Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ashishvikas » 23 Aug 2019 09:18

Flying & fighting in the Sukhoi Su-30 ‘Flanker’: A pilot interview

https://hushkit.net/2019/07/20/flying-f ... interview/

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1159
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby rkhanna » 23 Aug 2019 10:56

ashishvikas wrote:Flying & fighting in the Sukhoi Su-30 ‘Flanker’: A pilot interview

https://hushkit.net/2019/07/20/flying-f ... interview/



"The thing that worries you most is that you don’t want to be the dumbass when it comes to firing Smart Weapons"


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4222
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Aug 2019 11:25

ashishvikas wrote:Flying & fighting in the Sukhoi Su-30 ‘Flanker’: A pilot interview

https://hushkit.net/2019/07/20/flying-f ... interview/


From article:
Which aircraft have you flown DACT against and which was the most challenging?
“In the Su-30 I have flown DACT with RSAF (Royal Singapore Air Force) F-16, M-2000 H /5[ FAF], MiG -29 amongst the ASFs. I think the most challenging was the M2000 in France. The carefree manoeuvrability of the Mirage its nose profile and avionics package perhaps gave it an edge over the others. The F-16 beyond the initial turn loses steam, the MiG -29 is very powerful but conventional controls maybe …. . A good Mirage guy can manoeuvre more carefree.”

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vidur » 23 Aug 2019 13:00

nachiket wrote:
deejay wrote:No Mig 29s are defensive platforms owing to range. Su 30s will be needed, whether IAF likes it or not. Lump it. Fate was decided when those heading the IAF in the first decade and a half of this century slept on the wheels.

Sir, while I will blame the IAF leadership of that time for dismissing the LCA and not understanding the importance of developing and using your own fighter (leading to comments like "3-legged cheetah" etc.) I am not sure the present predicament of the IAF can be blamed on them sleeping on the wheel.

They had, for better or worse, already told the government what they wanted for the MRCA. The RFI-RFP-multiple vendor procurement was forced on them by the MoD. And after they had diligently completed all their evaluations the government wasted several years negotiating without taking any decisions. AT the end of which we found that we couldn't hope to afford the aircraft in the numbers required anyway. None of these issues of dwindling squadrons and "44 year old aircraft" would have existed had the government agreed to buy 126 M2k's in the early 2000's. And we wouldn't be talking about having to buy more maintenance heavy Su-30's either. The whole MMRCA fiasco was unprecedented even by Indian Defence procurement standards. Rank incompetence and absolute apathy shown up and down the chain in both MoD and the PMO about what was essentially an important national security imperative.

Every time I read about WingCo Abhinandan I can't help but imagine what would have happened if the MMRCA procurement had gone as the IAF desired at the start and No. 51sq had been re-equipped with upgraded Mirages with the Bisons having being consigned to history.


Correct. The ripples of this fiasco are stilling being felt and shall continue for at least another decade. There are very few but there are some MOD civil servants who did try to accelerate this procurement but they were reprimanded by their professional peers, superiors and the minister also. Questions were raised on their integrity.

In fact questions were raised on current PM's integrity and on IAF integrity by current opposition when they did the Rafale deal.

You are also right that if we had Rafales by now, geopolitics would be different.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vips » 23 Aug 2019 18:23

Forget, MMRCA or Rafale just the original program of 120 Mirage 2000's acquisition if had gone through would have been enough in today's scenario.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby khan » 23 Aug 2019 18:24

Karan M wrote:The era of light fighters in the IAF force mix seems to have passed, judging by IAFs actions itself. They have limited the LCA to 123 aircraft (40 Mk1, 83 Mk1A) - literally equal to the number of Bisons when the order was placed. Rest, its all MMRCA.


This.

The LCA was needed from the 1080’s to 2000’s when IAF was a very different kind of air force.

My fear is by 2030 even MWF will also be unsuitable for IAF requirements.

IMO, they should induct the 80 odd LCA MK1A airframes (to get some experience in local manufacturing/maintenance) & concentrate the development effort of on AMCA which will be a 5th generation aircraft that can compete with the LO planes that will be the problem from 2030 onwards.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby LakshmanPST » 23 Aug 2019 20:35

My guess is, IAF is moving towards organising the fleet on the lines of USAF...
USAF had around 450 Heavy Weight F15s and 900 Medium Weight F16s... F22 and F35 were the planned next gen replacements of these jets... F16 will be phased out in the next few years, though F15 may stay for longer time...
-
So, in the sanctioned strength of 42 of IAF, they're planning to have Maximum 14 squadrons of Heavy Weight Su30MKIs... That kind of explains their reluctance to buy more Su30s...
They want the rest 28 squadrons to be Medium Weight Multirole Fighters...
The era of Light Fighters ended in 1990s itself... My guess is sometime in the last 15-20 years (probably during NDA-1 itself after Kargil war, since that was the time when a big order of Su30 & MMRCA tender process started), IAF updated its operating philosophy to move towards this 1/3rd Heavy, 2/3rd Medium mix...
They supported LCA (partly due to pressure from Late RM Parrikar), since from an Industrial point of view LCA was required, but they limited the orders only to six squadrons and are moving towards MWF...
They're buying Rafales to fill in the immediate shortage and to maintain Technological edge vis-a-vis PLAAF...

Future will be as follows by 2035:-
1) 14 Su30MKIs
2) 2 Rafales
3) 7-8 MWFs
4) 6 Tejas Mk1A
5) 6 MMRCA
6) Remaining un-retired Medium Weight Jags, MIG 29s & M2ks (which will also be replaced with MWF & hopefully AMCA subsequently)
-
My guess is, along with AMCA, they will buy Su57-FGFA or any new available Heavy Weight Fighter post 2040 to replace Su30MKIs...
But I don't see IAF buying more Su30 MKIs (except for the rumoured 18 jets), unless pressurized by Govt. of the day...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3444
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby kit » 23 Aug 2019 22:11

Vidur wrote:
nachiket wrote:Sir, while I will blame the IAF leadership of that time for dismissing the LCA and not understanding the importance of developing and using your own fighter (leading to comments like "3-legged cheetah" etc.) I am not sure the present predicament of the IAF can be blamed on them sleeping on the wheel.

They had, for better or worse, already told the government what they wanted for the MRCA. The RFI-RFP-multiple vendor procurement was forced on them by the MoD. And after they had diligently completed all their evaluations the government wasted several years negotiating without taking any decisions. AT the end of which we found that we couldn't hope to afford the aircraft in the numbers required anyway. None of these issues of dwindling squadrons and "44 year old aircraft" would have existed had the government agreed to buy 126 M2k's in the early 2000's. And we wouldn't be talking about having to buy more maintenance heavy Su-30's either. The whole MMRCA fiasco was unprecedented even by Indian Defence procurement standards. Rank incompetence and absolute apathy shown up and down the chain in both MoD and the PMO about what was essentially an important national security imperative.

Every time I read about WingCo Abhinandan I can't help but imagine what would have happened if the MMRCA procurement had gone as the IAF desired at the start and No. 51sq had been re-equipped with upgraded Mirages with the Bisons having being consigned to history.


Correct. The ripples of this fiasco are stilling being felt and shall continue for at least another decade. There are very few but there are some MOD civil servants who did try to accelerate this procurement but they were reprimanded by their professional peers, superiors and the minister also. Questions were raised on their integrity.

In fact questions were raised on current PM's integrity and on IAF integrity by current opposition when they did the Rafale deal.

You are also right that if we had Rafales by now, geopolitics would be different.


Not so sure the fighters ( even if they were Rafales ) would be doing CAP but had no clearance to go hot beyond the border, not sure a Meteor BVRAM shot would have been allowed ..Happy to be corrected! If otherwise, the Pakis would have lost half a squadron of their best fighters

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby aditp » 25 Aug 2019 23:31

The video below is a talk by Abhijeet Iyer Mitra. A bit longish (&Hinglish) but would be quite stupefying if the Su30 actually is as big a nightmare and useless as he claims. 500kms range? really? See the first 10 mins. What do the Garus say?

======================

Mod Note: Already being discussed. Please go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2374827#p2374827

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 25 Aug 2019 23:53

AIM is no security expert (even after claims to contrary). From public info he is wrong. Unless he has some IAF (ex or current, feeding him some genuine info). The only -ve mark that I have heard on SU30MKI is that it has low availability.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 26 Aug 2019 23:57

Jay wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Nachiket is right. IAF gave a requirement in the early 2000s. And then it became a circus and IAF lost control to the politicos. IAF should release an order for 2 more Rafale squadrons and also simultaneously release the order for 83 MK1As should also be released.


No more Rafale's, please. Any more funds we invest in Rafale will be lost funds for our own stuff. IAF/MOD has to realize that they are not doing the country any good by constantly chasing this foreign tail.

Jay - I am against any Rafales actually if you check my posts on the subject. However, it seems that someone (MOD/IAF/Politicos) is holding up the order for the 83 Mk1As (which I think should have been for 100 Mk1s and 100 Mk1As). MKI plus LCA would be the blueprint for the future. So in order to get more LCAs, I held my nose while writing the above. If whoever is moving it is happy with the Rafale orders, perhaps the expected orders of LCA would be released.

There must be something wrong with the MKIs (deficient weaponry/avionics/radars, poor uptimes, heavy operating cost, more manpower in terms of pilots) for the IAF to look at Rafales. The SE theory is probably a smokescreen. If you look at the force structure - it is a maintenance manager's nightmare with so many different types of aircraft and countries of origin (each with differing foreign policies and geopolitical viewpoint). I wonder how that affects the IAF's operational structure with pilots needing to be qualified/certified for diverse aircraft.

The LCA has been ready for nearly the past 8-10 years. It was held back for the flimsiest of excuses - IFR - with 6 tankers with the entire airforce, how many aircraft would be able to use it in a conflict? And if one is looking at force projection, how would that work with only 3 AWACS available?

Add to that the multiplier effect of local MIC on national economy and creating a research base for future easy availability of aircraft. So I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, GOI (MOD/IAF/whoever) is taking LCA for a ride.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 27 Aug 2019 01:11

Vidur wrote:Correct. The ripples of this fiasco are stilling being felt and shall continue for at least another decade. There are very few but there are some MOD civil servants who did try to accelerate this procurement but they were reprimanded by their professional peers, superiors and the minister also. Questions were raised on their integrity.

In fact questions were raised on current PM's integrity and on IAF integrity by current opposition when they did the Rafale deal.

You are also right that if we had Rafales by now, geopolitics would be different.

Actually I didn't mean Rafales. I meant the Mirage 2000-5 - the aircraft the IAF originally wanted to be their new MRCA circa 2000. I do not blame the govt. for not buying 126 Rafales. We clearly could not afford them. Even now it is unlikely that we will go beyond perhaps another 36. I blame everything that preceded that decision. Especially the wasted time more than anything else.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 27 Aug 2019 04:04

Today the talk was for 114 planes.
Terms being negotiated.

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2038
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Bart S » 27 Aug 2019 04:17

ramana wrote:Today the talk was for 114 planes.
Terms being negotiated.

You mean with France, or America?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 27 Aug 2019 04:38

My best guess is 114 Rafale. It is a very costly buy for us. But if we are, buying 114 F-35 will give us dominance in west and north for some 30 years and price maybe same.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 27 Aug 2019 04:50

ramana wrote:Today the talk was for 114 planes.
Terms being negotiated.

is this new data or the twitter - baba something data?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 27 Aug 2019 04:52

Bart S wrote:
ramana wrote:Today the talk was for 114 planes.
Terms being negotiated.

You mean with France, or America?

France

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 27 Aug 2019 04:54

Cybaru wrote:
ramana wrote:Today the talk was for 114 planes.
Terms being negotiated.

is this new data or the twitter - baba something data?

Baba-ji onlee

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 27 Aug 2019 04:54

fanne wrote:My best guess is 114 Rafale. It is a very costly buy for us. But if we are, buying 114 F-35 will give us dominance in west and north for some 30 years and price maybe same.

Not happening due to S-400

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2038
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Bart S » 27 Aug 2019 05:02

It doesn't appear that F35 was on offer to us at all, even before the Turkey S400 fiasco. Even the statement that LM put out that if we buy the so-called F21 it would open a path to the F35 got withdrawn pretty quickly from their website.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Luxtor » 27 Aug 2019 05:40

I think the current order for 36 Rafales is not enough for a 2 front war with the Pukis and Chins. There should be a follow up order for another 36 Rafales for a total of 72. That would a formidable fleet of high end fighters. (Where is this new number of 114 is coming from, is it for Rafales?) The rest of the money should be spent on LCA varients. Get as many LCAs as possible to continue to build up our capability and technology. There was an old Soviet saying "Quantity has a quality of its own". This was said in the 60's and 70's. In terms of this, LCA must be a much more capable aircraft in terms of technology and capability compared to the 60s/70s era Soviet fighters. Rafales are expensive but we have to bite the bullet. Just having 36 Rafales is just not worth their cost; too few in numbers to justify acquiring them.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Sumeet » 27 Aug 2019 06:29

Rakesh wrote:
fanne wrote:My best guess is 114 Rafale. It is a very costly buy for us. But if we are, buying 114 F-35 will give us dominance in west and north for some 30 years and price maybe same.

Not happening due to S-400


Also because of issues like ToT, local production (even at screw driver giri level), sharing of radar source codes etc .... requirements of MRCA.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 27 Aug 2019 07:16

Luxtor wrote:I think the current order for 36 Rafales is not enough for a 2 front war with the Pukis and Chins. There should be a follow up order for another 36 Rafales for a total of 72. That would a formidable fleet of high end fighters. (Where is this new number of 114 is coming from, is it for Rafales?) The rest of the money should be spent on LCA varients. Get as many LCAs as possible to continue to build up our capability and technology. There was an old Soviet saying "Quantity has a quality of its own". This was said in the 60's and 70's. In terms of this, LCA must be a much more capable aircraft in terms of technology and capability compared to the 60s/70s era Soviet fighters. Rafales are expensive but we have to bite the bullet. Just having 36 Rafales is just not worth their cost; too few in numbers to justify acquiring them.

Ultimately - "LCA/AMCA/HCA is the way out. Even now LCA is ready to do its job. Any enhancements can be aded but in its present avatar it is more capable than the Mig-21s it is replacing. Someone needs to think - going by the M2K upgrade cost, what will the Rafale upgrade cost? Can IAF afford it?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 27 Aug 2019 07:25

Vivek K wrote:Ultimately - "LCA/AMCA/HCA is the way out. Even now LCA is ready to do its job. Any enhancements can be aded but in its present avatar it is more capable than the Mig-21s it is replacing. Someone needs to think - going by the M2K upgrade cost, what will the Rafale upgrade cost? Can IAF afford it?


Funny you mention that! Imagine 40-50 million dollars per unit cost for upgrading 200 of these units!! Probably needs 10 billion dollar alone for that.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 27 Aug 2019 07:38

Funny to talk about it now! Imagine how much funnier it would be to pay $10 billion for an MLU.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 27 Aug 2019 08:52

What is the difference in fuel burned per hour on MKI vs Rafale during normal non afterburner flight? How does one compute that?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Aug 2019 10:00

Cain Marko wrote:Well, you may have your wish afterall. It seems Monsieur Macron has been talking about human rights to Modi.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-watching-kashmir-rights-macron-tells-modi-213704003.html


I seriously doubt this report of Yahoo. From all other indications France supported us even in recent UN SC informal discussions. Possible hit job from Yahoo can not be ruled out. Further France will be very much interested to get this big order and nothing to gain in supporting Pakis.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby JayS » 27 Aug 2019 17:26

Cybaru wrote:What is the difference in fuel burned per hour on MKI vs Rafale during normal non afterburner flight? How does one compute that?

You have to specify what flight profile and then figure out how much thrust is being used. if you know that, get the TSFC number from Wikipedia and multiply by this thrust number, you will get per hour fuel consumption.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vips » 27 Aug 2019 21:26

Cybaru wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Ultimately - "LCA/AMCA/HCA is the way out. Even now LCA is ready to do its job. Any enhancements can be aded but in its present avatar it is more capable than the Mig-21s it is replacing. Someone needs to think - going by the M2K upgrade cost, what will the Rafale upgrade cost? Can IAF afford it?


Funny you mention that! Imagine 40-50 million dollars per unit cost for upgrading 200 of these units!! Probably needs 10 billion dollar alone for that.


And what will be the size of our economy when the Rafale need to be upgraded in 15-20 years time?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 27 Aug 2019 21:39

Cybaru wrote:What is the difference in fuel burned per hour on MKI vs Rafale during normal non afterburner flight? How does one compute that?

1. When they are carrying out the same mission it will be +-10%.
2. Fuel cost only makes a marginal difference in the overall maintenance costs of different fighter aircraft. The MKI is great value for money in the Indian system.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 27 Aug 2019 21:51

So you think if the economy continues to grow we should spend Exorbitant sums for upgrades to foreign vendors?

With application of escalation of 3.5%, the upgrade cost of each M2K is $ 24 million (INR 167 Core each). The purchase price was INR 133 chores. With the escalation the MLU is costing 85% of purchase price.

Rafales are being bought for $215 million apiece. I will leave you to calculate 85% of the price. Does it make sense to hold yourself hostage to foreign vendors and pay this type of a ransom just because you may have a larger economy? Do you think military is the only area that a government needs to spend resources on? With growing population and infrastructure in poor condition, should India spend all its money on imported weapons when domestic, cheaper solutions could be available?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 27 Aug 2019 22:55

Indranil wrote:
Cybaru wrote:What is the difference in fuel burned per hour on MKI vs Rafale during normal non afterburner flight? How does one compute that?

1. When they are carrying out the same mission it will be +-10%.
2. Fuel cost only makes a marginal difference in the overall maintenance costs of different fighter aircraft. The MKI is great value for money in the Indian system.


So all the OPEX fuel costs of MKI vs Rafale are similar and all the hubba-bubba on this forum and twitter about the astronomical fuel costs of adding more MKI are just disingenuous blockers to sell more Raffies?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 27 Aug 2019 23:27

Indranil wrote:
Cybaru wrote:What is the difference in fuel burned per hour on MKI vs Rafale during normal non afterburner flight? How does one compute that?

1. When they are carrying out the same mission it will be +-10%.
2. Fuel cost only makes a marginal difference in the overall maintenance costs of different fighter aircraft. The MKI is great value for money in the Indian system.

Not doubting your calculations, but how did you arrive at the +-10% number?

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Nikhil T » 27 Aug 2019 23:59

Vivek K wrote:So you think if the economy continues to grow we should spend Exorbitant sums for upgrades to foreign vendors?

With application of escalation of 3.5%, the upgrade cost of each M2K is $ 24 million (INR 167 Core each). The purchase price was INR 133 chores. With the escalation the MLU is costing 85% of purchase price.

Rafales are being bought for $215 million apiece. I will leave you to calculate 85% of the price. Does it make sense to hold yourself hostage to foreign vendors and pay this type of a ransom just because you may have a larger economy? Do you think military is the only area that a government needs to spend resources on? With growing population and infrastructure in poor condition, should India spend all its money on imported weapons when domestic, cheaper solutions could be available?


+1000. We cannot build our entire military with gold plated purchases like the Rafales (each of which cost us ~ Rs.1700 crores). And we don't need to - the 36 Rafale are enough of a deterrent to the Pakis, who don't even have resources to purchase 3rd gen fighters. Their economy is in tatters and there's no way they can spare Foreign Exchange for large defense purchases. For us, spending tens of billions to purchase 114 Rafales will kill the golden goose - the economy that supports these purchases. We simply have to induct Tejas MK1 in more numbers and accelerate MK2 for our MWF needs.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby khan » 28 Aug 2019 00:19

How much will the next tranche of Rafale cost?

Even if it is say 1.5 x MKI, it might be worth it if it has 2 x capability or capability that the MKI doesn't have.

IIRC, the first tranche contained a lot of one time infrastructure costs, that will be amortized over a larger number of airframes.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 28 Aug 2019 00:21

It makes sense to add 36-54 more raffies and no more. This talk of 200 and all is just plain wasteful.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2019 00:32

khan wrote:How much will the next tranche of Rafale cost?

Even if it is say 1.5 x MKI, it might be worth it if it has 2 x capability or capability that the MKI doesn't have.

IIRC, the first tranche contained a lot of one time infrastructure costs, that will be amortized over a larger number of airframes.

Assuming the numbers below are correct, 36 Rafales cost US $3.8+ billion. Weapons were another US $1.2 billion. ISE was another US $2 billion. So total cost from the first deal - minus the base infrastructure - was US $7 billion. Ambala and Hasimara can support one additional squadron each. That US $2 billion - in base infrastructure - is for that.

Order another 50 Rafales and be done with this MMRCA tamasha. Focus on Mk1A and Mk2.

Image

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby khan » 28 Aug 2019 00:33

Cybaru wrote:It makes sense to add 36-54 more raffies and no more. This talk of 200 and all is just plain wasteful.

The point I am trying to make is, if the cost for additional Rafale is comparable to the cost of additional MKI’s, doesn’t it make sense to keep an open mind & get the better plane?

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby khan » 28 Aug 2019 00:51

Rakesh wrote:
khan wrote:How much will the next tranche of Rafale cost?

Even if it is say 1.5 x MKI, it might be worth it if it has 2 x capability or capability that the MKI doesn't have.

IIRC, the first tranche contained a lot of one time infrastructure costs, that will be amortized over a larger number of airframes.

Assuming the numbers below are correct, another 36 Rafales will cost US $3.8+ billion. Weapons will be another US $1.2 billion. ISE will be another US $2 billion. So total cost from the first deal - minus the base infrastructure - was US $7 billion.

Order another 50 Rafales and be done with this MMRCA tamasha. Focus on Mk1A and Mk2.

Thank you, so it is around $105 million per plane.

This link says that HAL makes MKI for $70 million/plane, let’s throw in hardened shelters, maintenance facilities & weapons and make it $80 million.

So, Rafale costs ~30% more, but is a much more potent & modern aircraft - IMO.

If I was IAF, I would chose more Rafale over more MKI.


I take that back, it’s $250 million a plane, which is eye-watering. There may be a way to justify it, but I don’t see how it can be justified. Even the US balked at paying $150 million for F-22.

The base price seems reasonable & there might be a way to haggle & use juggad to get he final price closer to the base price - but at $250 million a pop, I find it hard to justify buying any more.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 28 Aug 2019 01:16

khan wrote:I take that back, it’s $250 million a plane, which is eye-watering. There may be a way to justify it, but I don’t see how it can be justified. Even the US balked at paying $150 million for F-22.

The base price seems reasonable & there might be a way to haggle & use juggad to get he final price closer to the base price - but at $250 million a pop, I find it hard to justify buying any more.

US $105 million is the base, bare bones cost of the Rafale.

Once you add in the ISE + weapons, the unit cost in the first batch of 36 Rafales comes to US $194+ million per plane. I am not including the base infrastructure. Now the French are reportedly offering another 36 Rafales for under US $6 billion. Based on the figures above, I am confident that it includes the base cost + ISE + weapons. Using $6 billion as a benchmark, that works out to $166+ million per plane.

Assuming that report is true, US $166 million x 50 aircraft = $US 8.3 billion. I am hoping on the 50 number - as a second tranche - primarily because of attrition reserves + TACDE. 80 aircraft in four squadrons of 20 aircraft each (18 aircraft + 2 attrition reserves) + 6 aircraft for TACDE. Order the second batch in flyaway condition and get offsets via components.

Invest in more Mk1A squadrons (another 2 - 4 more units). Get another 1 - 2 more units of Su-30MKIs + the 1 unit of MiG-29s (21 aircraft).

And cancel MMRCA contract. Waste of time and money.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, SandeepR, srin, Varoon Shekhar and 53 guests