Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2013 21:07

On the cost factor alone,I must agree with NR.I've always had serious doubts about the M-2000 upgrade.Just 40-50 aircraft for $2.5B! In comparison,the MIG-29,which in IAF mano-a-mano combat outperformed the M-2000 every time (AM Masand in Vayu,posted long ago),is being upgraded at just under $1B for 60+ fighters! That's just about $16M per bird vs $50M+ for a M-2000UG.The MIG-29K which the IN is acquiring in strength comes in at just $35M a piece too,less than the cost of upgrading just one M-2000 and half that of a Rafale. Now one seriously hopes that the IAF and MOD are factoring in the cost of Rafale/MMRCA acquisitions.If the Rafale came in cheaper than the Typhoon,then I seriously doubt that the EF could replace it.It also makes one wonder as to how much will be left for the other programmes in the pipeline in the current eco-situ.

Once more I request info,if there is any light that can be shed on the Jaguar line at HAL,extras and upgrades,and why this line cannot be used for accelerating the LCA production.Alternatively,the IAF's BRDs could very easily do the upgrades of the Jaguars,120 to be upgraded.This would kill two birds with one decision.It would please the IAF no end to be doing something very useful with their BRDs,plus allow HAL to gear itself up for production of at least 160-200 Jaguars within a decade,by 2015.

If the Russians want to queer the pitch,they should seriously offer the IAF MIG-29s/35s at very affordable prices,even if slightly more than what the RuAF is paying,it would bring down unit cost price with more MIGs being built.As I pointed out before,we have around 360 aircraft (MIG-21/27s) to replace -not even mentioning legacy Jaguars and even accelerated LCA production at 16/yr. will not be able to fill the gap.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 02 Nov 2013 23:07

Philip wrote:On the cost factor alone,I must agree with NR.I've always had serious doubts about the M-2000 upgrade.Just 40-50 aircraft for $2.5B! In comparison,the MIG-29,which in IAF mano-a-mano combat outperformed the M-2000 every time (AM Masand in Vayu,posted long ago),is being upgraded at just under $1B for 60+ fighters! That's just about $16M per bird vs $50M+ for a M-2000UG.The MIG-29K which the IN is acquiring in strength comes in at just $35M a piece too,less than the cost of upgrading just one M-2000 and half that of a Rafale.Now one seriously hopes that the IAF and MOD are factoring in the cost of Rafale/MMRCA acquisitions.If the Rafale came in cheaper than the Typhoon,then I seriously doubt that the EF could replace it.It also makes one wonder as to how much will be left for the other programmes in the pipeline in the current eco-situ.

Philip sir, while no doubt the M2K upg is costly your point that Mig 29 upg is 'very cheap' may have to be taken with a pinch of salt 'unless' ofc the following is all part of the upg cost and which can be confirmed.

1. the cost of TopSight HMD for the SMTs being procured from (Samtel) Thales. there was a pic of the SMT upgraded Mig 29 with what looks like TopSight HMD that the pilot is wearing.

2. IFF interrogator is again being supplied by Thales. it is contarcted by RSK MIG so i guess this is being paid by RSK MIG.

3. even the cost of EW SUITE which is partly DARE one.

OTOH M2K upg is all french IIRC.

Once more I request info,if there is any light that can be shed on the Jaguar line at HAL,extras and upgrades,and why this line cannot be used for accelerating the LCA production.

the line was closed in 2008 and is being used for HAWK AJT assembly.

Alternatively,the IAF's BRDs could very easily do the upgrades of the Jaguars,120 to be upgraded.This would kill two birds with one decision.It would please the IAF no end to be doing something very useful with their BRDs,plus allow HAL to gear itself up for production of at least 160-200 Jaguars within a decade,by 2015.

HAL is aready dealing with DARIN 3 which includes a radar - EL 2032 IIRC. infact the DARIN 3 upgraded Jag flew in 2012. as for the engine change Honeywell was issued an RFP in 2012. the deatils can be had from the link.

If the Russians want to queer the pitch,they should seriously offer the IAF MIG-29s/35s at very affordable prices,even if slightly more than what the RuAF is paying,it would bring down unit cost price with more MIGs being built.As I pointed out before,we have around 360 aircraft (MIG-21/27s) to replace -not even mentioning legacy Jaguars and even accelerated LCA production at 16/yr. will not be able to fill the gap.

russians may be interested but is the IAF??

all these possibilities hinge on the cancellation of Rafale. IAF is on record which you quote often - there is no back up plan.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2013 23:31

Philip wrote:I don't know why the F-35 is being discussed in this thread,the IAF have said repeatedly that they do not want the F-35.Other more realistic alternatives to the MMRCA/Rafale if the deal collapses need to be debated.

In any case,even if the negotiations drag on,the French would not like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and at some point in time next year,the deal should go through ,but perhaps in modified form.

What the IAF wanted back when the MMRCA was proposed, was actually the Mirage 2000, not the Rafale. Times change, circumstances change.

Since beating out the EF for the contract, its been all the way downhill for the Rafale - certain victories in UAE and Brazil have been dissolving away (like Morocco before them), the French state has just hit it with a 60 aircraft cut and the IAF contract still hangs in limbo.

As far as the IAF is concerned, first off, the economy is still in the pit. And the figure of $10-12 billion being bandied about wouldn't last for ever. The MoF for one, will blow a gasket when the actual bill gets forwarded to them for approval.

Secondly (as to why the F-35 merits discussion), the aircraft that we were banking upon to maintain the IAF's technological edge down the line i.e. the 'jointly-developed' FGFA has all but vanished. We're currently looking at 144 Russian PAK FAs with a flyaway cost well in excess of $100 million and the operating cost of an F-22 rolled into a Su-30. Its worth looking at a supplementary solution, particularly for the strike/SEAD role.

If the economy fails to pick up,and drastic cuts are being made all round,then the MOD/IAF will have to look for the most cost-effective replacements and more of the same-either Sukhois or MIG-29s,ease of induction as both are in service,being the attraction,along with as many LCAs that can be produced as MIG-21 replacements,may be the order of the day.

MiG-29s perhaps, but more Su-30MKI would be unsuitable for already top heavy force. But then again it would be cheaper still to invest in expanding the Tejas' production infrastructure.

The latter is a far more sophisticated fighter and appears to be able to perform the strike role as efficiently or better.Instead of building extra Jaguars/upgrading the entire lot,surely the Jaguar line could be used for extra LCA production.Can anyone shed some more light on this?

The Jaguar line became defunct almost 7 years ago. Its not an option any more but you're right in that the Tejas (even the Mk1) can be relied upon for the more bread-and-butter functions of the air force while other platforms are tasked with missions requiring greater sophistication.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Nov 2013 23:42

Mig 35 specifications from wicki link

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2013 23:55

NRao wrote:A VERY frightening picture and thought.

Now imagine what the cost of a Rafale MLU would be!!!!

Precisely. $50 million to just upgrade the Mirage's avionics! At that cost, upgrading 126 Mirages would have put us back by well over $6 billion.

As for the Rafale, including a re-engining, new radar, ECM/ESM upgrades, and possible changes to the airframe, a conservative guess would be.. close to $100 million at current day prices.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 00:20

The MiG-35 is not even an option for the Russians today. At the earliest they will get it in two years.

If the Rafale falls, then it is a dog and pony show with the EF.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 00:32

pragnya wrote:Philip sir, while no doubt the M2K upg is costly your point that Mig 29 upg is 'very cheap' may have to be taken with a pinch of salt 'unless' ofc the following is all part of the upg cost and which can be confirmed.

Usually the specifications of the product are worked out with the primary contractor (in this case RAC-MiG) along with the total cost. The contractor in turn pays all its suppliers from the proceeds including those delivering equipment specific to the customer. For example, in the case of the Mirage upgrade, the contractor was Thales (and HAL) but equipment was sourced from Sagem, BEL, Samtel as well.

Unless some different model was employed, the cost of the MiG-29 upgrades includes non-Russian equipment.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 00:34

n the cost factor alone,I must agree with NR.I've always had serious doubts about the M-2000 upgrade.Just 40-50 aircraft for $2.5B! In comparison,the MIG-29,which in IAF mano-a-mano combat outperformed the M-2000 every time (AM Masand in Vayu,posted long ago),is being upgraded at just under $1B for 60+ fighters! That's just about $16M per bird vs $50M+ for a M-2000UG.The MIG-29K which the IN is acquiring in strength comes in at just $35M a piece too,less than the cost of upgrading just one M-2000 and half that of a Rafale. Now one seriously hopes that the IAF and MOD are factoring in the cost of Rafale/MMRCA acquisitions.If the Rafale came in cheaper than the Typhoon,then I seriously doubt that the EF could replace it.It also makes one wonder as to how much will be left for the other programmes in the pipeline in the current eco-situ.

Once more I request info,if there is any light that can be shed on the Jaguar line at HAL,extras and upgrades,and why this line cannot be used for accelerating the LCA production.Alternatively,the IAF's BRDs could very easily do the upgrades of the Jaguars,120 to be upgraded.This would kill two birds with one decision.It would please the IAF no end to be doing something very useful with their BRDs,plus allow HAL to gear itself up for production of at least 160-200 Jaguars within a decade,by 2015.

If the Russians want to queer the pitch,they should seriously offer the IAF MIG-29s/35s at very affordable prices,even if slightly more than what the RuAF is paying,it would bring down unit cost price with more MIGs being built.As I pointed out before,we have around 360 aircraft (MIG-21/27s) to replace -not even mentioning legacy Jaguars and even accelerated LCA production at 16/yr. will not be able to fill the gap.

Comparing upgrade costs & MRCA you should also get the capability difference. The IAF is not foolish and if there was really a doubt they wouldn't have opted to uprgrade the mirage 2000 nor would they have ordered the rafale as the MRCA winner. IAF certainly knows better the situation that those complaining about mirage and rafale and they had the opportunity to pick another type of aircraft.

With the rafale and to a lesser extent the mirage you are getting an aircraft of a totally different league than the Mig and Sukhoi in terms of avionics integration, sensor fusion and survivability. Russian aircrafts are certainly powerful aircrafts (big engines, big radar, big missiles) that should not be downplayed but they remain more simple, less integrated weapon system than their western counterparts.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 01:08

arthuro wrote:Comparing upgrade costs & MRCA you should also get the capability difference. The IAF is not foolish and if there was really a doubt they wouldn't have opted to uprgrade the mirage 2000 nor would they have ordered the rafale as the MRCA winner. IAF certainly knows better the situation that those complaining about mirage and rafale and they had the opportunity to pick another type of aircraft.

Retiring the Mirage 2000 was hardly an option and contracting Elbit/IAI instead was fraught with risk (without engineering support from Dassault). There was little choice but to stick with France for the upgrade.

As for the MMRCA, the EF and Rafale were two most expensive aircraft in the running, and there were shortlisted before the economy hit the skids. It was one thing when the whole business seemed likely to get wrapped up in 2011-12 itself. As much as the IAF would prefer a bird in hand, over the short term, there's little appetite in the MoD (or tolerance in the MoF) for hugely expensive commitments.

With the rafale and to a lesser extent the mirage you are getting an aircraft of a totally different league than the Mig and Sukhoi in terms of avionics integration, sensor fusion and survivability. Russian aircrafts are certainly powerful aircrafts (big engines, big radar, big missiles) that should not be downplayed but they remain more simple, less integrated weapon system than their western counterparts.

Mirage in a different league from the MiG? Hardly. Better serviceability/availability yes. But in terms of performance its (at best) only 'comparable'.

Same for the Rafale vis a vis the Su-30MKI. Better sensor fusion, lower RCS and superior ESM. But has lower operational range, sensor range and payload. Better... yes. Different league? Not likely. Especially when compared after the 'Super Sukhoi' upgrade.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 01:11

Comparing upgrade costs & MRCA you should also get the capability difference.

Therein lies the problem (and perhaps you do not understand the argument - in all your shouting with red colors from articles that have already been posted).

If the M2k upgrade is THIS costly, imagine what the cost of upgrading a more sophisticated machine like the Rafale would cost.

The IAF is not foolish

It is Dassault for the M2K and let us see who is the fool for the Rafale. That fool has yet to stand up and be identified.

IF India can get the Rafale for $10 billion and the armament that goes with it for another $10 billion, it is fine. But at $22 billion for the plane (granted ToT, etc) and another $15 billion for the armament - it is very, very - how do you say it - insensé.

Monsieur, Just talk about the cost. And nothing else. Would France pay $22 billion for what Dassault is selling to India?

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 01:28

Therein lies the problem (and perhaps you do not understand the argument - in all your shouting with red colors from articles that have already been posted).

If the M2k upgrade is THIS costly, imagine what the cost of upgrading a more sophisticated machine like the Rafale would cost.

You say the mirage 2000 upgrade is costly that's fine that's your own opinion as there are millions on internet but that is not vey interesting. Fact: The IAF thinks it is worth the cost. Period. If you believe it is costly then this is a very capable upgrade.

After more than two years of negotiations with Dassault, IAF and indian MoD finally decided to go ahead with the mirage 2000 upgrade. They could refuse it or they could be very very angry against Dassault... But mind you not only did India signed for the mirage upgrade but they ask for even more french hardware with the rafale as the winner of the MRCA after an open competition !!! Such confidence must say something very positive for Dassault and its aircraft.

This should be a big reality check before starting speculating.

It is Dassault for the M2K and let us see who is the fool for the Rafale. That fool has yet to stand up and be identified.

IF India can get the Rafale for $10 billion and the armament that goes with it for another $10 billion, it is fine. But at $22 billion for the plane (granted ToT, etc) and another $15 billion for the armament - it is very, very - how do you say it - insensé.

Monsieur, Just talk about the cost. And nothing else. Would France pay $22 billion for what Dassault is selling to India?

When you ask full ToT and almost full production of such a modern aircraft it comes at a cost. As simple as that. Otherwise you just buy it directly from Dassault plants. This is probably a detail that you forgot along with support equipment, weaponry etc...It goes way beyond the price of a vanilla aircraft.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:00

You say the mirage 2000 upgrade is costly that's fine that's your own opinion as there are millions on internet but that is not vey interesting. Fact: The IAF thinks it is worth the cost. Period. If you believe it is costly then this is a very capable upgrade.

Why are you hiding behind IAF's skirt?

Did anyone say that the IAF is foolish? Or that they did not want it? All those are your arguments.

What do YOU think? Is it an expensive deal or one that is worth it?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:02

When you ask full ToT and almost full production of such a modern aircraft it comes at a cost.

It does? At cost is not free of cost?

Again that is not the point.

OK, what I suggested "at cost" is $10 billion. (The other $12 billion should go to Indian Labs.)

Otherwise you just buy it directly from Dassault plants.

Or not buy it at all.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 02:07

Retiring the Mirage 2000 was hardly an option and contracting Elbit/IAI instead was fraught with risk (without engineering support from Dassault). There was little choice but to stick with France for the upgrade.

Why retiring the mirage 2000 was not an option ? LCA or more MIG 29 could have also been an easy and affordable option. I guess it is another "out of the hat" argument to fit the situation.

But this is funny, let's take your own idea that the IAF had no other choice but to upgrade the mirage 2000 at very high cost so they were forced to agree Dassault's conditions. Then the IAF must be very very upset against Dassault ! But very strangely they asked for even more Dassault aircrafts for several more decades with the rafale as the winner of the MRCA.

And just a bit of common sense completely destroys the arguments against the mirage 2000 and rafale deal as far as the IAF is concerned.

same for the Rafale vis a vis the Su-30MKI. Better sensor fusion, lower RCS and superior ESM. But has lower operational range, sensor range and payload. Better... yes. Different league? Not likely. Especially when compared after the 'Super Sukhoi' upgrade.

The rafale has more range, much more payload and more radar range than the SU-30mki as well with its AESA radar while being smaller, stealthier, smarter etc...

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 02:15

Why are you hiding behind IAF's skirt?
Did anyone say that the IAF is foolish? Or that they did not want it? All those are your arguments.
What do YOU think? Is it an expensive deal or one that is worth it?

What I or you think is of little importance. I prefer to analyze choices of airforce who have the full picture.

What's significant is that a professional airforce after more than two years of negotiation and having all the details and all the possibilities to compare against other aircrafts or solutions opted for the mirage 2000 upgrade. This mean it is worth the cost.

Other modern airforces also chose this kind of mirage 2000 upgrade : French air force, Greece air force, Quatar, UAE along with India. That's pretty good credential in my books.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:17

But very strangely they asked for even more Dassault aircrafts for several more decades with the rafale as the winner of the MRCA.

Nope. The Rafale AND the EF won the technical contest. And, then supposedly the Rafale was the lower of the two in terms of the cost - which is why it was picked.

I think Dassault cheated. Which is what we are seeing right now.

BTW, the IAF was done with the technical evaluation - they have nothing to do with the cost/price of this project.

Also, remember that the IAF evaluated BOTH the EF and the Rafale as the two of the better planes among those that competed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:19

I prefer to analyze choices of airforce who have the full picture.

Liek I said above you have NOT analysed it.

The IAF never preferred the Rafale. Their evaluation said that BOTH the EF and Rafale are equally good and the costs submitted by Dassault was lower - which is why the GoI is talking to Dassault.

IAF never said that the Rafale is better or best. That is your bad analysis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:22

What's significant is that a professional airforce after more than two years of negotiation and having all the details and all the possibilities to compare against other aircrafts or solutions opted for the mirage 2000 upgrade. This mean it is worth the cost.

Again. Nope.

The IAF always deals with the technical aspects and they said that the upgrade is what they would like.

It was The GoI/MoD that *justified* the cost - not the IAF.

The IAF - as far as I know - does not deal with the cost (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:23

arthuro,

You can say anything you want.

I think that the Rafale is coming.

However, the cost India is being asked to pay is vulgar.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 02:26

Nope. The Rafale AND the EF won the technical contest. And, then supposedly the Rafale was the lower of the two in terms of the cost - which is why it was picked.

I think Dassault cheated. Which is what we are seeing right now.

BTW, the IAF was done with the technical evaluation - they have nothing to do with the cost/price of this project.

Also, remember that the IAF evaluated BOTH the EF and the Rafale as the two of the better planes among those that competed.

I perfectly know the EF made the cut. I meant that if Dassault's reputation was that bad after the mirage 2000 as you tend to say they could have put a veto to the rafale. They did not and they are fine with the prospect of the rafale serving in the IAF. And it's not just the IAF, it's the Indian MoD. If they were unhappy with the cost vs the quality of the mirage upgrade why bother opting for the rafale then ?
As for believing they cheated that's a bias opinion. Especially after the level of scrutiny of this deal and sheer number of stakeholders that take parts in decisions.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 02:41

For those worrying about Rafale MLU, india can do it eventually alone :

full size:
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.fr/2012 ... -mrca.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:43

Did I say that either the IAF or the MoD or the GoI was unhappy with the cost for the M2K upgrades? No, they ALL are perfectly satisfied - I told you that the MoD/GoI justified the cost, so why would they be unhappy? It is I who think that the cost is not worth it.

The IAF - as far as I know - loves Dassault products. So, that is not an issue either.

So, let us leave the IAF/MoD/GoI out of this discussion. They will always go abroad to get a screw and driver, what to talk of an entire plane?

But, my question still stands - are the M2K and Rafale prices that India is paying worth it? IF the M2K upgrade cost say $5 million - OK I can buy that. But $50 million per plane? For what? (And, do not tell me that IAF/MoD liked it.)

So, too with teh Rafale, what is India getting for $22 billion (plus $15 billion for missiles, etc) ( a total of an estimated $37 billion) (and another $35 billion for some 200 FGFAs)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 02:50

arthuro wrote:Why retiring the mirage 2000 was not an option ? LCA or more MIG 29 could have also been an easy and affordable option. I guess it is another "out of the hat" argument to fit the situation.

The Mirages had plenty of air-frame life that would have to be written off (the newer batch had less than 10 years on them). To add to which the costs sunk into base and support infrastructure could not have been recovered. Three squadrons of pilots qualified on the Mirage 2000 would have to be trained and certified on a new platform. Add to which there was the standing risk of delays in the case of the Tejas.

But this is funny, let's take your own idea that the IAF had no other choice but to upgrade the mirage 2000 at very high cost so they were forced to agree Dassault's conditions. Then the IAF must be very very upset against Dassault ! But very strangely they asked for even more Dassault aircrafts for several more decades with the rafale as the winner of the MRCA.

The IAF does not negotiate terms with Dassault. It wanted its aircraft upgraded, it got its aircraft upgraded.

What you don't seem to have understood is that responsibility for ensuring costs remain under control is the MoD's (not the IAF's) which had risks associated with going off-script on one hand and pressure from the IAF on the other. It opted for the safe albeit expensive solution, but the time taken for the upgrade to be sanctioned (compared to the MiG-29's for example) as well as media reports from the period, are clear evidence that it was far from happy with the deal.

And just a bit of common sense completely destroys the arguments against the mirage 2000 and rafale deal as far as the IAF is concerned.

A little common sense applied would also indicate that the IAF shortlisted the EF and Rafale based on parameters laid out before the flight evaluations. It did not in fact choose the Rafale.

The rafale has more range, much more payload and more radar range than the SU-30mki as well with its AESA radar while being smaller, stealthier, smarter etc...

It has a comparable range only when saddled with external fuel tanks (so much for stealth), as for more radar range... to be polite, only in your opinion is that true. And for the record, the Sukhois are being upgraded with AESAs as well. There is no leap in capability brought to the IAF that justifies its cost.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 02:55

arthuro wrote:For those worrying about Rafale MLU, india can do it eventually alone :

You expect India to fund and develop an upgraded M88 engine, a custom GaN AESA radar, avionics upgrades, associated software and the like? Maybe take a break from the Tejas and AMCA. You know... like a side project. Perhaps even pass the results onto France to upgrade its airplanes.

Can you see how ridiculous the whole idea is?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 02:57

arthuro wrote:For those worrying about Rafale MLU, india can do it eventually alone :

full size:
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.fr/2012 ... -mrca.html

That we all know, nothing very surprising there. But, the MoD does not like India doing anything without the blessing (read guarantees) from the OEM. Could that change in 15-20 years - perhaps.

But, for the price India is paying, even that deal is not worth it.

The MMRCA was expected to do two things: up the squadron numbers AND provide deep technical transfers. The Rafale (or EF) will do the prior, but not the latter. So, for the price being paid to only up the numbers, these deals (even with EF) are not worth it.

Let us be clear, Snecma did not want to part with key engine techs for the Kaveri. THAT is what I would be looking for to pay "at cost". For $22 I would like core engine techs and radar techs. India will not get these with the Rafale. India at best will get older techs - and they should not cost the price India is paying.

The Mirages had plenty of air-frame life that would have to be written off (the newer batch had less than 10 years on them). To add to which the costs sunk into base and support infrastructure could not have been recovered. Three squadrons of pilots qualified on the Mirage 2000 would have to be trained and certified on a new platform. Add to which there was the standing risk of delays in the case of the Tejas.

I get the feeling that he is running on emotions. And not deeper thinking.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 03:24

The Mirages had plenty of air-frame life that would have to be written off (the newer batch had less than 10 years on them). To add to which the costs sunk into base and support infrastructure could not have been recovered. Three squadrons of pilots qualified on the Mirage 2000 would have to be trained and certified on a new platform. Add to which there was the standing risk of delays in the case of the Tejas.

To start with, the idea that the IAF was forced to upgrade the mirage 2000 with dassault's conditions is baseless. It is just your own idea. There was an israeli upgrade available, you could have gone for a more "austere" less costly mirage upgrade...You could have opted for more mig-29 or LCA...If you still maintain the mirage 2000-5 mk2 "++" was the only solution imposed by dassault bring a source. Otherwise it is just pointless rant.

Besides at 50 millions an upgrade, converting airforce personnel to mig-29 is a bargain. As for the support infrastructure with a relatively large fleet of mirage 2000 operational is several airforces that something that you can easily sell.

What you don't seem to have understood is that responsibility for ensuring costs remain under control is the MoD's (not the IAF's) which had risks associated with going off-script on one hand and pressure from the IAF on the other. It opted for the safe albeit expensive solution, but the time taken for the upgrade to be sanctioned (compared to the MiG-29's for example) as well as media reports from the period, are clear evidence that it was far from happy with the deal.

I perfectly got the share of responsibilities. So finally the IAF and the MoD decided to go for the mirage upgrade. When the MRCA choice was made they already had a good idea of the cost (both services) so if they were unhappy they could veto the rafale deal. They did not and that says a lot.

It has a comparable range only when saddled with external fuel tanks (so much for stealth), as for more radar range... to be polite, only in your opinion is that true. And for the record, the Sukhois are being upgraded with AESAs as well. There is no leap in capability brought to the IAF that justifies its cost.

It has 200NM more range than the MKI with external tanks, about 3 tons more payload than the MKI and yes more radar range with its AESA radar. During Garuda exrcise in france, SU-30MKI radar range was estimated at 100NM (180KM) against a mirage 2000, while rafale AESA has twice the range of its PESA radar which was rated between 100 and 130 Km depending on sources which makes a 200Km range for most conservative estimates.

post 4899 with the sources attached :
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page327

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 03:37

You expect India to fund and develop an upgraded M88 engine, a custom GaN AESA radar, avionics upgrades, associated software and the like? Maybe take a break from the Tejas and AMCA. You know... like a side project. Perhaps even pass the results onto France to upgrade its airplanes.
Can you see how ridiculous the whole idea is?

Actually no, but India is supposed to be able to do so even if I have my doubts. As far as Tejas is concerned I don't believe it is a credible programs due to a long history of delays and more than that the aircraft itself is too small with very limited range and payload to transform it into a credible fighter jet. As far as the AMCA is concerned...Well... Probably why the LCA and the AMCA are not taken as serious "plan B" as there are no "plan B".

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 Nov 2013 03:51

But, my question still stands - are the M2K and Rafale prices that India is paying worth it? IF the M2K upgrade cost say $5 million - OK I can buy that. But $50 million per plane? For what? (And, do not tell me that IAF/MoD liked it.)

Your question doesn't matter. India who knows better than you and me has already made its choice : a comprehensive mirage 2000 upgrade and the rafale for MRCA.

I don't know what the 50$ million per plane encompass precisely. Given the cost I believe this should encompass the upgrade, the know-how, avionics spare parts, simulators, training in France and other consultant fees as well as other things. All I can say is that 50$ millions is not the price paid by France, greece, UAE who upgraded their own mirages. So there must be a rational explanation.

Another thing :

mirage 2000-5 series users :

-France
-Taiwan
-UAE
-Greece
-Quatar
-India

If so many countries have chosen this upgrade/serie its should be a good clue for its quality. A safe and proven value I would say.

check this from taiwanese AF:
http://vimeo.com/50311691#

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 04:46

arthuro wrote:To start with, the idea that the IAF was forced to upgrade the mirage 2000 with dassault's conditions is baseless. It is just your own idea. There was an israeli upgrade available, you could have gone for a more "austere" less costly mirage upgrade...You could have opted for more mig-29 or LCA...If you still maintain the mirage 2000-5 mk2 "++" was the only solution imposed by dassault bring a source. Otherwise it is just pointless rant.

Each one of the alternatives had attendant risks to go with them. The MoD being a fundamentally risk averse organisation (perhaps predictably) opted to stick with the expensive but reliable French option. But there's more than adequate evidence to prove that it was less than delighted with the proposed cost. (ref 1, ref 2).

I perfectly got the share of responsibilities. So finally the IAF and the MoD decided to go for the mirage upgrade. When the MRCA choice was made they already had a good idea of the cost (both services) so if they were unhappy they could veto the rafale deal. They did not and that says a lot.

Why would they want to veto the deal even before taking a look at the numbers? You can't expect professionals involved to harbour grudges, just because of one deal that didn't meet expectations. The Rafale proposition had/has to be judged on its own merits. But for us who're not privy to the negotiations at the MoD, the delay in the deal's progress (despite 'explanations') is evidence of how smoothly (or not) its progressing. Its not a leap to conclude that pricing issues have arisen here as well.

It has 200NM more range than the MKI with external tanks, about 3 tons more payload than the MKI and yes more radar range with its AESA radar. During Garuda exrcise in france, SU-30MKI radar range was estimated at 100NM (180KM) against a mirage 2000, while rafale AESA has twice the range of its PESA radar which was rated between 100 and 130 Km depending on sources which makes a 200Km range for most conservative estimates.

There's nothing in your link to support your claims. For the record, the Bars has always been operated in a (downgraded) 'training' mode during exercises involving foreign nations (which really says it all). And it is being upgraded with an AESA as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 05:06

arthuro wrote:
You expect India to fund and develop an upgraded M88 engine, a custom GaN AESA radar, avionics upgrades, associated software and the like? Maybe take a break from the Tejas and AMCA. You know... like a side project. Perhaps even pass the results onto France to upgrade its airplanes.
Can you see how ridiculous the whole idea is?
Actually no, but India is supposed to be able to do so even if I have my doubts.

India, or rather HAL, isn't 'supposed' to do anything of the sort, aside from IAF specific customization. The onus for developing and offering core upgrades for the Rafale, in a credible cost effective manner, is entirely on the vendor.

As for the Tejas, for better or worse, it is entering service. And it has a range and typical payload comparable to the IAF's Mirage 2000Hs. Which is sufficient, especially when operating out of forward air bases while data-linked to platforms that include the Sukhois, Phalcons, EMB-145 AEW&Cs and so on.

I brought up AMCA and Tejas as examples of programs that India could productively spend resources on, rather than this ridiculous notion of developing upgrades for the Rafale instead.

arthuro wrote:I don't know what the 50$ million per plane encompass precisely. Given the cost I believe this should encompass the upgrade, the know-how, avionics spare parts, simulators, training in France and other consultant fees as well as other things. All I can say is that 50$ millions is not the price paid by France, greece, UAE who upgraded their own mirages. So there must be a rational explanation.

No doubt its reasonable. I'm sure there'll be a reasonable breakdown presented to explain a $15 billion bill for a Rafale MLU, as well.

If so many countries have chosen this upgrade/serie its should be a good clue for its quality. A safe and proven value I would say.

What a curious way to put it. Its implication vis a vis the Rafale's total lack of exports is quite interesting.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2013 05:55

Your question doesn't matter. India who knows better than you and me has already made its choice : a comprehensive mirage 2000 upgrade and the rafale for MRCA.

Then what is your problem? Why are you pushing Rafale if the GoI has already made their decision? You should be happy and fast asleep.

It is guys like me, who do not like the cost, that should be complaining. Does my complains bother you?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2013 07:23

When the M-2000 upgrade was announced a few years ago,and its price given,I asked the Q whether this was a hint that the Rafale would win the contest,as with such a high price for upgrades (far more per unit than abrand new MIG-29K which the IN is buying!),Dassault could reduce the price (cheat as NR says) of the Rafale and win.Its offset partner for India is also a certain co. called Reliance (bum-chums of the Congress) who have no great history in defence whatsoever unlike stalwarts like L&T and others.

No one disputes the capabilities of the aircraft.The aircraft participating went through the most intense evaluation of any contest worldwide,a credit to the IAF.When I asked a former Dy.Chief whether the IAF would point out the winner,he replied in the negative,saying that it was customary to list out those aircraft that met the IAF's capabilities best.Thus we had the shortlist of the Rafale and EF,which as many have pointed out,the loser,the Typhoon, was not in any way inferior technically to the winner but lost out merely on the cost.

The cost estimated was $20B when the economy was flying high.No one expected it to hit the skids so badly.This is now estimated at $30B! Even the upgrade cost of M-2000s will now cost us (effectively with the devaluation) the equivalent of $3.5B as it comes from the same stable,unlike manufacturers of other countries like the US or Russia who have economies of scale to keep prices affordable.I would even guess that with more EFs flying for the EU partners,as well as those exported for the Saudis,the costs of supporting the EF would be less than that of the Rafale.France has sold the Rafale to no one in comparison. A Russian expert asked when the winner was announced and the costs,whether it was worth it for the IAF to invest so heavily in a $++ gen fighter instead on 5th-gen fighters (which are arriving in strength by 2020 onwards) like the FGFA, and some would say the AMCA too.

The top priority of the MOD/GOI these days is the MSC for the IA,to meet the Chinese challenge in the Himalayas.Another 50+ MI-17Vs are being acquired for this need to beef up our logistic capability,apart from the numerous heavy and med-lift transports bought and being upgraded."RR" acquisitions are unlikely.Therefore,unless the cost and /or contours of the Rafale deal reduce or change,there will be serious doubts expressed about the financial viability ,including lifetime costs,of this luxury acquisition.The longer the negotiations of the deal linger on ,the greater will be the doubts expressed,especially if a new dispensation takes charge without the deal being finalised.If we spend $30B on the Rafale,which other aviation projects will suffer? The Russians are asking more for the FGFA-we've already reduced numbers saying we haven't got the moolah ,an argument that would look ridiculous if we bought the Rafale at approx. a similar price for an FGFA.Will it then KO our indigenous efforts ? Don't forget that there is another critical acquisition hanging fire,under dispute between HAL and the IAF.The issue of more basic trainers (Pilatus) of which a Large qty. of PC-7s are in service with the IAF and more required as per the options/original plan. This is the foundation of our pilot training and safety and cannot be sacrificed whatsoever.Whether we buy more PC-7s or force the IAF to buy the non-existant HTT-40 in the future (add development costs and imported engines,etc. to the final figure),it is a critical ,fundamental need that cannot be compromised upon.

No one disputes the IAF's genuine need for the bird and its sincerity of purpose.We know the fast deteriorating situ of the inventory.LCAs are required to replace 260 MIG-21s alone,and the MMRCA was meant to replace MIG-27s,Jaguars,etc, over 200. It wants a very capable multi-role/omni-role strike fighter whatever to deal with targets deep within enemy territory,hit them and return safely.There are alternatives however,not just acquiring an alternative cheaper strike fighters that could do the business almost as well,but also acquiring tactical strike bombers like the SU-34 (instead of more MKIs) ,a couple of sqds. of which will enhance the IAF's long range strike capability even more.The SU-34 would be better tasked for the strategic role than any N-Rafales as well. The IAF would do well to take a comprehensive review of all the options available and present them to the MOD/GOI fast,if the Rafale is in danger of being shot down.There may not be a "Plan B",but one must prepare a "Plan C" ( C for crisis) at least!

PS:US analysts are now debating the issue of the delicate JSF being meant to perform lowly tasks like close support replacing the heavily armoured almost indestructible "flying tank",the A-10.Would the IAF send in $75-100M Rafales into a killing zone heavily saturated with AA arty,MANPADS and quick-reaction SAMs,or far cheaper aircraft like the MIG-27s also equipped with armored cockpits and windscreens, or smaller Jaguars and even LCAs (initially meant to be the workhorse of the IAF according to a former CoAS some time ago) tasked for low-level strike,close support,etc.?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 03 Nov 2013 08:06

There is always a plan B our air force and its chief will have a plan B but will not articulate it as there is less pressure on MOD to make a desicion if they do.
The longer this 30 + billion farce goes on the more the French have to loose.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2013 08:19

As a footnote,since some think that the JSF is a good alternative to the Rafale,some interesting details about the JSF's fatal flaw,details posted in the JSF td.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’
By David Axe
03.07.13

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 08:59

Philip wrote:A Russian expert asked when the winner was announced and the costs,whether it was worth it for the IAF to invest so heavily in a $++ gen fighter instead on 5th-gen fighters (which are arriving in strength by 2020 onwards) like the FGFA, and some would say the AMCA too.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ombat-edge

I'm skeptical about the AMCA becoming available over the short to medium term. HAL will be delivering a Tejas Mk2 by around 2016-17 (one hopes). Assuming full scale development of the AMCA sanctioned by 2020 latest, we could have a prototype by 2025.

Assuming another ten years in development (evident from the PAK FA, J-20, F-35) we might reasonably expect IOC in 2035. The oldest Sukhois will start retiring around the time FOC is achieved.

Even assuming everything moves swiftly (when does it ever?), the earliest we can expect the AMCA to enter service is 2030. That too is a generation away.

Therefore,unless the cost and /or contours of the Rafale deal reduce or change,there will be serious doubts expressed about the financial viability ,including lifetime costs,of this luxury acquisition. The longer the negotiations of the deal linger on ,the greater will be the doubts expressed,especially if a new dispensation takes charge without the deal being finalised.

Spot on.

There are alternatives however,not just acquiring an alternative cheaper strike fighters that could do the business almost as well,but also acquiring tactical strike bombers like the SU-34 (instead of more MKIs) ,a couple of sqds. of which will enhance the IAF's long range strike capability even more.

Given the numbers of Su-30MKIs due to enter service, the capabilities conferred by the Su-34 are almost entirely superfluous given our threat scenario.

With regard to Pakistan, the distances involved aren't long enough to merit a very long range strike fighter.

On the eastern front, the IAF faces heavy proliferation of first rate air defence systems including S-300 class SAMs, long range AWACS and 5G fighter aircraft. Neither the Su-34 nor the Su-30, (nor for that matter the Rafale) can be expected to penetrate it sufficiently without a prolonged slog of attrition to reduce local air defences. (Which is one the reasons why I'm strongly supportive of an F-35 acquisition).

Coming to the naval situation, A&N based fighters can hit anything moving west out of the Malacca Strait. The Arabian Sea too is entirely within range. Unlike the Chinese or the Russians, we're not threatened by a naval armada. The Su-34s have the range to reach into the South China Sea, but aside from a one-off strike there's little that can be achieved, given that the Chinese will almost certainly dominate the airspace in the region.

PS:US analysts are now debating the issue of the delicate JSF being meant to perform lowly tasks like close support replacing the heavily armoured almost indestructible "flying tank",the A-10.Would the IAF send in $75-100M Rafales into a killing zone heavily saturated with AA arty,MANPADS and quick-reaction SAMs,or far cheaper aircraft like the MIG-27s also equipped with armored cockpits and windscreens, or smaller Jaguars and even LCAs (initially meant to be the workhorse of the IAF according to a former CoAS some time ago) tasked for low-level strike,close support,etc.?

CAS performed in the manner of the A-10 or Su-25 is fast becoming obsolete. With the widespread employment of targeting pods, the pilots don't need to visually acquire the targets. And the designation can be done done just by the fighter's crew but also by infantry or vehicles on ground while the aircraft releases a clutch of LGBs/fires salvo of missiles (worth watching) in a single pass from medium/high altitude. In addition, for busting large formations of ground vehicles, there remains the option of employing the CBU-105 SFW.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 09:20

Philip wrote:As a footnote,since some think that the JSF is a good alternative to the Rafale,some interesting details about the JSF's fatal flaw,details posted in the JSF td.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’
By David Axe
03.07.13

How's the F-35's cockpit visibility any worse than that the PAK FA's?

And unlike the PAK FA, the F-35 has the advantage of an HMDS allowing the pilot to look 'through' the aircraft's body, and DAS allowing target acquisition in any sector.

These suggestions of flaws keep getting more and more stilted.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 03 Nov 2013 09:34

Viv S wrote:Given the numbers of Su-30MKIs due to enter service, the capabilities conferred by the Su-34 are almost entirely superfluous given our threat scenario.

+1. The Su-34 doesn't bring much to the table. Certainly nothing to justify the induction of another platform type.

Viv S wrote:CAS performed in the manner of the A-10 or Su-25 is fast becoming obsolete. With the widespread employment of targeting pods, the pilots don't need to visually acquire the targets.

All that works onlee when you have a nice, clean set-piece battle where the pilot can leisurely pull out his iPad and stylus; debate with the computer as to which target is really an enemy, which one is a friendly, and which one is a burnt out hulk; and go about designating targets one by one while the troops on the ground sip another Diet Coke in exasperation. Great if you are a superpower attacking an uppity little third-world pretender. Nor so in a battle between equal opponents.

Viv S wrote:And the designation can be done done just by the fighter's crew but also by infantry or vehicles on ground while the aircraft releases a clutch of LGBs/fires salvo of missiles (worth watching) in a single pass from medium/high altitude.

Except that sometimes your infantry and vehicles on the ground are getting pounded so bad, they can't do much designating.

Quite often, one has to count on nothing more than a pilot with a working Eyeball Mk.1 and a radio link between him and the commander on the ground to get the job done. Days of CAS over indeed. Wonder when the experts will start claiming that the days of dogfights are also over.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 03 Nov 2013 10:21

Viv S wrote:
pragnya wrote:Philip sir, while no doubt the M2K upg is costly your point that Mig 29 upg is 'very cheap' may have to be taken with a pinch of salt 'unless' ofc the following is all part of the upg cost and which can be confirmed.
Usually the specifications of the product are worked out with the primary contractor (in this case RAC-MiG) along with the total cost. The contractor in turn pays all its suppliers from the proceeds including those delivering equipment specific to the customer. For example, in the case of the Mirage upgrade, the contractor was Thales (and HAL) but equipment was sourced from Sagem, BEL, Samtel as well.

Unless some different model was employed, the cost of the MiG-29 upgrades includes non-Russian equipment.

yes. no disagreement there wrt 'standard contracts' but with Russia, owing - partly to their electronics being behind the rest and partly to their 'special' relationship with India, contracts are 'IMO' non standard types which explains why even SU 30MKIs had a host of israeli, french and indian systems (progressively being substituted by indian ones).

as for the Mig 29 upg, to begin with Mig 29s had a host of massive issues which are being fixed now to bring some value besides there is a drive to maintain 'commonality' (for ease of mainatainence) wrt IN's Mig 29Ks which also sport TopSight HMDs and other systems like MCs, SMS, NAV systems, EW, displays and many of which are Indian and i am not sure all these are contracted by the RSK MIG and accounted for.

besides even post upg due to the nature of the build and Mig 29s(being twin engined) are going to be costly in terms of operating costs while M2Ks with much easier maintainence and being single engined are going to be cheaper to operate. IMO all these must have been taken into account and found 'viable' before the upg of M2Ks were given a go ahead.

Philip wrote:As a footnote,since some think that the JSF is a good alternative to the Rafale,some interesting details about the JSF's fatal flaw,details posted in the JSF td.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’

By David Axe
03.07.13

there is PDF memo article linked within the above link which gives an overview of issues with F 35 as of feb 2013. worth reading IMO.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 03 Nov 2013 11:04

I don't think anybody said that the days of CAS itself are over. And exactly how is "Mark 1 eye balls with a radio connection to the commander" superior to a modern LDP. Like it or not nobody is developing modern analogues to the A-10 etc.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Nov 2013 11:05

pragnya wrote:yes. no disagreement there wrt 'standard contracts' but with Russia, owing - partly to their electronics being behind the rest and partly to their 'special' relationship with India, contracts are 'IMO' non standard types which explains why even SU 30MKIs had a host of israeli, french and indian systems (progressively being substituted by indian ones).

That sort of equipment is there on all aircraft. But the govt does not independently acquire the equipment and ship it to the systems integrator. The terms are handled between the two companies and the cost passed on to the customer in the final bill. The exception though is the engine which is often contracted separately. I've read nothing to suggest that its any different in the case of Russian aircraft.