IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 May 2016 06:54

Luxtor wrote:Why were we jumping up and down in joy when we used Mirage 2000's in Kargil conflict as performing superbly? Isn't the successful engagement of the ground targets is based on the capability of the launched weapon itself rather than the launch platform? Couldn't those LGBs be fired from our MiGs, Sukhois or Jaguars? I can understand the celebration at the time if there was aerial combat between our Mirages and Puki F-16s and our boys wasted some F-16s.

The IAF used only 6 LGBs. Most of the bombs were dumb bombs and that required manual release by pilots - so it was pilot skill there. The Jaguar could not be used at those altitudes. No other aircraft had the capability to attack from that altitude both day and night.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... PCamp.html

The key to the Mirages success was being able to reach its operating altitude and hitting the target with LGB’s and conventional weapons, twenty-four hours a day.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 May 2016 06:56

We had only Su-30MKs which at the time weren't capable of precision strike operations. The MiG-29 didn't get strike capability until the recent upgrade got underway. The MiG-27 & Jaguar too weren't equipped with PGMs, while also suffering from altitude limitations.

Doesn't change the facts vis a vis the Rafale though. It delivers no new capability; merely an (expensive) incremental improvement on existing ones.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 May 2016 19:50

Yaa, during kargil, in Muntho Dhalo where IAF took out 300 Pakistani NLI soldiers with their main batalik sector supply camp in a few minutes, was 1000 pound conventional bombs onlee. They were dropped using the M-2000's electronic bomb targeting system.

Batalik Sector

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 20 May 2016 05:03

Honestly , week after week, month after month, year after year (and soon to be Decade after Decade)
Nothing comes out this Rafael Deal

So over it .... So so so over it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2016 10:15

Why French wares are so expensive is becos of the huge wages in France for skilled labour.Probably 10 times that of comparative labour in India.French income-tax is around 60%+ (!!!).A friend says that 7 months of his working/earnmings in a year goes to the French govt. Therefore,there is a limit as to how low the French can offer the Rafale.

This is why the MOD/IAF MUST look for more cost-effective alternatives.Either more MKIs,MIG-29s to UG,or even 35 std.,handing over extra LCA production to other Indian pvt. entities if it cannot increase production centres-which it damn well can!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 May 2016 22:16

Bureaucratic Paralysis Hits Rafale Deal

Vivek Raghuvanshi, Defense News

NEW DELHI — Only two weeks ago India's purchase of 36 Dassault Rafael fighters was considered imminent, but the deal has since been all but frozen and the country's general director of defense acquisition suddenly forced to step aside. Procurement officials in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) now are taking "a very cautious approach" in the $8.9 billion deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets, said an MoD source.

Early last month, for reasons that are not clear, former director general defense acquisition Smita Nagaraj was involuntarily placed on leave over differences with MoD leaders over Rafale negotiations, said the source.

Procurement officials in MoD are now too scared to clear any files and virtually all new acquisitions are stuck, the MoD source added.

Early this month, MoD officials conducted negotiations on the Rafale deal with French defense officials and it was decided that India for immediate requirements would make an unspecified number of weaponry purchases, including Mica air-to-air missiles, Scalp air-to-ground missiles, the Meteor beyond visual range missile and precision guided munitions at a cost of $1 billion. The negotiations also included a maintenance and engineering support agreement for five years at a cost of $500 million.

Dassault chairman Eric Trappier said in an April 13 radio report that he expected a contract could be signed “in the next few days," adding, “I have high hopes this contract could be signed fairly quickly.”

Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar informed the parliament May 3 that the federal Law Ministry has reviewed the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) on the Rafale deal and that the findings would be taken into account when finalizing the IGA on the Rafale deal.

The parliamentary standing committee on defense expressed displeasure over the fact that the deal has not been completed.

“The committee is unhappy to note that although a considerable time has elapsed, negotiations with France on Rafale could not be taken to a logical end,” the radio report said.

Earlier, a French embassy source told Defense News there was an expected agreement of 50 percent offsets in the Rafale deal. The source said 30 percent of offsets will be earmarked for future military aviation research and development programs and the remaining 20 percent for Indian defense industries making Rafale components.

To execute the offsets, several French companies, including Safran and Thales, will join Dassault in providing state-of-the-art technologies in stealth, radar, thrust vectoring for missiles, and materials for electronics and micro-electronics, the French Embassy source said.

India MoD officials plan to buy all 36 Rafale fighters in fly-away condition, with first delivery of the Rafale expected within 20 months of the contract.

France will also provide five years of maintenance and spares support for Rafale aircraft.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 May 2016 23:25

Parrikar seems to be saying Rafale may not go through

"You will have to bring down the cost. If you throw away the price they demand, our coffers will soon be empty,"

"Asked about the plans to manufacture the multi-role fighter jets in the country, Parrikar said: "By the end of this year, a decision will be taken on which fighter aircraft will be made in India. We have not decided yet whether we will make the F-18, Eurofighter, Rafale or Griffin."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 364193.cms

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 May 2016 00:21

Dassault to Indian MOD

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 21 May 2016 02:24

Cosmo_R wrote: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 364193.cms

In this article for the first time I have seen a direct price comparison between the Rafale, SU-30 and LCA by Parrikar no less. Although not explicitly stated, it is almost certain that he is talking about flyaway cost per unit.

"One Rafale fighter is worth approximately Rs 700 crore to Rs 750 crore while an Su-30 costs about Rs 475 crore. Compared to these planes, India's Tejas is in the range of Rs 200 crore to Rs 250 crore only. We can get two Tejas at the price of one Rafale," the minister said.

At Rs 67/USD, that works out to Rafale $105-$110 million, SU30 $71 million and LCA $30-$38 million. In the discussion on the other thread, the F-35 had been currently priced at $85 million flyaway cost. The problem is that the customization costs for the IAF re the Elbit?? HMCS, Astra as well as the 2 base depots plus the higher costs of French munitions such as SCALP, Meteor etc. make the cost of the overall package stratospheric.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2016 02:37

How much would a F-18IN be?

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 May 2016 02:40

ldev wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 364193.cms
In this article for the first time I have seen a direct price comparison between the Rafale, SU-30 and LCA by Parrikar no less. Although not explicitly stated, it is almost certain that he is talking about flyaway cost per unit.

"One Rafale fighter is worth approximately Rs 700 crore to Rs 750 crore while an Su-30 costs about Rs 475 crore. Compared to these planes, India's Tejas is in the range of Rs 200 crore to Rs 250 crore only. We can get two Tejas at the price of one Rafale," the minister said.
At Rs 67/USD, that works out to Rafale $105-$110 million, SU30 $71 million and LCA $30-$38 million. In the discussion on the other thread, the F-35 had been currently priced at $85 million flyaway cost. The problem is that the customization costs for the IAF re the Elbit?? HMCS, Astra as well as the 2 base depots plus the higher costs of French munitions such as SCALP, Meteor etc. make the cost of the overall package stratospheric.

It should be "We can get three Tejas at the price of one Rafale".

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 May 2016 02:55

Use the money saved on the Rafale deal to make a true blue MMRCA out of the Tejas MK2. Add some RCS reduction as well, like the Rafale & you'll have a decent striker. It need not be the same payload but with long legs, it will be more than sufficient against the PAF freeing up more Sukhois vs PRC. And then add more AWACS (L Band or UHF) plus the Super-30 AESA upgrade & upgraded IRSTs with new LRAAMs.
All this for the price of a silver bullet Rafale force sounds much more reasonable.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 21 May 2016 02:58

The only thing working in favour of mmrca is ready availability in the near term. The MK2 is far out timeline wise to reach mmrca levels and eventual induction in numbers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 May 2016 03:44

How fast will 36 MMRCA come and then local manufacture of yet another type?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2016 03:54

Let the LCA grow a canard.

And pocket a few billion.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 May 2016 03:56

Karan M wrote:How fast will 36 MMRCA come and then local manufacture of yet another type?

It gets funnier by the day.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2016 03:58

Order 270 LCAs. Manufacture 27 per year. Every 2 years the next batch needs to incorporate some meaningfully new techs (tv, rcs reduction, etc). In 2028ish bring the naval AMCA on line, 2030 the AF version.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 May 2016 09:20

Karan M wrote:How fast will 36 MMRCA come and then local manufacture of yet another type?

I think its a scarecrow tactics by MOD to bring in other vendor on the table to extract more juice from Dassault.

Either Rafale gets 36 plus the local manuf deal or Rafale gets entirely dumped and EF , F-18 or Grippen gets the same deal , by now what each vedor can offer in terms of local production , TOT and Offset is quite known , It all boils down to Mulla and how much low can each vendor get to bag MMRCA-NG contract.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 May 2016 11:36

In the Hindu report of the same,he is also quoted as saying that we could get "one SU-30 and one LCA for the price of one Rafale".

Then why not?! This is a far more sensible method of building up the IAF's strength in numbers ,capability and also benefit desi "made in India" goals as both are being manufactured in India.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 21 May 2016 14:10

Karan M wrote:How fast will 36 MMRCA come and then local manufacture of yet another type?

One could say faster than mk2 and its induction at a far future date..

I agree with Auatin saar, this looks like a final word to raffle makers. For the right price we will buy 36 off the shelf and have a line for it too..

If not, boing can fill the void.

The air force wants mmrca and it will get it. Only which ac is the question.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 May 2016 15:42

I think its a scarecrow tactics by MOD to bring in other vendor on the table to extract more juice from Dassault.

That is most likely the case. Good to know that at least someone is looking to pay less and do a hard-bargain.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 May 2016 18:36

nirav wrote:..
The air force wants mmrca and it will get it. Only which ac is the question.

That has been the question since 2000

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 May 2016 18:39

nirav wrote:
Karan M wrote:How fast will 36 MMRCA come and then local manufacture of yet another type?
One could say faster than mk2 and its induction at a far future date..

At the rate things are, a Mk2 seems more guaranteed than a MMRCA choice and then some 2-3 more years to negotiate TOT for local production then some 2-3 years to set it up.. in which case why bother with an imported 4G platform?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 21 May 2016 18:58

Karan M wrote:
nirav wrote: One could say faster than mk2 and its induction at a far future date..
At the rate things are, a Mk2 seems more guaranteed than a MMRCA choice and then some 2-3 more years to negotiate TOT for local production then some 2-3 years to set it up.. in which case why bother with an imported 4G platform?

we got to put our weight behind RM.

hes clearly mentioned that a decision on the 2nd line, make in india i.e. will be taken by end of this year.
6 months for raffle makers to make up their mind if they want in or out.

The MK2 while a fine aircraft cant really bring to the table capabilities of a medium jet. The MCA is the right a/c for the job. That too is far out.
Come to think of it there has never been talk/consideration of a HCA. Should have been pursued.

Whether we like it or not, MMRCA will happen. we just have to wait and watch if its going to be raffle or boing 18.

Nothing stops us from Inducting more MK1A and MKIs in the time MMRCA comes on line to augment capacity.

IF MMRCA gets too delayed hereon, who knows, the F35 might get considered if the "strategic partnership" with massa makes headway. They are headed for regime change anyway. No need to rush things at the moment.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 May 2016 23:00

A twin engined LCA AKA AMCA is the need of the hour.
HAL has already built a twin engined Marut, HAL needs a repeat of the Dhruv -> Rudra -> LCH route with the LCA too.
I guess they are taking their time building a uber true 5th gen AMCA - that always takes time.

But if the IAF's need for numbers is not satisfied now, then India will be at the mercy of these foreign vendors who will as for the sky, in terms of prices. Really sad situation.
India has now painstakingly built a fairly decent domestic aviation industry with ancillaries, now its time to build on it and speed up the AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 May 2016 06:33

Like this? With TVC.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 22 May 2016 06:43

AMCA is the modified version of the above. Medium size to to overcome the limitation of the small design of LCA and even do have commonality of about 30 or so percent with Tejas. What's practical and what's possible within a said timeframe. So further we may say variants of AMCA when its 6th generation variant start to appear.

Yes Indeed Tejas can morph into Mark-II Mark-III. But large changes like twin engine etc may not be possible, that's better left for AMCA. Mark-III could be single engine stealth fighter.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 May 2016 10:50

Frankly, this could be a great opportunity for india to go completely in house....

Pass on the lca mk2 and the rafale, and use the resources to develop a amca 0.1. Basically an enlarged version of the lca navy. Very similar to what dassault did with the mirage 4000. I don't see why they couldn't get it up and running by 2025...and let a private player get involved along with ADA.

I think with agile and concurrent development, this should be doable. Jmho of course.

If the iaf numbers are a concern, order more mk1a and some mki. They might even get the kaveri going at 80kn, which should be suffice.

11 tons empty.
17 ton thrust.
5000kg internal fuel.
7500kg payload
Aesa, irst, internal ew
Semi conformal weapons carriage ala typhoon

More stealth and internal bays can come later...

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 May 2016 20:36

Wonder what modi will come back with after the US visit this June.
I suspect, if the french don't agree to TOT, price drop, a line in India, then an american line will be set up in India.
Now weather the IAF wants a single or a double engined bird is to be seen

All these moves on munna (major non nato ally) are to be seen to be in preparation for this

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 22 May 2016 21:23

Cain Marko wrote:Frankly, this could be a great opportunity for india to go completely in house....

To go in house the biggest piece missing is an engine.....Master engine technology and the rest is easier. Until then the talk about LCA Mk2 and AMCA is premature.

I remember reading somewhere about internal Japanese deliberations about collaborating with others about developing a fighter aircraft. And their internal consensus was that to collaborate, each party much bring something of equal value to the table in terms of technology, otherwise it is just screwdriver technology. And the Japanese focus was on the engine. Their recent flight trials of their experimental stealth fighter the Mitsubishi X2 uses 2 X XF5-1 engines, each with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbs. But they believe that they still have ways to go inspite of the xf5-1 engine currently bench marked against the Snecma M-88 (used in the Rafale) in terms of T/W.

FWIW, their internal benchmarking against various engines is given in the following document.

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/ ... kou/16.pdf

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 May 2016 21:39

The Russian offer of clean slate engine design with full ToT should be explored, along with the Japanese one too. Such offers are one in blue moon or rarer still, wonder why no one is pushing for such opportunities. With offer from Russia, prolly line production would also be on offer.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 May 2016 06:33

vishvak wrote:The Russian offer of clean slate engine design with full ToT should be explored, along with the Japanese one too. Such offers are one in blue moon or rarer still, wonder why no one is pushing for such opportunities. With offer from Russia, prolly line production would also be on offer.

When did they make this offer? And what Russian platform will this engine on be equipped upon (I'm assuming its to be a JV)?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 May 2016 07:00

When we talk of someone who is going to give us full engine ToT it is worth understanding who dominates the world engine market. Here is a graphic
http://www.statista.com/statistics/2619 ... ket-share/

Non western engines are 5%.

Now if any country is "making a living" and creating jobs by making aero engines, why would they want to share technology and give full ToT? Too many years and too many posts have been wasted on BRF imagining that someone is going to "give us" engine tech. Our discussion could go so much further if we gave up that delusion.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 23 May 2016 07:10

NRao wrote:Let the LCA grow a canard.
And pocket a few billion.

The depth of that remark above .... wow
Seriously lets do it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2016 09:19

First let's get the LCA into large-scale series production and set up another prod unit if need be.Mk-1A and MK-2 whatever ,sev hundreds of these to replace all MIG-21/27s. Extra MKIs for more demanding tasks.The problem with AMCA,as has been shown in other stealth designs is the amt. of hardware that can be carried internally. A smaller med sized AMCA may be giving us less bang for the buck. The UCAV option is one that is in he works and should arrive much faster than the AMCA which even if started today would take a min of 10+ years to arrive.Just look at how long we're taking over to produce a handful of LCAs.

If the Rafale's price can't be brought down lower,then the DM must bite the bullet and live upto his words about the alternatives.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 23 May 2016 17:02

shiv wrote:When we talk of someone who is going to give us full engine ToT it is worth understanding who dominates the world engine market. Here is a graphic
http://www.statista.com/statistics/2619 ... ket-share/

Non western engines are 5%.

Now if any country is "making a living" and creating jobs by making aero engines, why would they want to share technology and give full ToT? Too many years and too many posts have been wasted on BRF imagining that someone is going to "give us" engine tech. Our discussion could go so much further if we gave up that delusion.

Everyone should get it in their heads NO one will give us full engine TOT. Few crumbs here and there but not the full thing . We have to do it on our own and we can.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 May 2016 17:07

India does NOT need full engine TOT!
India only lags behind in certain materials and components. Some of these are available from some international component manufacturers.
I understand that Snecma has given GTRE SCBs for Kaveri after there was some cooperation.

These components and materials are needed to build a top of the line engine which lasts very long, and has high MTBF

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2016 17:35

Even a certain key component b....s have been developed by a pvt entity on behalf of the DRDO ,a few years ago,but the poor co is waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for our wonders to wake up and place orders.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 May 2016 17:39

snahata wrote:
shiv wrote:When we talk of someone who is going to give us full engine ToT it is worth understanding who dominates the world engine market. Here is a graphic
http://www.statista.com/statistics/2619 ... ket-share/

Non western engines are 5%.

Now if any country is "making a living" and creating jobs by making aero engines, why would they want to share technology and give full ToT? Too many years and too many posts have been wasted on BRF imagining that someone is going to "give us" engine tech. Our discussion could go so much further if we gave up that delusion.

Everyone should get it in their heads NO one will give us full engine TOT. Few crumbs here and there but not the full thing . We have to do it on our own and we can.

A few crumbs here and there is all that we can get from anybody

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 May 2016 18:18

From what I hear from multiple sources there is no alternative to experience and hands on in engine building. I am no expert but what little general knowledge I have tells me that:

The math (physics) part dominates the design - the size of the engine face dictates the volume of air. The number of "stages" and diameter of the compressor dictate the amount the gas gets compressed; the fuel combustion and the compression dictates the temperature and pressure - and that pressure dictates the power of the engine and the speed at which the turbine turns - and the faster it turns, the faster the vanes at the front of the engine turn, pushing in more gas for compression and the engine RPM is in high thousands or tens of thousands of RPM.

Each row of turbine blades has dozens of blades. Each of those blades must be exactly the same size and shape or else the engine will soon vibrate and break apart at those high rotation speeds. And those blades - spinning so fast are subject to intense centrifugal forces as well has high temperatures and oxygen - a formula for corrosion - the average metal of a car body will corrode in minutes under such conditions.

So the machining and finish of each blade has to be perfect apart from each blade being made of a single crystal that is grown. And because there are so many parts - things going wrong with even one blade is fatal. Some hot parts of the engine may have blisks where a solid cylinder of metal has been cut into shape to have blades sticking out of a central hub. Again, material and machining must be perfect. And after all this if your original math/physics calculations about mass of air that needs to go through and temperatures is wrong (as happened for the Kaveri IIRC) the engine will not perform as expected.

Shaping and machining those blades and giving the final touches is skilled work by workers who need the skill to do it right. "transfer of technology" would also mean making workmen sit with older experienced workers watching how they do the final machining under the supervision of a boss who knows what works.

And after putting all this together the engine has to be tested to produce power under different conditions of temperature and airflow and should be able to run for hours on end. No "transfer of tech" will give anyone all this. This is hands on experience and experiencing failure - seeing what fails and what works and what needs to be done. For too long we on BRF have imagined that there is some magical tech transfer that is possible for engines. There isn't. Hands on and acceptance of failures and is the only way forward. This is cutting edge stuff. If it was easy everyone would be doing it.

Typically as Indians we have no clue about how complex a jet engine is. We think someone will give tech transfer and some will give us everything - but still things can go wrong and we will curse our own people as being bums and compare with GE/Snecma/RR . "Give it to Infosys. Give it to ISRO" etc. Sorry to rant - but I simply love this statistic: Nearly 100% of Indians in the US are graduates and I think 60% are postgraduates. In India we have only 4% postgraduates. that is a reflection of "general thick-thackness" in our society when it comes to technology. Like Congress party, surgery is what we need.