mix with Gripens too.

Fascinating how your "pragmatism" does not include domestic weapons. We could buy over 300 LCAs in place of 36 Rafales or 120+ foreign aircraft.

[Bhaskar_T]

I have heard this argument before that 36 Rafales = 300 LCA's, but this doesn't caters the aircraft timing availability issue for IAF. Can those 300 LCA's be available to IAF by 2020, 2025, 2030? (6 each in 2017, 12 each year from 2018-2043 OR 6 each in 2017, 12 each from 2018-2020, 25 each from 2021-2030)

IAF has told GOI/MOD that there is an urgent operational requirement of 2 squadrons, given that 14 existing squadrons have been wanting to be retired yesterday & existing Su-30MKI's only have 50% availability wanting spares. Hence, IAF cannot wait for 300 LCA's or 2 squadrons of Eurofighter/F-18/F-16/Saab/Su-30MKI/Su-35S for that matter, since none of them are going to be available anytime soon (F-16/F-18 might be exception). If we believe the media reports, the 36 Rafales would be available to IAF anywhere from 2018-2021. Rafale, though seemingly expensive, fits the timeline and MMRCA requirement.

Pros -
1. Higher availability (90%) of Rafale,
2. Well developed weapon package,
3. Spares for next 10 years,
4. Mature aircraft 4.5 gen,
5. Combat proven (Libya?),
6. Aircraft-unavailable-to-India's-adversary,
7. Seller helps strategically keeping India's independent posture,
8. Sanction-proof,
9. 30% R&D in future weapons + 20% offset in manufacturing of Rafale components and,
10. Last but not the least some tech-transfer comes with the deal (There could be some hidden benefits to India too such as support in engine development etc.).

Cons -
1. Alleged exorbitant price.

This purchase is not that bad as it is made out to be.

Please K,I am NOT a tout for Ru arms vendors.Nyet! I adopt a pragmatic approach,no ideology involved........
.....

For the cost of the 36 Rafales,a simple table of alternatives will show that we can get over 120+ aircraft ( a mix of MIG-29/35s and MKIs) for almost half the cost. Similar alternatives can be done for a mix with Gripens too.

Fascinating how your "pragmatism" does not include domestic weapons. We could buy over 300 LCAs in place of 36 Rafales or 120+ foreign aircraft.

[NRao]

Bhaskar_T,

That is one side of the coin.

Have you also considered forking out $9 billion or so in a very short period of time and the impact it may have on other aspects of the AF/Services? 15% down payment for the Rafale - all cash. You sign and poof about $1.35 billion out of your pocket. Fair?

I do not have an answer.



And, I wonder what impact this will have on the FGFA. I trust the AMCA is insulated from all these gyrations.

I do not have the wider picture, BUT, IF France is willing to part with nuke techs for the subs, then the game changes.

[fanne]

unless there are some other quid pro quo, this is a bad deal. 36 number is laughable. 120 yes, but then where is the money.

[Vivek K]

........ aircraft timing availability issue for IAF. Can those 300 LCA's be available to IAF by 2020, 2025, 2030? (6 each in 2017, 12 each year from 2018-2043 OR 6 each in 2017, 12 each from 2018-2020, 25 each from 2021-2030)

Yes if you are willing to invest a third of the money in local manufacturing facilities for the LCA and keep inventories of GE engines.

IAF has told GOI/MOD that there is an urgent operational requirement of 2 squadrons, given that 14 existing squadrons have been wanting to be retired yesterday & existing Su-30MKI's only have 50% availability wanting spares. Hence, IAF cannot wait for 300 LCA's .....

LCA has been ready for a while. IAF delayed the deliveries by requiring IFR and nose cone modifications. If IOC-1 standard had been accepted, it would be in service now. Nose cone was delayed by Chobham and if one was to go into it deeply we may find .....

... If we believe the media reports, the 36 Rafales would be available to IAF anywhere from 2018-2021. Rafale, though seemingly expensive, fits the timeline and MMRCA requirement.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not sure that media reports at this stage would be authentic about when even the deal is not yet signed per DM.

Pros -
1. Higher availability (90%) of Rafale, And you're confident that LCA availability would be lower??
2. Well developed weapon package, Again, are you saying that LCA does not have a well developed weapons package? What happens if IAF wants to add a new Russian missile to the Rafale? Read up the difficulty in doing that with M2K. What if IAF wants a different radar in the Rafale - $100 million per aircraft? I mean look at the M2k upgrade. The cost is exorbitant even without an engine upgrade!! Adding weapons to LCA and upgrades would be done in-house.
3. Spares for next 10 years,
4. Mature aircraft 4.5 gen, So is the LCA
5. Combat proven (Libya?), And that gives an advantage how? Are conditions in Libya (no opposition) comparable to those in India
6. Aircraft-unavailable-to-India's-adversary, So India flies M2K, PAF flies Mirage III/V. If French come up with a super Rafale, what then? Would that be sold to Pak? China? IAF is only acquiring 36. Can this stop France from selling 300 Super Rafales to say China?
7. Seller helps strategically keeping India's independent posture, How? So if India wants to punish xyz country that is an ally of US, would France allow India to go ahead i.e. provide spares, munitions?
8. Sanction-proof, Same as point 7 perhaps??
9. 30% R&D in future weapons + 20% offset in manufacturing of Rafale components and, Really, the French will now help in the development of a competitor? That is being really naïve. If you recall the French have not really parted with any techs for the Kaveri or previously in the Raffy negotiations.
10. Last but not the least some tech-transfer comes with the deal (There could be some hidden benefits to India too such as support in engine development etc.). That is extremely naïve. You are expecting the French to develop their competition. Historically that has proven to be un-realistic.

Cons -
1. Alleged exorbitant price.

So you think that the price is cheap?

[Indranil]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

[DexterM]

They've blocked Snecma from providing any support despite our willingness to pay for the help, and here we have people claiming $10bn for 36 planes is cheap and that this magic technology and plane will protect us from the Dragon.

Just as the same Russians are giving away their own IP to the Chinese in the form of the 35s. No, these are not our all weather friends as Philip saar would have you believe. Nations do not have friends, they have marriages/dalliances of convenience.
The same French sold the Agosta to the Pakis while we babble on about our Scorpenes. The same French sold the Pakis the Mirage III and us the M2k. And yet, folks have this wonderful blind spot where only Furrin Maal can do the job.

[srai]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Yep. No AirForce can attain such figures for a prolonged period. Best case is somewhere between 60 to 70% on average over 40-years. Higher availability rates also require more investment in manufacturer after sales support package, manpower and spares. In one of the articles, it was pointed out that the IAF was spending only a fraction (less than Rs 50 crore annually when the estimated requirement is Rs 3,450 crore annually) on maintenance supplies for Su-30MKI, which 13-14% were grounded awaiting spares.

On the other note, for short duration even the Su-30MKI would be able to attain 100% availability rates

[Mort Walker]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Bullshit. USAF with its vast logistics structure within the USAF Material Command can at best do 80-85% availability on most aircraft. There is no way in hell that Dassault has the infrastructure to support even the French Air Force at that rate. We can forget about Egypt and the other countries along with India who are buying the Rafale.

[Mort Walker]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Bullshit. USAF with its vast logistics structure within the USAF Material Command can at best do 80-85% availability on most aircraft. There is no way in hell that Dassault has the infrastructure to support even the French Air Force at that rate. We can forget about Egypt and the other countries along with India who are buying the Rafale.

[srai]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Bullshit. USAF with its vast logistics structure within the USAF Material Command can at best do 80-85% availability on most aircraft. There is no way in hell that Dassault has the infrastructure to support even the French Air Force at that rate. We can forget about Egypt and the other countries along with India who are buying the Rafale.

Even that 80-85% figure for USAF is overblown. Take a look at this article on F-16 from 2005. It states an availability rates as around 70%.

...
As of November 2004, the directorate was able to increase the number of F-16s available from 939 to 974, an increase of 35 aircraft. Across the Air Force, the increase means an improvement in the F-16 aircraft availability rate, from 69 percent to 72.5 percent.

The directorate started by identifying the best areas for process improvement. The teams found three root causes lowering F-16 availability: downtime due to schedules depot repair or modification, lack of spare parts, and downtime due to maintenance.
...

For a more comprehensive fleet availability rates, this article has a table with all the aircraft in UASF inventory: Readiness declines in aging, overworked fleet

Mostly in the 60 to 70 percentage range.

[Indranil]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Bullshit. USAF with its vast logistics structure within the USAF Material Command can at best do 80-85% availability on most aircraft. There is no way in hell that Dassault has the infrastructure to support even the French Air Force at that rate. We can forget about Egypt and the other countries along with India who are buying the Rafale.

Boss, that was sarcasm!

[brar_w]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

Bullshit. USAF with its vast logistics structure within the USAF Material Command can at best do 80-85% availability on most aircraft. There is no way in hell that Dassault has the infrastructure to support even the French Air Force at that rate. We can forget about Egypt and the other countries along with India who are buying the Rafale.

Availability is a function of need. You don't spend money to maintain a XX% if you don't need it. If you spent unctrolled amounts on readiness, and meeting a random readiness number, you give up money for manpower, modernization and other investment priorities. Unless you have an inherently unreliable weapons system (which could be the case), your MA rates are essentially a factor of your depot capacity, manpower, and how much you spend on your spare inventory. If you keep depot capacity high, your manpower as required and well trained, and your spares are plenty you can maintain high availability rates. There is a trade space of course since most nations operate under a known FINITE budget therefore, readiness must always be a balanced with other investment priorities. For example, a nation like france that doesn't really have massive global deployments, or doesn't have a huge NatSec surge need, can easily underfund readiness and keep fleet availability at around 50%. That doesn't make their aircraft bad, just underfunded. Of course there are instances where reliability is poor and that contributes to lower MA rates but on the whole it is a function of NEED and matching resources between competing priorities.

So in a nut shell if they wanted to meet a very high MA rate, they can even in the USAF, with the older fighters. They would simply have to spend a ton of money, create a ton of depot capacity, order a ton of spares and maintain high manpower since older aircraft break down more often. It will be cost prohibitive but they could do it and DO IT during surge deployments.

For the purpose of weapons system comparison, Reliability statistics are far superior to availability since they reflect how well a system performs when it is available i.e how often do things break down etc etc. Reliability rates are more closely followed because they are essential to controlling manpower costs which in the US as in most western countries have skyrocketed.

Even that 80-85% figure for USAF is overblown. Take a look at this article on F-16 from 2005. It states an availability rates as around 70%.

Official figures are released every year as is congressionally mandated. There are also ceilings to some system MA's. For example the ceiling for the B-2 is like 80 or 85% since there is a lengthy overhaul time every 9 or so years and that is depot capacity limited, so no matter how reliable the aircraft is its ceiling is 80-85% given the depot capacity, depot down time, and the small fleet.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /78860920/

Mostly in the 60 to 70 percentage range.

Low 70s is probably sweet spot for the fleet given the age and 15 years of constant deployment and the capacity shortfalls that generally comes not he other end of sustained surge. Once the fleet mean age gets younger they can improve this (I am speaking of fighters here).

[Vivek K]

So all in all the post by Bhaskar_T was ill informed, propagating half truths to defame indigenous development and playing down the importance and advantages of a local MIC. When will Indians learn to appreciate themselves more and not be "pragmatically" (read sycophantic) in awe of foreign products!

[Cain Marko]

So if low 70s is the typical availability for US, mki availability around 70% should be normal?

One thing I think raffles can provide that neither mki nor lca can do is probably highly automated low level flight for deep strike thanks to terrain following modes This might be one reason the iaf is hankering for the raffles amongst other reasons of course. Afaik there is no such system on the mki. The mirage might have it, but does not have the range not payload of the raffle, lca would be in similar boat.

Another thing is that dassault makes a huge deal out of the raffles passive sensors and targeting including irst, and hence has always given the radar less importance
As can be seen from the tiny nose. It is also the only platform that claims bvr strikes through the mica iir, which would mean a totally silent snipe if targeting is provided by another platform via data link or if combined with rf mica.

All in all the platform is rather unique and as such would add a lot of capability. Just not sure if the price is worth it..the iaf sure seems to think so

[Mort Walker]

Availability is a function of need. You don't spend money to maintain a XX% if you don't need it. If you spent unctrolled amounts on readiness, and meeting a random readiness number, you give up money for manpower, modernization and other investment priorities. Unless you have an inherently unreliable weapons system (which could be the case), your MA rates are essentially a factor of your depot capacity, manpower, and how much you spend on your spare inventory. If you keep depot capacity high, your manpower as required and well trained, and your spares are plenty you can maintain high availability rates. There is a trade space of course since most nations operate under a known FINITE budget therefore, readiness must always be a balanced with other investment priorities. For example, a nation like france that doesn't really have massive global deployments, or doesn't have a huge NatSec surge need, can easily underfund readiness and keep fleet availability at around 50%. That doesn't make their aircraft bad, just underfunded. Of course there are instances where reliability is poor and that contributes to lower MA rates but on the whole it is a function of NEED and matching resources between competing priorities.

So in a nut shell if they wanted to meet a very high MA rate, they can even in the USAF, with the older fighters. They would simply have to spend a ton of money, create a ton of depot capacity, order a ton of spares and maintain high manpower since older aircraft break down more often. It will be cost prohibitive but they could do it and DO IT during surge deployments.

For the purpose of weapons system comparison, Reliability statistics are far superior to availability since they reflect how well a system performs when it is available i.e how often do things break down etc etc. Reliability rates are more closely followed because they are essential to controlling manpower costs which in the US as in most western countries have skyrocketed.

Availability during deployments are over 80%. I can't recall the statement made by the USAF general, but I remember the number. The USAF O&M budget for FY15 was roughly $45 billion for 5,000 aircraft with some 1100 fighters. AFMC is responsible for setting up everything from air frame maintenance, engine overhaul, and avionics maintenance. If not done organically by AFMC, they will have contracts in place with the prime and subs. Yes, if the O&M budget was increased availability rates would be higher, but then there would be less for new acquisitions. The C-17 has an availability rate higher than 85%.

[Austin]

Rafale = available 90% of time. I will let time do the talking. Mark this post.

They will keep that availavility as Rafale will take over the role of Mirage-2K for Strategic Purpose

[Philip]

Vivek,if you've read my many previous posts you will find the LCAs factored in as MIG-21/27 replacements.No matter what happens with the choice of a med multi-role bird,the need is there for between 200-300 LCAs.They aren't however MMRCA equivs.Brazil chose the Gripen over the Rafale for its reqs.

A Rafale can't be in two places at the same time and cannot carry a BMos type ASM of 300km range.Therefore,even if it has stupendous availability,it cannot fight on two fronts. This is where numbers have a quality of their own.Why various US think tanks have given the PLAAF an edge over US F-22s because of the greater number of Flankers that will combat with F-22s.Once you've run out of missiles you only have your gun and limited ammo left.

[Gyan]

Rafale is the best as it is FIVE legged Cheetah better than 3 legged Cheetah.

[Bhaskar_T]

NRao ji - The Capex Phasing for this 36 Rafale purchase is something, along with many other things, which we don't know associated with this deal. Indeed 15% of 8.8 Billion$, i.e. 1.32 Billion$ goes to France as soon as we sign the deal. But aren't we making the similar payments already for our various IAF requirements?
1. Inducting a squadron of LCA every year (this is what we want to achieve in future, at least) - Say, for 30 Million$ each (?), 18 LCA-MK1 will cost 0.54 Billion$. This cost may go up once weapons package, maintenance facilities, private players come in etc.
2. Inducting a squadron of Sukhoi every year (I think we are acquiring 12/year from Nasik line? whereas the production capacity is 16/year) - Say, for 60 Million$ each (?), 12 Su-30MKI will cost 0.72 Billion$ per year.
3. My understanding is that 10-15 Billion$ (at least till 2011) budget for 126 MMRCA was marked in the defense budgets and even higher allocation of 15-20 Billion$+ (beyond 2011) was considered, once higher costs of MMRCA acquisitions were known to India and this all probably distributed over 10-15 years. For 15 Billion$ capital for 15 years is 1 Billion$/year.
4. Am afraid, a strategic purchase (we can blame ourselves, Anthony for not being able to solve the 126 aircraft requirement when it started 10-15 years ago) is going to come at a higher cost than what we will always be comfortable at. France knows our cards.

So, yes the 1.32 Billion$ immediately goes out of our pocket for a far lesser number of aircrafts, indeed expensive it is, there is no doubt. All deals/acquisitions/projects come with certain % of upfront payment & hence French asking 15% upfront payment is something standard in business, IMO.

Regarding 2nd part of FGFA/AMCA, I don't believe that the purchase of 36 Rafales on its own can negatively impact FGFA or AMCA. The former series production has just started (?) whereas I doubt if latter (AMCA) designs are frozen actually. Realistically speaking, none of them are available for us to have them in 2 squadrons by 2018-2022 which is the IAF urgent operational requirement.

PS - Have no idea about any tech-transfer unrelated to Rafale, as like you. I can't recall when it became clear to Aam Aadmi that Akula was leased from Russia under a secret deal.

Bhaskar_T,

That is one side of the coin.

Have you also considered forking out $9 billion or so in a very short period of time and the impact it may have on other aspects of the AF/Services? 15% down payment for the Rafale - all cash. You sign and poof about $1.35 billion out of your pocket. Fair?

I do not have an answer.

And, I wonder what impact this will have on the FGFA. I trust the AMCA is insulated from all these gyrations.

I do not have the wider picture, BUT, IF France is willing to part with nuke techs for the subs, then the game changes.

[Bhaskar_T]

........ aircraft timing availability issue for IAF. Can those 300 LCA's be available to IAF by 2020, 2025, 2030? (6 each in 2017, 12 each year from 2018-2043 OR 6 each in 2017, 12 each from 2018-2020, 25 each from 2021-2030)

Yes if you are willing to invest a third of the money in local manufacturing facilities for the LCA and keep inventories of GE engines.

And why should we trust anyone/HAL claiming that HAL can deliver 6 LCA's a month versus Dassault delivering 1 Rafale/month by 2018-2022? Leave 6, can HAL deliver 1 LCA/month to IAF in 2018-2022 time frame, at least not before 2019? What is the basis of such confidence on HAL delivery, just that LCA is indigenous? Does historical data suggests that HAL can deliver 1 LCA/month? Tell me, how much time it took for SP-1/SP-2? Has IAF accepted SP-1? How much time it takes for HAL to make a maiden flight until the delivery to IAF? Which deadline has HAL ever committed to? Do you have a public report authored by HAL (which only Raksha Mantri ji, Arup Raha, Suvarna Raju is privy of) which suggests 1LCA/month is guaranteed delivery by HAL. Take an example of Su-30MKI where, HAL does deliver 1 SU30MKI in a month after so many years of continuous production supported by country wide public and private support but still on a longer term, the delivery of Su30MKI orders by IAF are delayed by 2-3 years at least.

Here, IAF wants 2 Squadrons of Multi-Role Medium Combat Aircraft by 2018-2022 as an urgent operational requirement. Answer is not LCA for two reasons a) LCA is not medium combat aircraft b) Raksha Mantri, Narendra Modi, both the fierce proponents of local (MII) production would like to trust HAL as much as I and you will aspire, time is not reap yet.

On a longer term, LCA requirement have always been to replace the Mig21/27's ~ 14 squadrons. MMRCA requirement was always over and above LCA requirements. The MMRCA tender/requirement was floated with the idea of filling the gap between its future Light Combat Aircraft and its in-service Sukhoi Su-30MKI air superiority fighter. Should you believe on contrary, please tell Arup Raha/IAF that an ideal operational strategy would be that IAF can send 6 LCA's instead of 1 Rafale when 2 Chinese Su-30MKK appear over Arunachal. Say, at this moment IAF agrees with you. What makes you believe that HAL can deliver 6 LCA's in a month versus Dassault's 1 Rafale/month in short term (2018-2022)? Dassault can, HAL can't - Basis? See the proven deliveries by Dassault to Rafale's first International Customer - Egypt.

IAF has told GOI/MOD that there is an urgent operational requirement of 2 squadrons, given that 14 existing squadrons have been wanting to be retired yesterday & existing Su-30MKI's only have 50% availability wanting spares. Hence, IAF cannot wait for 300 LCA's.

LCA has been ready for a while. IAF delayed the deliveries by requiring IFR and nose cone modifications. If IOC-1 standard had been accepted, it would be in service now. Nose cone was delayed by Cobham and if one was to go into it deeply we may find

Please see above, that LCA is not the replacement for MMRCA. And that's a big IF that "had IOC-1 been accepted". I too would have very much liked to have seen the orders of IOC-1 standard aircraft. Indeed IAF has added more requirements and some of them, like IFR, should not have been demanded as basic necessity. Heck, I would have loved to see the Mirage production line bought by India. Heck, I would have loved to see the MMS concluding the MMRCA deal in 2011. Heck, I would have loved to see Atal ji not doing Pokharan and USA not kicking us away from fly-by-wire algorithms in 1998. We can go on writing more IF's but it doesn't help IAF requirements of 2 Squadrons of Multi-Role Medium Combat Aircraft by 2018-2022 as an urgent operational requirement

... If we believe the media reports, the 36 Rafales would be available to IAF anywhere from 2018-2021. Rafale, though seemingly expensive, fits the timeline and MMRCA requirement.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not sure that media reports at this stage would be authentic about when even the deal is not yet signed per DM.

1) As per media reports - This being Government-To-Government deal, France has shown positive indications towards IAF's priority delivery and given good equation between Hollande and Modi ji, delivery of Rafale to India by 2018-2022 is not out of the picture. Even there have been reports about that delivery to France Air Force might be delayed in view of IAF orders.

2) Facts, Not old But Very Recent -

a) Egypt placed order of 24 Rafales for ~ 5.9 Billion Dollars in Feb 2015 (yes so called "245 MMUSD a piece).

b) Egypt received 3 Rafales in France by July 2015. They were later flown to Cairo by specially trained Egyptian pilots.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /30419843/

c) Egyptian Rafales already had participated with French Navy in Mediterrian in joint exercises by Mar 2016.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/egypt-france ... tml?ref=gs

So, with in 3-5 months of orders being placed by Egypt, Dassault delivered 3 Rafales to Egypt and Egyptian pilots not only took the delivery in France, but flew it to Cairo and within a year participated with French Navy in joint exercise.

3) It is okay to make initial conclusions based on available media reports. Our conclusions are always a function of what is the available information on a given date.

[Philip]

MP on defence issues.

There were middlemen in defence deals during UPA
http://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/the ... g-upa.html
By Ajit Kumar Dubey | April 17, 2016
Parrikar Eyes on target: Parrikar (second from left) and Modi are yet to make headway in modernising the military | PTI
Interview/ Manohar Parrikar, defence minister

The defence budget is going down in terms of percentage of GDP every year. Is it going to impact modernisation?

Not at all. There are many ways of saving money, which will help the budget in a way. We can get into hard negotiations, which help save money and reduce cost of acquiring weapon systems. This way, we can save at least 20 per cent in contracts.

Then there are ways of saving money, like what we have done with the $2.3 billion lying in the US treasury. (India had deposited the amount over the years under the US government’s Foreign Military Sales programme, which facilitates sales of equipment and services of companies based in the US.) Though we cannot call it part of the budget, it can be spent for acquisitions.

You have been saying that costs can be lowered through negotiations. Why were the costs high to begin with, and were there middlemen involved in deals?

There were middlemen involved in defence procurements during the UPA regime. I will not go into specifics, but you tell me: why was there controversies related to two or three contracts, such as AgustaWestland, during their tenure? We have removed middlemen, and that is one way we have saved money. We have wiped out commissions from procurements, and that is why you see that we can bring down cost of programmes in a big way.

The Make in India programme will help us in a big way. We will see indigenous guns like Dhanush of the Ordnance Factory Board getting inducted soon.

But there is only a minor increase in the budget for capital procurement. Don’t you think there will be less money for new acquisitions?

Actually, there is not much requirement of funds for current procurements.
Almost 85 per cent of the budget is required for committed liabilities—that means the money would be paid for acquisitions done in the past, like 2011-12 and 2012-13. Funds for acquisitions [for the current year] would be required only in the coming two or three years.

What if we require more funds for deals like the one for Rafale aircraft?

If we need more money for Rafales, we will get it. But, even if we sign the deal now, we are required to spend only 15 per cent of total funds. More funds would be required later on.

There was a time when the forces were going in for extravagant procurements, like buying aircraft for aerobatic teams.

The deals which are not very essential have to be done away with.

[Bhaskar_T]

While my initial post was a response to Vivek's "36 Rafales/300 LCA's", it was to suggest that 36 Rafales by 2018-2022 is a reality required by IAF versus imaginary 300 LCA's available to IAF. However, the broad context of the initial post was that Rafale seems to be the best MMRCA for a smaller 36 purchase. That context seems to loosen up in the below discussion, anyway I will go ahead and respond, Blue is Vivek and Black is mine.

Pros -
1. Higher availability (90%) of Rafale, And you're confident that LCA availability would be lower??

While availability of 90% has been challenged by many BRFites above and given my limited knowledge of military, I am okay to believe that 75-80% could be a top quartile real-number. I quoted 90% aspired availability of Rafales from the media reports (see below the links). You can call them bullshit/Lifafa articles but they seem to suggest that at least IAF is trying to avoid the mistakes happened with Su30MKI (50-55% availability some time ago because of lack of spares). Now my turn, what availability of LCA are you confident about and could you point to couple of (Non)Lifafa articles to back your claim while you prefer 300 LCA's over 36 Rafales?

14th Jan 2016 -
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/why-indi ... ed-1265787

Both sides are also in talks on the financial penalties the French manufacturer of the jet would incur for unsatisfactory performance - that is, if the Rafale is operationally not available at least 90 per cent of the time that it is required to fly a sortie. This is a key concern for the Indian Air Force since its frontline Russian-designed Sukhoi 30 MKI jet has an abysmal availability rate of under 60 per cent, which means the air force doesn't have enough Sukhois operational when it needs them.

13th Jan 2016 -
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 553762.cms

The Air Force wants the French to guarantee that at any given point, at least 90% of the fleet should be fit for combat. This is against the 55% availability rate of the Russian Su 30 MKI fighter.

2. Well developed weapon package, Again, are you saying that LCA does not have a well developed weapons package? What happens if IAF wants to add a new Russian missile to the Rafale? Read up the difficulty in doing that with M2K. What if IAF wants a different radar in the Rafale - $100 million per aircraft? I mean look at the M2k upgrade. The cost is exorbitant even without an engine upgrade!! Adding weapons to LCA and upgrades would be done in-house.


What I meant is clearly that Rafale possesses a long list of weapons,
AAM - Mica (Short BVR AAM), Magic (Short AAM), Sidewinder, ASRAAM/AMRAAM, Meteor BVRAAM.
AGM - Apache (Cruise Missile), AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100
Anti-Ship Missile - Exocet / AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon,
Nuclear Missile - MBDA (formerly Aerospatiale) ASMP stand-off nuclear missile,
Stand-off cruise missile - MBDA Storm Shadow / Scalp EG stand-off cruise missile
Gun - Twin gun pod and a Nexter (formerly Giat) 30mm DEFA 791B cannon (2,500 rounds a minute), laser designation pods.

LCA is on its way to quality lot of weapons, some has been qualified already. The modifications required by IAF to the Rafale are being discussed upfront which was not done for Mirage. We have learnt from our past mistakes (Mirage up-gradation costed a lot, am aware, for example compared with Mig-29 up-gradation). What these sought modifications by IAF in Rafale are, I don't know. There is no-doubt that modification in LCA will be easier and cheaper by many levels.

3. Spares for next 10 years,

4. Mature aircraft 4.5 gen, So is the LCA
Yes LCA is 4/4.5 Gen or 3 Legged LCA or whatever, maturity of Rafale is far more than LCA. There is no doubt about it.

5. Combat proven (Libya?), And that gives an advantage how? Are conditions in Libya (no opposition) comparable to those in India

5a) Not only Libya but Afghanistan too.
5b) Not only Red-Flag exercise but in numerous joint exercises where Rafale has earned appreciation as a mature multi-role platform.
5c) Our own IAF has termed it as Number 1.
5d) Tell me which medium aircraft you would pick for India's opposition and whether it is available to India, and when it is available to India?

6. Aircraft-unavailable-to-India's-adversary, So India flies M2K, PAF flies Mirage III/V. If French come up with a super Rafale, what then? Would that be sold to Pak? China? IAF is only acquiring 36. Can this stop France from selling 300 Super Rafales to say China?

Lot better than to pick F-16 (Pakistan), Su-30 (China), Su-35S (China). Pakistan cannot afford to eradicate Polio, Pakistan can forget buying Super-Rafale when India is finding somewhat difficult to buy Rafale. France is cautious of supplying military items to China only to be cloned later. Plus, USA would have its influence on any major sale from France to China. Nothing is guaranteed or written in a white-paper. While it is good to ask questions for which answers are not easy, may I ask you, what are the real good alternatives available to us than Rafales which you will go for? F-35? Don't tell me J-20.

7. Seller helps strategically keeping India's independent posture, How? So if India wants to punish xyz country that is an ally of US, would France allow India to go ahead i.e. provide spares, munitions?

What happened in Kargil war? Wasn't Pakistan an ally of US in 2000? Didn't France supply us spares? Didn't France supply us munitions? Hasn't France helped us to have Mirage-2000 qualified for Nuclear Delivery? Did France imposed sanctions on us because of Pokharan in 1998? Did Israeli's not equip Mirages with some modifications (I assume this was not possible without France help)? Did Mirage not show up higher sorties? Did Mirage show up higher sorties without spares?

8. Sanction-proof, Same as point 7 perhaps??
Yes, same as 7. Sanction-proof in two senses a) Rafale has major components built in France b) France is 2nd or 3rd ally after Russia being 1st, Israel being 2nd/3rd.

9. 30% R&D in future weapons + 20% offset in manufacturing of Rafale components and, Really, the French will now help in the development of a competitor? That is being really naïve. If you recall the French have not really parted with any techs for the Kaveri or previously in the Raffy negotiations.

Indeed, it is difficult to believe any real tech-transfer but India having learnt from past mistakes, there is large scope of improvement. If India writes a bad contract which in principle means screw-driver tech only, we can blame ourselves.

10. Last but not the least some tech-transfer comes with the deal (There could be some hidden benefits to India too such as support in engine development etc.). That is extremely naïve. You are expecting the French to develop their competition. Historically that has proven to be un-realistic.

Tell me, that US is willing to give us F414 engine tech and radar codes etc.
Tell me, Russia taught us to make/know-how of engines from scratch.
Tell me, Israel taught us how to build Iron-Dome from scratch.
Indeed expectation and reality could be different, as India has changed from 1980's to 2000's to 2015's, we aspire to improve.

Cons -
1. Alleged exorbitant price.

So you think that the price is cheap?[/quote]

I find the price to be expensive, painful but affordable. The concept of Cheap/Expensive only works if you have a workable alternative. As everyone says, the 36 Rafale purchase for 8.8 Billion$ is on the expensive side but it is well benchmarked with Egypt and UAE/Qatar purchases. Additionally, India gets the offset requirements as well. (this can only be properly looked at once the details of the deal-to-happen become available to us).

Tell me, a cheaper MMRCA aircraft available to us with the timeline and with the above benefits? I assure you, once am convinced, I will send the letter to Raksha Mantri ji, Swamy ji, Sonia ji, Kejriwal ji, Nitish ji, CAG ji (& a copy to you) for its proper consideration.

[Bhaskar_T]

The way you unilaterally declare somebody's view as sycophantic, in the same spirit, I took the small liberty of putting words in your post, shown by red edits.

So all in all the post & view by Bhaskar_T/Narendra Modi/Raksha Mantriji/MOD/IAF (Arup Raha and his predecessors) was ill informed, propagating half truths to defame indigenous development and playing down the importance and advantages of a local MIC. When will Indians learn to appreciate themselves more and not be "pragmatically" (read sycophantic) in awe of foreign products! 300 LCA's can be delivered to IAF by 2018-2022. LCA can replace MMRCA

[SaiK]

Tell me, after you invent (not beg-borrow nor steal) you are willing to give it away to anyone for any price?

and there are big differences between GE and GtrE

[srai]

Bhaskar_T,

Regarding quick delivery of Rafales to Egypt, six were taken from orders of French AirForce for last year and diverted to Egypt, who are more or less getting the same specs without customizations like India wants. French deferred to lessen their immediate budget commitment.

[Vivek K]

The way you unilaterally declare somebody's view as sycophantic, in the same spirit, I took the small liberty of putting words in your post, shown by red edits.

So all in all the post & view by Bhaskar_T/Narendra Modi/Raksha Mantriji/MOD/IAF (Arup Raha and his predecessors) was ill informed, propagating half truths to defame indigenous development and playing down the importance and advantages of a local MIC. When will Indians learn to appreciate themselves more and not be "pragmatically" (read sycophantic) in awe of foreign products! 300 LCA's can be delivered to IAF by 2018-2022. LCA can replace MMRCA

Utterly childish. But I do agree that LCA can and should replace MMRCA. And foreign vendors mow promises to get large orders and then hide behind excuses when execution is delayed.

Instead of throwing money away IAF should work with HAL. If Production ramps up to 25 per year, HAL could deliver 125 aircraft to IAF by 2022 (in addition to the 20 SP aircraft) which would be much better than 36 Rafales from the French! And if IAF had accepted IOC-1 LCA ......

[Gagan]

One thing I think raffles can provide that neither mki nor lca can do is probably highly automated low level flight for deep strike thanks to terrain following modes This might be one reason the iaf is hankering for the raffles amongst other reasons of course. Afaik there is no such system on the mki. The mirage might have it, but does not have the range not payload of the raffle, lca would be in similar boat.

Another thing is that dassault makes a huge deal out of the raffles passive sensors and targeting including irst, and hence has always given the radar less importance
As can be seen from the tiny nose. It is also the only platform that claims bvr strikes through the mica iir, which would mean a totally silent snipe if targeting is provided by another platform via data link or if combined with rf mica.

All in all the platform is rather unique and as such would add a lot of capability. Just not sure if the price is worth it..the iaf sure seems to think so

Now this is the kind of explanation that one seeks that helps people understand why this uber expensive aircraft is being sought by the IAF. The other posts about availability are only muddling the picture, because this is not a fixed constant, with aircraft having different availability rates depending on spares supply and stocks available with the squadron. It is more an issue with spares supply management and efficiency of the repair deopts, than being a purely aircraft related issue.

One wants to know what the Rafale offers that the MKI or the LCA can't do, what does the Rafale do better or what is so unique about this aircraft?
Very nice post Cain Marko, much appreciated. Would love to see more such posts.

[Gagan]

The only new single engined acquisition that the IAF is getting in the forseeable future is the LCA.
Every other plane is twin engined !

1. Rafale
2. Su-30 MKI
3. FGFA
4. AMCA

LCA better be like 40% of the airforce in sheer numbers.

Another thing.
One doesn't know how much of the Scorpene made it to the Arihant, but some of the rafale tech is surely going to make it into the AMCA. This will affect some changes in the AMCA.

[NRao]

but some of the rafale tech is surely going to make it into the AMCA. This will affect some changes in the AMCA.

In what way/area?

The AMCA is expected to be ahead of the FGFA in many ways and has had a ton of time for incubating ideas, although not much funds. IF the Rafale is built in India or some aspects via ToT *may* help the AMCA. But I very much doubt it. IF at all the FGFA would have helped.

BTW, I do not think the FGFA is a done deal. In fact, I would put it below 50% but with a high prob of doing far better. At this point in time I would not count on it as part of the IAF.

[brar_w]

The chances of the MOD walking back on the PAKFA/FGFA are about as much as them walking back on the Rafale at this point.

[member_27581]

Got this from a FB page related to Tejas. Some interesting tidbits...copy paste job from my side

Whoever thinks that the Su-30MKIs are going to be less expensive for IAF than the Rafales over their entire lifetime is in for a rude awakening.
~ Let’s start with the basics.
The fly-away cost for an HAL assembled MKI is $61 Million (Parliament figures) while that of the Rafale is $85 Million (extrapolated from French SENAT figures). So the argument that the Flankers are 2-3 times cheaper than the Rafales is no more valid.
~ Now let’s compare the operations cost per hour for each aircraft.
The MKI will cost the exchequer close to $18,000 per hour of flight. This is in consistence with the figures from Russian Flankers and other twin engine heavy fighters like the F-15.
Now the surprise is that the Rafales will cost only $9,484 per hour of flight. This is because the Rafale barely needs any maintenance after its flights. So we see that the Rafales cost only half that of the MKIs to fly per hour, which results in massive savings per year. Also, according to unconfirmed sources, the Mirage-2000s that cost $8,000/hr to fly with the French Airforce costs only $4,000/hr with the Indian Airforce. So we may see further savings for Rafales.
~ Another important factor is the airframe life and overhaul.
MKIs have an airframe life of 6000 hours while the Rafales have an 8000 hours rated airframe (can go upto 9000 hours). Se we can definitely see the Rafales out living the MKI by a huge margin.
Also the MKIs need airframe overhaul every 1500 hours of flight while the Rafales need one every 2500+ hours (theoretically, but the Rafales doesn’t need overhauls in the normal sense as it will be explained in the later part). We all know the availability rate of Su-30MKIs is close to 65% now (planned to be increased to 75%) by 2019. Meanwhile the Rafale has an availability rate of 97% with the French Airforce. Less downtime means more savings.
~ Let’s consider the engines now
The AL-31FP engine (87% indigenization) costs almost half that of the M-88-3 (version yet to be confirmed). But the engine life is what matters here. The AL-31FP has a measly 2500 hours of life (2000 according to some sources in IAF) that also needs periodic overhaul every 1000 hours and the nozzle every 500 hours of flying. This wastes considerable amount of resources, also the airframe requires upto 3 sets of engines over its entire lifetime.
In contrast the M-88-3 (with the recent TCO upgrade) has a total life of 8000hours! Which means that the airframes don’t need a change of engines over its entire lifetime. As for the overhaul time, it is said to require an overhaul every 2000 hours of use (the entire life of the AL-31FP engine) But this is just a theoretical necessity as in real life the engine does not undergo overhauls in the strict sense. (will be explained in the later part)
Also the M-88 requires a drop-out time of only 2 hours compared to 8-12 hours for the AL-31FP.
~ All these points prove that the Su-30MKI may be cheaper for acquisition. But comparing the costs over its entire life time, the Rafale cost less by a huge margin. Another example is that the Rafale needs 8 hours of maintenance per flying hour compare to 32 hours of maintenance per flying hour for a Su-30MKI. That’s a factor of 4!
I’m not even going to consider the cost of the upcoming upgrades for our Flankers. The Su-30MKI will need a huge amount of upgrades to bring in towards 4++ gen level while the Rafale doesn’t need any.
~ Now coming to the point about overhauls for Rafales (which I said I’ll explain later)
One of the biggest advantages of Rafale is that it has a fully automatic monitoring system that reduces turnaround time and minimizes the use of ground equipment. Dassault has also developed a single test bench capable of dealing with all electronic LRU that needs to be replaced. Which means that instead of an overhaul, the LRUs can be tested on the system without taking them out of the aircraft. If a problem is found, the LRUs can be replaced very easily without much time loss.
Even for the Engines which is modular, the monitoring system indicates the module that has a problem and is easily swapped for another replacement module without much downtime and the hassle, hence overhauls over a fixed period of time is unnecessary.
Rafale is also expected to be self-supporting, requiring no external test benches for flight line or rear echelon maintenance. That is why it has a very low operating cost, and low ground crew training requirements. Rafale requires no complete airframe or engine depot level inspection throughout its service life. This was one of the many reason why the IAF loved the Rafale.
~ Conclusion
So next time someone brings up the argument that buying more Su-30MKIs were better than going for Rafales, be sure to make him/her read this article. Also share this as much as you can so the people can really understand what the truth is rather than listening to what the paid media is propagating.
‪#‎Warwolf‬
(Note – Most of the figures/costs mentioned in the article have been taken from official documents while some had to be calculated from available sources.)

[member_27581]

another one from same page, this one does some interesting analysis, almost convinces me to forget su

There are many who think that the $8.8 Billion is far too expensive for 36 Rafale jets. Let's take a look shall we?
~ The fly away cost for a single Rafale airframe is $85 Million (according to official french documents)
So for 36 Rafales = 36 x 85 = $3.06 Billion
~ IAF is getting two types of air to air missiles as well as two types of air to ground missiles. So the weapons package per Rafale costs around $25 million (average) = 36 x 25 = $900 Million
~ Setting up of two bases and maintenance depots costs $1.2 Billion
~ The deal said that it would cover 10 years of maintenance and spares. The total LCC is calculated for 40 years and it comes to around 2.5 times the price of airframes (average).
Hence, for 10 years = 2.5 x 3.06 / 4 = $1.92 Billion ($53.4 Million per Rafale)
~ So far, the total adds upto $7.08 Billion.
The remaining 8.8 - 7.08 = $1.72 Billion is for ToT and covers the 50% offsets (that means, 8.8 / 2 = $4.4 Billion will be re-invested back in India)
Quoting $245 Million/ Rafale is just plain stupid. What people don't understand is that if India goes for remaining 90 Rafales for MMRCA, we'll have to pay only for the airframes, weapon and maintenance, since the two bases being set-up can handle three squadrons each without major expenditure.
That is 90 * ( 85 + 25 + 53.4 ) = $14.7 Billion excluding another $500 Million for upgradation of the bases. (again with 50% offsets)
So the total cost for 126 Rafales will be $24 Billion (pretty close to the $20 Billion quoted in the original MMRCA deal adjusting for inflation and ToT)
(Note - The figures are estimates and only provided to give you an idea as to the real cost break-up structure. The cost for 90 remaining jets will increase due to the 'Make in India' initiative for setting up assembly line. But the re-investment will compensate most of the additional cost)

[brar_w]

Wrong on many fronts. What does the $85 million include? Unit cost is too generic a term. Secondly, Life Cycle Cost, is not the cost of OEM supplied equipment such as spares. I have done a rough estimate of what the spare component is in one of my posts earlier (probably on this thread). A large component of LCC is manpower, fuel that naturally, the OEM isn't going to include in the deal to provide spares. Breaking down weapons package per jet is also rather strange but the Meteor will run $3 or more million with MICA in the 2+ range for the RF. A2G munitions from France will no doubt we the most expensive in their category.

[Viv S]

One thing I think raffles can provide that neither mki nor lca can do is probably highly automated low level flight for deep strike thanks to terrain following modes This might be one reason the iaf is hankering for the raffles amongst other reasons of course. Afaik there is no such system on the mki. The mirage might have it, but does not have the range not payload of the raffle, lca would be in similar boat.

I doubt it. The utility of low level strike went out in the 80s. And for good reason.

When you're flying low, your combat range is reduced (to 1/3rd, as a rule of thumb IIRC). Your speed is reduced. Your weapons range is reduced. Your situational awareness is vastly reduced. And if you're forced to enter combat, you do so in a low energy state. You may be packing four 100km AAMs but when launched from hard deck they're going to splutter out of juice at 20km.

Which would all still be acceptable if flying low level would enable the Rafale to penetrate hostile airspace undetected. Unfortunately it can't.


- The advent of look down shoot radars have made this flight profile very hard to pull off. Everything from AWACS, to fighter jets to aerostats can detect and track cruise missiles flying nap-of-the-earth (to say nothing of large fighter jets).

- Being horizon limited means your ESM is nearly useless against ground radar; the pilot will have no advance warning until he blunders into the radar's FoV and gets painted.

- Even if your pre-mission intelligence is perfect and you avoid all the SAM sites lying in your path, the aircraft still has no real stealth against human observers (Mk1. Eyeball) or defences against EO/IR MANPADS & AAA that can be present anywhere.

Its also why we're looking to re-engine the Jaguar (designed for low-level ingress) with a high thrust powerplant that can improve performance at medium and high altitudes.

Another thing is that dassault makes a huge deal out of the raffles passive sensors and targeting including irst, and hence has always given the radar less importance

As can be seen from the tiny nose. It is also the only platform that claims bvr strikes through the mica iir, which would mean a totally silent snipe if targeting is provided by another platform via data link or if combined with rf mica.

I'd say its quite the other way round. The radar is limited by the size of nose, which in turn was a result of navalizing the airframe's design (read: cockpit visibility). The EW suite is first rate but again the idea of 'natural' radar silent operations is contradicted by the fact that only a third of the Rafales in service today are equipped with an IRST or FLIR.

The IR channel was dropped from the OSF-IT from the F3 on performance concerns. None of the future Rafales (F3R) ordered by the the French MoD are going to be equipped with a dedicated IRST either. (They currently use the MICA-IR as a makeshift IR sensor and will use the Talios pod for the job after 2018. No LWIR in either case.)

Also, most 4th gen aircraft are equipped with a MAWS, so a totally silent snipe isn't possible anymore. In a head-on engagement it'll also be detected by the enemy's FCR.

All in all the platform is rather unique and as such would add a lot of capability. Just not sure if the price is worth it..the iaf sure seems to think so

Mehh.. I think its more like a Viper Blk 60 on steroids (better EW suite, better payload, better maneuverability but nothing revolutionary).

[NRao]

Parrikar denies Rafale contract sealed, contradicts BJP

[SaiK]

life cycle costs should be inversely reflecting to quality of the product and/or service.

remove fixed and marginal costs from this

[member_28985]

If there is a 50 % offset that they have invest in India and they are not going to build Rafales in India, what are they going to build with that investment?