VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Nov 2017 10:09

Depends on how well defended the Targets are and how deep one has to penetrate and egress ......Osirak mission comes to mind

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Nov 2017 08:05

^ in line with Gagan's post above can I please make my rare, but regular plea for a fleet of Tu-22s once again please. Nothinng like a supersoniic bommber armed to the teeth to enable shawknaw

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 03 Nov 2017 10:21

Gagan wrote: DRDO should look at a cruise missile launching multiple projectiles for economies of scale. One such cruise missile for one group of targets, with 8-10 indipendently targeted submunitions, each of them precision guided

Stationary or mobile? If mobile what is the tracking and targetting system?

Gagan wrote: The Aura UCAV will probably be the cost of an LCA, and no pilot either ! Hope that enters service early

+1

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2017 17:35

DRDO has an underdevelopment program which is a missile which can launch multiple targetable PGMs

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Nov 2017 17:44

Gagan wrote:DRDO has an underdevelopment program which is a missile which can launch multiple targetable PGMs

I have read somewhere, DRDO mentioning, Prithvi can be loaded with PGMs to neutralize airfields.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2017 19:44

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2017 19:48

This is the way to take out targets like this Ordinance storage in Okara 30°41'13.09"N, 73°19'27.19"E

One missile with several PGMs - can take out large targets.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Nov 2017 05:13

India-made Falcon will fly in 2022, says Reliance Group
http://www.thehindu.com/business/india- ... 969708.ece

The Reliance Group’s joint venture with Dassault Aviation to manufacture components for Rafale fighter aircraft is much talked about. However, the group is also harbouring ambitions to fly out business jets and passenger planes made entirely in India, the first private sector company that may end up doing so. Reliance, in a joint venture with the €3.6 billion Dassault Aviation, will start making the business jet Falcon from January 2018 at the Dassault Reliance Aviation Limited (DRAL) facility in Mihan, Nagpur and the first Falcon is expected to fly out of Mihan as early as 2022 for the global markets.

Falcons play in the wide-cabin, long-range aircraft segment as they can fly distances between 6000-12000 km, covering a range of travel needs. Confirming the development, Rajesh Dhingra, CEO, Reliance Defence told The Hindu, “We will start with assembly in January 2018. The nose, cockpit and doors will be done [here] in the next two years. Initially, wings will come from outside and the entire body will be assembled here. Flight testing will start in the fourth year and the locally-made Falcon will be ready for flying out of Mihan in the fifth year, say by 2022.” The company expects to make 20 Falcons a year, with 2,500 Falcons delivered in the last 50 years of which 2,100 Falcons are operational in 80 countries.

Employment Plans

“We will directly employ over 700 engineers for the Falcon assembly-line alone, giving indirect employment to 3,000 others. We will have hundreds of Indian and French OEMs setting up bases in DAAP,” said Mr. Dhingra. A Falcon 2000S costs $30 million-$40 million, while the Falcon 8X costs upwards of $60 million. The company expects revenues of ₹800 crore a year from the venture. The Falcon aircraft assembled at the DRAL facility will be the first to be manufactured for the export market by an Indian-owned facility. The manufacturing facility at the Dhirubhai Ambani Aerospace Park is located in the Mihan SEZ. It is a 51:49 venture between Reliance Aerostructure and Dassault Aviation.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Nov 2017 11:23

Defence minister issues 5-point rebuttal of Rafale accusations
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/11/d ... point.html

Underlining the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) unease at Congress Party allegations of wrongdoing by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in the Rs 58,000 crore purchase last year of 36 Rafale fighters from French company, Dassault, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman led a counterattack on Friday. Flanked by Defence Secretary Sanjay Mitra and Indian Air Force (IAF) procurement chief, Air Vice Marshal Rathunath Nambiar, Sitharaman lashed out at the Congress on five counts.

First, she stated, the previous BJP government had, as early as 2000, “recognised the need to strengthen the IAF”, leading to procurement being initiated for 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA). Yet, the Congress Party was unable to conclude the purchase of Rafale fighters “for an entire decade between 2004-2014”, she said. That “act of omission” had led to severe fighter shortages in the IAF, Sitharaman charged. “This was the grim situation when this government came to power in 2014”, she said. In fact, the MMRCA procurement was initiated only in 2007, with the issue of a Request for Proposals (RfP or tender). Over the next four years, the IAF evaluated six contending fighters --- Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper; RAC MiG’s MiG-35; Saab’s Gripen C, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale --- in what was hailed worldwide as “the world’s most professionally run fighter competition.” In April 2011, the IAF ruled out four fighters, leaving only the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale in the fray. In January 2012, the Rafale was identified as the winner of the contest and negotiations began with Dassault over the cost. Therefore, the UPA can, at worst, be accused of two years and three months of vacillation, until the BJP came to power in May 2014.

Sitharaman’s second rebuttal related to the Congress accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had not followed due procedure, and not even consulted his defence minister before announcing during a state visit to France in April 2015 that India would buy 36 Rafale fighters in fly-away condition. “When the prime minister went to Paris in 2015 and agreed [on the purchase of 36 Rafales], he followed the due process of getting it cleared through the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)”, said Sitharaman. “In September 2016, almost a year and a half later, the Inter-Governmental Agreement for buying 36 Rafales was signed in the presence of the defence ministers of France and India”, she said. While it is true the CCS cleared the Rafale purchase after Modi returned from Paris, no CCS permission, or from any defence ministry procurement body, was obtained before Modi and French President Francois Hollande announced the Rafale buy in April 2015.

Thirdly, Sitharaman countered the Congress’ accusation that the NDA government had obtained the Rafale without transfer of technology, whilst the MMRCA contract the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was negotiating involved full transfer of technology (ToT) for building the Rafale in India. “This is simple economics. When we are talking about building 126 aircraft [in India], ToT makes economic sense. But when you are buying 36 aircraft across-the-counter… it makes no economic sense for ToT to be added on”, she correctly stated.

Fourthly, Sitharaman rejected the Congress’ oblique allegation that Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence Ltd (RDL) had benefited from his proximity to the PM to be unfairly picked as Dassault’s Indian partner for discharging the 50 per cent offset clause that came with the Rafale deal. “If two private firms come together, that doesn’t require government’s permission”, said Sitharaman. She argued the PM does not control the composition of his business delegation and it does not matter if it includes “a certain individual”.

Finally, Sitharaman argued that “The price we have obtained [the Rafale for] is far less [than the UPA]”. However, she was unable to address media queries about how must the government was paying for 36 Rafales, compared to what the UPA government had negotiated. “We will give you the figures that you want”, said Sitharaman, directing the query to the defence secretary. However, he did not have the figures either. In April 2015, the announcement in Paris by Modi and Hollande of their agreement over the Rafale took the defence ministry by surprise. This was evident from a series of uncoordinated statements from then defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, who was left fielding questions in India. The morning after the announcement, Parrikar erroneously told PTI in Goa that the 36 fighters would join IAF service within two years. Apparently distancing himself from the Rafale deal, Parrikar termed it “a great decision taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on better terms and conditions.”

Nor was Parrikar aware of how many Rafales would be bought. He told Doordarshan: “It may be worked out that we will buy another 90 Rafales… The ‘Make in India’ part will be decided only after government-to-government talks.” With the Congress pressing home its attack over "insurmountable loss" of taxpayers' money, the BJP is marshalling its counter. On Thursday, IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa stated the NDA had pulled off “a cheaper deal” than what the UPA was contemplating. In fact, between 2013-14, UPA defence minister, AK Antony, had repeatedly made clear his deep reservations over the Rafale procurement, telling close associates that he was never going to sign it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Nov 2017 11:35

Rafale deal row: Rahul Gandhi must back his allegations against Narendra Modi, keep politics away from national security
http://www.firstpost.com/india/4215183-4215183.html

Unless Gandhi can show exactly how anyone, including the businessman in question, was benefited by the deal and give the public chapter and verse on the inside, he would be well advised to shut up.

In this case, why not give Modi the credit for shoring up the weak fighter arm of our air force with a little muscle and going for those 36 aircraft. The alternative: back of the line, restart negotiations with other contenders and leave our feeble air force vulnerable to Pakistan and China. What is the price on that?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Nov 2017 11:39

Everything You Wanted To Know About The Rafale Deal But Didn’t Know Where To Ask
https://swarajyamag.com/defence/everyth ... ere-to-ask

Do read. Fairly interesting and a good job by Nitin Gokhale.

Karan M, looking forward to your analysis on the above.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Nov 2017 11:44

Smelling the possible loss of the SEF contract, the import lobby is out to derail the Rafale deal and will do everything to stop a follow on order for another 36 Rafales. To quote Senator Larry Pressler, the Octopus has his tentacles everywhere.

If the GOI orders another 36 Rafales - which is why all this tamasha of curroption in Rafale deal has started - SEF is done.

nash · Post by **nash** » 18 Nov 2017 16:35

Rakesh wrote:Smelling the possible loss of the SEF contract, the import lobby is out to derail the Rafale deal and will do everything to stop a follow on order for another 36 Rafales. To quote Senator Larry Pressler, the Octopus has his tentacles everywhere.

If the GOI orders another 36 Rafales - which is why all this tamasha of curroption in Rafale deal has started - SEF is done.

Yes same here, October gone, November half gone, no RFI and hopefully if it won't come in next 6 month and mean while we order 36+ Rafale then we can safely assume either it was gone or indefinitely delayed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Nov 2017 18:09

The main objection to the Rafale deal has always been the price.At $200M a pop it is by any standards asinine to buy a 4+ gen fighter when 5th- gen fighters are even at high prices even cheaper at around $100M + estimated for both JSF and SU-57.

The reduction of "30%" also brings little to the table.It is still costlier by 50% to either 5th-gen fighter from east and west, plus when compared with other 4+ gen fighters equipped with similar tech./capabilities is 2-4 times more expensive! An F-18 is around $70M a pop, while a MIG-35 with AESA radar, TVC engines, etc.BMos- L capable is only around $40M. New upgraded MIG-29s even cheaper , both costs from the Egyptian deal.Plus when compared with an LCA available at just $25M, we would be able to get 6-8 LCAs for the same price!

The Cong. can't crow too much as it was during their regime that the "R" co.struck the deal with Dassault to be the local "bit player".However the DM must reveal the two costs / aircraft and indicate what extras in the agreement resulted in the exorbitant cost.Secondly was the Cong. pricing inclusive of local production, TOT, etc.? What we're now paying for is just a buy without any benefit to the desi
fighter industry.Reg. the much touted offsets by thd "R" co.,civil Falcons are NOT the prime need.The entire MMRCA exercise was to obtain cutting edge tech from abroad.Neither the Rafale deal as it stands nor the SEF deal brings anything futuristic ( unless the Gripen is chosen), only the FGFA with 5th-gen tech.,which vested interests are trying hard to scuttle becos it is a G-to- G deal with HAL involved as local partner in the JV not an accommodating Desi pvt. entity who can handle local issues....you get my drift! The IAF chief seems to want from reading between the lines of his recent statements/ interviews an "only Rafale" and SEF policy ,leaving the LCA to its fate.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Nov 2017 18:18

Philip wrote:The main objection to the Rafale deal has always been the price.At $200M a pop it is by any standards asinine to buy a 4+ gen fighter when 5th- gen fighters are even at high prices even cheaper at around $100M + estimated for both JSF and SU-57.

That is the program acquisition cost per unit of the Rafale deal, not the cost of the rafale fighter.

Philip wrote:n F-18 is around $70M a pop, while a MIG-35 with AESA radar, TVC engines, etc.BMos- L capable is only around $40M. New upgraded MIG-29s even cheaper , both costs from the Egyptian deal.Plus when compared with an LCA available at just $25M, we would be able to get 6-8 LCAs for the same price!

It is extremely disingenuous to compare the PAUC of the Rafale deal, as it stands with the MOD (includes aircraft, weapons, India specific changes, integration, air-base set up, pilot training, offset obligations, and a 5 year PBL contract) with Unit Fly-Away costs of any other fighter.

If you break it down by just fly-away costs the difference is likely much less dramatic. If I were to venture a guess I'd say the F-18E/F fly-away (w/o IAF specific mods) would have been in the $70-80 Million range, with that of the Raffle in the $90-100 Million range (again without mods). Tough to put a number on the MiG-35 because none in the IAF's desired specification actually exists operationally even a decade after the MMRCA evaluated a proposal for the MiG-35, serial production apparently for the definitive version is only expected in 2019.

But there is no way you do not know this (or haven't been told this in the past).

Everyone knows the Rafale is expensive. Perhaps it is the most expensive 4.5 generation fighter out there given very low production volumes (even < than F-22 iirc) and overall cost of French/European weapons and support. But it is/was also the best of the lot from a performance perspective as evaluated by the IAF subject matter experts. A modernized Rafale (latest standard) is in the air, flying. How many AESA equipped, Brahmos-L carrying MiG-35s are currently operational? This what after nearly a decade of being promised an AESA equipped MiG-29/35 for MMRCA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Nov 2017 22:31

Brar: save ur time. He has been told repeatedly that a follow on order of 36 Rafales will NOT cost anywhere near $200 million....but he has blinders on and keeps repeating it like a mantra. At some point, you have to ignore him.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2017 00:14

The MIG-35 does have a Zhuk AESA radar on offer.In fact during the trials for the MMRCA contest the prototype flew in the actual aircraft tested while the Typhoon demo was in a helo!.From your own posts it is v.clear that the MIG-35 will be by far the cheapest on offer, even if the Rafale comes down to $100M which would be astonishing given their costing for the first batch leading to huge Qs being asked by the Indian opposition parties .As of the last official report from that side, a "30%" reduction on the original pricing was claimed.That still makes the aircraft come in at around $135+M.Almost twice that of an F-18 and if going by the Egyptian deal almost 3 times as much for a MIG-35.Even if a MIG-35 is around $50M , it would still be $20M cheaper than an F-18 and $85M less than a Rafale!When a SU-30 MKI is priced at $70M , a MIG-35 at $50M is a reasonable estimate.

What the GOI should've done after being shaken by the Rafale's costs- when Manohar Parikar openly warned Dassault that more MKIs were a cost-effective alternative, was to have , if more MKIs were felt costlier to operate with the extra pilot, etc., and the IAF wanted a cheaper bird than an MKI, was to have again called for negotiations with the other contenders.The results of the trials were already with us and all that was remaining was an updated costing.The IAF would've ranked or given their remarks about each bird and the next best bird cost/capability could've been chosen.Here even the F-18 could've had a strong chance (the Typhoon again too expensive ) and frankly if it's half the cost of a Rafale, a better cost-effective bet since in the strike role equipped with PGMs it would be a more affordable "bomb truck"!

The Rafale deal has always had from inception an embedded extra factor, the "R" factor which has enormous political clout in India.
This entity wants to become the dominant giant in the pvt. sector's share of the def. pie.The ambitions are not limited to mere aircraft alone.But building Falcon civvy jets as part of the offsets of the deal does not bring with it what we wanted in the first place, TOT of cutting edge aircraft tech, which a boutique buy has not brought with it and another buy of 36 will still not do.In effect what we're paying for the Rafale is the cost which should've also included TOT.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Nov 2017 00:39

Philip wrote:The MIG-35 does have a Zhuk AESA radar on offer.

It has been nearly a decade since the MMRCA evaluations, I'm sure Russia must have put that mature AESA (from 9 years ago) into their MiG-29's with the Navy..How many of those MiG-29/35's with an AESA radar are operational?

Philip wrote: in the actual aircraft tested while the Typhoon demo was in a helo!.

The MiG-35 and the Typhoon were rejected by the IAF in favor of the Rafale.

Philip wrote:.From your own posts it is v.clear that the MIG-35 will be by far the cheapest on offer,

I haven't mentioned anything on the MiG-35 cost but regardless, show me one MiG-35 with an AESA and other IAF specified systems currently in service. The Rafale is operational with an AESA radar with multiple customers now. BTW, how many Russian fighters are operational that sport an AESA, something that the IAF placed an importance on for the MMRCA and appear to be doing for the LCA as well?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2017 11:11

These aircraft were ordered long ago without AESA radars being part of the then specs. Future MKI SS and MIG upgrades will require AESA radars from available info.Various options have been offered.

Even M2K upgrades and MIG-29 upgrades did not specify AESA radars.However then DM AKA in parliament stated 4 yrs ago that the upgrade cost of an M2K was 163 crores when the purchase price was only 130+ crores !!!

French wares while excellent products are simply too expensive these days for nations like India.You yourself remarked about the cost of a USN N-sub , very attractive when compared with the exorbitant costs of vastly inferior French AIP subs for OZ .In the current eco. circumstances affecting the Indian economy reeling from the aftershocks of Demon. and GST, we cannot be so blatantly profligate with foreign arms purchases when sev. other options are available.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Nov 2017 18:53

Philip wrote:These aircraft were ordered long ago without AESA radars being part of the then specs. Future MKI SS and MIG upgrades will require AESA radars from available info.Various options have been offered.

So how many AESA radar equipped fighters exist in RuAF and RuNavy inventory? What about export, how many AESA equipped fulcrums or flankers currently flying with export customers?

Philip wrote:Even M2K upgrades and MIG-29 upgrades did not specify AESA radars.However then DM AKA in parliament stated 4 yrs ago that the upgrade cost of an M2K was 163 crores when the purchase price was only 130+ crores !!!

The last two major procurement programs for the IAF - MMRCA and LCA both specify an AESA. The trend shouldn't really be that hard to spot. They want a mature, and capable AESA radar and likely want it for all future fighters as well given that they are willing to compete one even for the indigenous fighter. They evaluated what the Russians had to offer..the aircraft was rejected.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Nov 2017 18:56

Then why are we buying the frist 40 LCA MK-1s without an AESA radar? The Thales recent test was for the Mk-1As.In fact the tender for 100 radars was to have been finalise in April this yr! Typical MOD IST at work. Here's the opinion of the IDSA our premier strat. thinktank.As to why the Rus aren't fielding any AESA radars on their current aircraft,they probably feel that they're adequate,performing and selling v.well too! Future aircraft like the SU-57,MIG-35 are expected to come with proven AESA radars.Sorry to post this in the raffy td. but relevant to the issue of whether we can do without more Rafales with other options.

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/tejas-one- ... raj_120717

The Tejas One Year After Induction – HAL must take ownership of the project
Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj was a Visiting Fellow at IDSA. He is an independent defence analyst and attorney-at-law based in Trinidad and Tobago. He holds a PhD on India's nuclear weapons programme and an MA from the Department of War Studies, Kings College London. He has served as a consultant to the Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security.
More from the author

July 12, 2017
On 1st July 2016, No. 45 Squadron of the Indian Air Force (IAF) inducted the first two Serial Production models of the Tejas Mk.1 Light Combat Aircraft. More than a year has since elapsed since these first aircraft were inducted and they have now been joined by three more with a sixth scheduled to join shortly.1 Built to IOC (Initial Operational Clearance) standards, these aircraft are the first of 20 destined for No. 45 squadron while an additional 20 will be built to FOC (Final Operation Clearance) standard.2 Steady but somewhat slow progress is being made towards achieving FOC, with the Tejas Mk.1 crossing a major milestone on 12th May 2017 when aircraft LSP-4 successfully fired a fully-guided Derby Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile. Gun trials are scheduled to commence in August 2017.3
Yet, despite assurances from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), slow progress has been made in establishing adequate production facilities.4 HAL has not yet been able to meet the target of eight aircraft per year, much less an enhanced production target of 16 aircraft per year, although the establishment of a second production line using its BAE Hawk production facility will help in this regard.5 Furthermore, despite the prospect of having to produce 83 additional aircraft to an enhanced Mk.1A standard, HAL has not acted with the requisite alacrity to take control of this project and bring it to fruition in the shortest possible time.

HAL’s Stymied Opportunities
When the history of the Tejas is written, there will always be questions as to why HAL was not entrusted with the design of the aircraft and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) not formed as part of HAL (rather than as a separate agency). Indeed, up until the late 1970s, HAL had a reasonable degree of success in aircraft design and was poised to achieve further levels of competence when its design efforts were abruptly, and, in the case of the HF-24, prematurely, ended.
*(precisely what I've maintained,to merge the ADA with either HAL or the IAF)
There's famous saying."two's company,three's a crowd".In the case of the LCA,the turd party,the ADA in between the IAF and HAL messed things up wholesale.

In 1948, HAL began work on a basic piston-engine trainer to supplement and then supplant the Tiger Moths and Percival Prentice aircraft then in service. The result was the Hindustan HT-2, which served with distinction from 1953 until its retirement in 1990. Over 170 of these aircraft were built, with a dozen being used to form the Ghanaian Air Force in 1959.6 Its successor, the HPT-32 was less successful, with a high accident rate, though with an otherwise respectable service record. HAL now pins its hopes on the HTT-40.
In 1959, HAL received permission to proceed with the development of a basic jet trainer to replace the Vampire T.55 and the T-6 Harvard. The resultant aircraft – the HJT-16 Kiran – first flew in 1964 and in a modified version continues to this day as the IAF’s basic trainer. Although the Kiran did have a somewhat protracted development period before entering service and its Mk.2 variant was late in coming, it was a success. It entered bulk production and serves the IAF competently.7

Simultaneously, HAL had laid the foundations for fighter production with a licence agreement for the Folland Gnat being signed in 1956, with production peaking at four aircraft per month. This light fighter formed a considerable portion of the IAF’s frontline strength until the late 1970s.8
The HAL Ajeet, while intended to improve on the Gnat’s performance, was only marginally successful since, by 1975, the desired performance could only be achieved with more powerful engines and advanced avionics. While four squadrons of the Ajeet served between 1975 and 1991, the type never achieved its potential. An attempt to turn the Ajeet into an Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) failed thanks to a lack of support, a lack of reference to the Gnat T.1, and the loss of a prototype.9

HAL’s ultimate misfortune was the untimely demise of the HF-24 Marut. This promising aircraft saw service with three IAF squadrons and proved to be a very effective weapons platform, yet fate was unkind to it and HAL suffered as a result.10 The HF-24 was designed around the Orpheus B.Or.12 engine – rated at 6,810 lbf (30.29 kN) dry and 8,170 lbf (36.34 kN) with afterburning – which was being developed for the proposed Gnat Mk.2 interceptor and a NATO light-weight strike fighter. Unfortunately, the British authorities cancelled their requirement for this type. And India, unwilling to provide the modest sum required to complete development, was stuck with the non-afterburning Orpheus B.OR.2 Mk.703 rated at 4,850 lbf (21.57 kN).
Despite some half-hearted efforts to find a suitable engine for the Marut, the IAF was never entirely supportive of the project. An attempt to integrate Adour turbofans (used in the Jaguars and Hawks) was confounded by an IAF demand that the thrust of the Adour be increased by 20 per cent. In addition, a very realistic and cost-effective proposal to create a strike-fighter based around the Marut airframe and the R-25 engine (the HF-25) received no sanction. While efforts to procure RB.199 turbofans were seriously considered for a Marut Mk.3 – the HF-73 – the project itself failed to materialise.11

With this design pedigree, it might have been expected that HAL would be tasked with developing the Tejas. However, this was not to be. The ADA, formed in 1984, received the opportunity and resources to undertake this project. And that effectively decimated HAL’s design capabilities, while simultaneously robbing the ADA of the experience and infrastructure of HAL. The Tejas project has had to therefore overcome the obstacles that inevitably arise from a separation of the design and production agencies, while at the same time overcoming those that arise from an inexperienced design team.
Unfortunately, the Tejas has also been the subject of somewhat harsh and overbearing assessments from the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG), which has tended to overemphasise the negatives while inadequately appreciating the problems in re-creating the ecosystem required to support a fighter project.12 For this project to have achieved a level of indigenization equal to 59.7 per cent by value and 75.5 per cent by component is commendable and ought not to be downplayed.13

HAL’s New Opportunity – The Tejas Mk.1A
On 8th November 2016, the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) cleared the production of 83 Tejas Mk.1A aircraft at an estimated cost of USD 7.5 billion.14 It should be noted that DAC approval does not equal authorisation of the requisite funds for production for which latter the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is required. Nevertheless, at one stroke, the DAC approval offers HAL an opportunity to become an integral participant in the development of the Tejas – as opposed to remaining just the production agency. It also offers HAL the opportunity to develop variants of the aircraft which may prolong the production run beyond the total of 40 aircraft currently authorised (20 IOC authorised in 2006 and 20 FOC authorised in 2010) and 83 aircraft approved by the DAC.15

The Tejas Mk.1A – for which a prototype, previously designated Tejas Mk.1P, was proposed by HAL – is designed to correct many of the existing shortcomings in the FOC standard aircraft.16 Planned to be equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and electronic warfare systems currently missing from the FOC standard Tejas Mk.1, the Tejas Mk.1A may be the ultimate development of the basic Tejas airframe given its lack of internal volume without necessitating major redesign.17 While there is a proposed Mk.2 variant of the Tejas with upgraded General Electric F414 engines, this seems to be some time off in the future and remains a project essentially in potentia18.
It would appear, from statements emanating from HAL, that the Mk.1A has been proposed to the IAF by the company itself rather than the ADA.19 However, development of the Mk.1A will require close collaboration between HAL and ADA. To date, HAL has issued most if not all public statements regarding the project, with ADA working towards the FOC. However, despite HAL floating a tender for AESA radars for the Tejas Mk.1A and for jamming pods, it has not seemed to have moved with any degree of alacrity on the project.20
It is interesting to note that despite the statements of HAL’s Chief Managing Director T. Survarna Raju that tenders would be opened for AESA radars and jamming pods by the end of March 2017, no news in this regard has been forthcoming to date. This would suggest that meeting HAL’s timeline of flying the Mk.1A by 2018 with production starting by 2019 may be optimistic, though this may not necessarily impact the desired production target of 123 Tejas Mk.1 and Mk.1A in IAF service by 2025.21 In this regard, the question remains as to whether HAL has fully committed itself to developing the Mk.1A in a timely fashion. Indeed, it would be naïve to expect CCS authorisation for the 83 Tejas Mk.1A until at the very least the flight of the first prototype.

Yet, HAL has an opportunity to reclaim its position of producing indigenously designed aircraft as well as be a participant in the further development of the Tejas. Besides the Mk.1A variant, which should be accorded priority, the two-seat trainer version of the Tejas offers the prospect of emerging into a Lead-in Fighter Trainer (LIFT) in the league of the Korean KAI T-50 Golden Eagle while retaining the core combat capabilities of its single-seat stablemate. This would fill a gap in the IAF’s existing training programme, which, while adequately equipped with basic and advanced trainers, is compelled to use two-seat variants of combat aircraft for roles more usefully satisfied by a LIFT. Moreover, HAL would invariably participate in any upgrade of IOC aircraft to FOC standard.

The stakes for HAL and ADA are very high. The Tejas project is a litmus test of the ability of Indian designers and production agencies to produce a viable combat aircraft. On the very threshold of success, it behooves both agencies to work in synergy to ensure that not only is production scaled-up to meet the target of 16 aircraft per annum, but also to ensure the successful and prompt completion of the Tejas Mk.1A project. The Tejas project has come too far to be allowed to stumble or fall at this stage.
Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Nov 2017 19:11

Philip wrote:Then why are we buying the frist 40 LCA MK-1s without an AESA radar?

To move things along and not delay any more. Clearly the IAF is confident in the ability to obtain an integrated AESA radar on the LCA. Not only is the Elta radar well understood and in operation ( a variant of the EL/M-2052 is on the IAF's Jaguars), there are alternatives that can come in via an open competition as well. This, for a domestic fighter that also has a 100% desi radar in the works that can be brought in as well at a later date. BTW, Rosoboronoexport was also invited to participate in the LCA-AESA tender so we can see what technical, and maturity their offering (if they wish to make a bid) has compared to the the French and Israeli offers and how the technical committee at IAF/MOD level evaluate that.

The point is still valid that close to a decade since the Indian Air Force evaluated what was at the time claimed to be a mature Russian AESA for the MiG proposal, no such fighter with it or any other AESA radar is currently operational in Russia or elsewhere. Similarly, they still do not have a certified, export cleared AESA for the Su-30/35/34 families and it remains to be seen if an AESA is made available for the super-MKI upgrades. Serial production of the MiG-35 for Russia is now expected to begin in 2019, a full decade or more later than when the IAF evaluated the aircraft.

Meanwhile, the first AESA fitted Typhoon for Kuwait entered production, Rafale has delivered operational AESA radars to the French air force, and export customers, and the US fighter aircraft have been flying with AESA radars for more than 17 years now. It is/was clear that the IAF valued mission systems and avionics in its overall assessment (besides other things) of the MMRCA contenders and maturity and risk obviously plays a role here since you want to invest in a product and not a science experiment that could deliver a working, mature product decades later. For that the IAF and the MOD have/had plans to be developmental partners on the PAKFA. Since that was a unique program (no other viable 5th gen. partnership model could be pursued as an alternative) it was understandable to take risk there while not doing the same on the MMRCA where you had a large number of mature candidates that the IAF was able to evaluate.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Nov 2017 20:24

The MIG-35 flew with an AESA radar when evaluated,yes a decade ago.The issue is not the availability of AESA radars today but the cost of the platforms they're with (Rafale).The IAF has just "bombed" the Tejas making a mockery of the entire programme,tender for AESA radars,etc. The fact that the GOI was thinking of ordering more LCAs and dumping the SEF tender altogether was illuminating.As one wit oput it,the single MIG-21 fighter is now being partly replaced by 3 new fighters! Rafales,tejas and the SEF.great way to go IAF!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2017 00:20

The MIG-35 flew with an AESA radar when evaluated,yes a decade ago

And what was the result of that evaluation?

The issue is not the availability of AESA radars today but the cost of the platforms they're with (Rafale).

The issue at the time was selecting an aircraft, and the maturity and performance of what was demonstrated to the IAF at the time. The track record of delivering a working fighter AESA radar to a front line customer is still the same for MiG as it was during the evaluation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2017 18:37

Strong counterattack from the GOI reg. the Rafale deal and Cong.allegations reg. the price.The ball is now back in the Cong.'s court!

NDA govt saved over Rs 12,600 crore in Rafale deal
Thursday, November 23, 2017
By: TNN

Source Link: CLICK HERE

Highlights
Congress has alleged a sharp and unexplained increase in cost of manufacturing of Rafale jets.
In details revealed to TOI, the government sources said UPA was getting 18 fighters for around 100 million each.
However, under the new deal, cost now is around 90 million per fighter.
The Rafale deal negotiated by the Modi government resulted in a substantial 350 million reduction for 36 aircraft in flyaway condition as compared with terms that were being considered by the UPA and there is a further 1,300 million saving for weapons, maintenance and training.

Refuting the main opposition Congress's allegations+ that costs for acquiring the French fighter ballooned under NDA, well placed sources said a comparison of aircraft being purchased in flyaway condition shows savings adding up to a tidy Rs 12,600 crore and also pointed out that there had, in fact, been no deal under UPA.

Congress spokespersons have alleged a sharp and unexplained increase in cost of manufacturing after NDA assumed office which meant the government could only afford to buy 36 aircraft without much-needed transfer of technology. The opposition suggested that cost per aircraft rose from Rs 526 crore to Rs 1,570 crore and said the government was uneasy over sharing data.

Sources said a comparison of aircraft to be procured in flyaway condition demonstrates NDA's success in bettering the terms. Under the 126-aircraft contract contemplated by UPA, 18 aircraft were to be delivered in flyaway condition. NDA's reworked contract is for 36 aircraft in flyaway condition. UPA was getting 18 fighters for around 100 million each and the cost now is around 90 million per fighter. The current government also procured the Meteor missile that makes the fighter much more effective.
*(One needs to check these figs. very carefully.Then why is the rest of the deal so expensive? We should compare what it has cost us to set up the same infrastructure for the MKI programme,where there is also the added bonus of local manufacture and some TOT)

In details revealed to TOI, sources said a major success of hard bargaining with Dassault Aviation, makers of Rafale, was favorable commercial terms for India. Payment terms for the 126 Rafales under the previous MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project was based on a fixed escalation figure of 3.9%. The 36 Rafale fighters contracted by the Modi government are linked to a limit of 3.5%. This ensures an additional saving of around 200 million while it could add up to around 1 billion euros.

The government has also argued that Dassault Aviation was unwilling to take responsibility of quality control of production for the 108 aircraft in India under terms negotiated by UPA. "While Dassault provisioned for 3 crore man hours for production in India, HAL's (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) estimate was three times higher, escalating costs manifold," said a source.

Sources challenged the claim that technology transfer was being considered and said what was on offer was just licence manufacturing technology. There was no agreement on crucial terms. Under the current deal's procurement offsets, the inter-governmental agreement states the French party will facilitate implementation of 'Make in India' by the industrial supplier, notably through offsets for 50% value of the supply protocol.

Reacting to claims that a deal was nearly sealed when the Modi government assumed office, sources said there was no agreement and if there had been one, there would be debate. "The acquisition of aircraft would have commenced," said the source. Apart from prolonged contract negotiations, there were reports that then defence minister A K Antony decided the approach of the contract negotiation committee needed to be examined and UPA was unable to close the deal despite request for proposal being issued in 2007.

It has also been argued that PM Modi did not jump the gun in referring to the Rafale deal during his visit to France in 2015 as the joint statement said the two leaderships had agreed to conclude an inter-governmental agreement for supply of aircraft on terms that would be better conveyed by Dassault Aviation as part of a separate process underway.

There would be a longer maintenance responsibility by France.

It has been asserted that proposals were presented to the defence acquisition council thrice and thereafter a Cabinet Committee on Security nod was received following by the inter-governmental agreement in 2016. The government claims Dassault improved the terms while reducing delivery time frames.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2017 18:41

Strong counterattack from the GOI reg. the Rafale deal and Cong.allegations reg. the price.The ball is now back in the Cong.'s court!

NDA govt saved over Rs 12,600 crore in Rafale deal
Thursday, November 23, 2017
By: TNN

Highlights
Congress has alleged a sharp and unexplained increase in cost of manufacturing of Rafale jets.
In details revealed to TOI, the government sources said UPA was getting 18 fighters for around 100 million each.
However, under the new deal, cost now is around 90 million per fighter.
The Rafale deal negotiated by the Modi government resulted in a substantial 350 million reduction for 36 aircraft in flyaway condition as compared with terms that were being considered by the UPA and there is a further 1,300 million saving for weapons, maintenance and training.

Refuting the main opposition Congress's allegations+ that costs for acquiring the French fighter ballooned under NDA, well placed sources said a comparison of aircraft being purchased in flyaway condition shows savings adding up to a tidy Rs 12,600 crore and also pointed out that there had, in fact, been no deal under UPA.

Congress spokespersons have alleged a sharp and unexplained increase in cost of manufacturing after NDA assumed office which meant the government could only afford to buy 36 aircraft without much-needed transfer of technology. The opposition suggested that cost per aircraft rose from Rs 526 crore to Rs 1,570 crore and said the government was uneasy over sharing data.

Sources said a comparison of aircraft to be procured in flyaway condition demonstrates NDA's success in bettering the terms. Under the 126-aircraft contract contemplated by UPA, 18 aircraft were to be delivered in flyaway condition. NDA's reworked contract is for 36 aircraft in flyaway condition. UPA was getting 18 fighters for around 100 million each and the cost now is around 90 million per fighter. The current government also procured the Meteor missile that makes the fighter much more effective.
*(One needs to check these figs. very carefully.Then why is the rest of the deal so expensive? We should compare what it has cost us to set up the same infrastructure for the MKI programme,where there is also the added bonus of local manufacture and some TOT)

In details revealed to TOI, sources said a major success of hard bargaining with Dassault Aviation, makers of Rafale, was favorable commercial terms for India. Payment terms for the 126 Rafales under the previous MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project was based on a fixed escalation figure of 3.9%. The 36 Rafale fighters contracted by the Modi government are linked to a limit of 3.5%. This ensures an additional saving of around 200 million while it could add up to around 1 billion euros.

The government has also argued that Dassault Aviation was unwilling to take responsibility of quality control of production for the 108 aircraft in India under terms negotiated by UPA. "While Dassault provisioned for 3 crore man hours for production in India, HAL's (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) estimate was three times higher, escalating costs manifold," said a source.

Sources challenged the claim that technology transfer was being considered and said what was on offer was just licence manufacturing technology. There was no agreement on crucial terms. Under the current deal's procurement offsets, the inter-governmental agreement states the French party will facilitate implementation of 'Make in India' by the industrial supplier, notably through offsets for 50% value of the supply protocol.

Reacting to claims that a deal was nearly sealed when the Modi government assumed office, sources said there was no agreement and if there had been one, there would be debate. "The acquisition of aircraft would have commenced," said the source. Apart from prolonged contract negotiations, there were reports that then defence minister A K Antony decided the approach of the contract negotiation committee needed to be examined and UPA was unable to close the deal despite request for proposal being issued in 2007.

It has also been argued that PM Modi did not jump the gun in referring to the Rafale deal during his visit to France in 2015 as the joint statement said the two leaderships had agreed to conclude an inter-governmental agreement for supply of aircraft on terms that would be better conveyed by Dassault Aviation as part of a separate process underway.

There would be a longer maintenance responsibility by France.

It has been asserted that proposals were presented to the defence acquisition council thrice and thereafter a Cabinet Committee on Security nod was received following by the inter-governmental agreement in 2016. The government claims Dassault improved the terms while reducing delivery time frames.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Nov 2017 20:30

Rafale deal faces turbulent weather: Part 1

Will · Post by **Will** » 23 Nov 2017 21:47

Well there is no doubt that the MMRCA tender cancellation benefited a certain industrial group and there is also no doubt with the said industrial group in the picture more rafale's for the IAF is a given. But the congress has no right to bring up the deal when they totally messed it up. They had 10 years to finalise the deal and what did they do? Straddled the country with AK Anthony as defence minister.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Nov 2017 22:56

Government Said It Would Share Rafale Price Details. It Can't

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 23 Nov 2017 23:15

There is enough open source information on Rafale price breakup. Rahul Bedi had reported EUR 141.66 million for each Rafale; EUR 91.1 million for single seat and EUR 94 million for dual seat with EUR 50 million per aircraft for IAF-specific modifications.

The deal included the integration of a mix of locally developed and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) weaponry and systems on the fighters, such as Israeli helmet-mounted display sights, assorted missiles, data-links, electronic warfare (EW), and identification friend-or-foe (IFF) systems.

The EUR 91 million figure was also reported by The Hindu. So, the flyaway cost of customised Rafales comes to EUR 5.1 billion for 36 Rafales. The remaining EUR 2.8 billion is for weapons, simulators, spares, maintenance, and Performance Based Logistics support for five years.

srin · Post by **srin** » 24 Nov 2017 01:04

The cost figures are sort of meaningless. Rafale was L1 based on the lifecycle cost - and that is quite subjective - and this was before they started back-pedalling on the RFP obligations. We've rewarded Dassault for fooling us.
Secondly, no contract would ever stop the Govt from releasing the Rafale deal details to Parliament, no ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Nov 2017 10:06

Part 2: How much did the Rafale actually cost?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Nov 2017 10:44

The Rafale deal was the worst mil decision taken this century.Unfortunately,the Modi regime was press-ganged by the IAF/MOD into continuing with the R deal ,selected during the UPA regime. The IAF picked the best 2 Euro birds as technically they were the best,regardless of cost,but as quite rightly pointed out,but were originally meant to replace hundred of retiring MIGs! This MMRCA req. was becos of the late arrival of the LCA.The IAF saw a golden opportunity to obtain a new toy made in the West,which if one looked carefully wasn't needed at all becos we already had 270+ MKis on order.These had proven to be the supreme masters in the air in any continent barring the F-22.That too avaiolable at less than half the price of a single Rafale!

This was swiftly realised by former DM MP.He warned the IAF about not (deliberately ) having a "Plan B",and openly said that more MKIs were the option easily available to the GOI.The "R" co. which has a major JV stake 51:49 % with Dassault ,even before the NDA came to poer were rubbing their hands at Rafale contracts,wanted the deal to somehow go through-to get its foot in the door. Even a small order once approved and sealed would inevitably result in more to come later on.Thus the PM was forced to gift the French the 36 aircraft order.The chickens are now coming home to roost,with the Cong. playing politics but opening up the debate about the actual cost of the Rafale and how much it will cost today. The GOI cannot fudge the issue,as it will snowball into a major controversy cometh 2019 elections. It must be very wary to avoid another Bofors type situ.

In retrospect,the MMRCA requirement should've had as top priority ,a search for the most cost-effective fighter with a clear upper limit on the price,say a max of $50M even.In any case,the India specific eqpt. would be std. on a French equipped one,so why should it cost $50M extra? It;s like the JSF cost...without the engine! In actual fact,the cost should've come down a bit since India made eqpt. would be far cheaper than firang/fFrench ones.
Standardisation fo some eqpt. also being used in the MKI would be even more cost-effective.The astounding $50M for mere upgrading the M2Ks should've sent warning bells ringing,red flags appearing on screens a long time ago. More 4+ gen non-stealthy Rafales will drastically affect both the FGFA progr. as well as the LCA,where it is waiting to be ambushed by yet another bird,the SEF.The best way forward for the GOI and IAF is to cancel thoughts of more Rafales,seal the deal on both the FGFA and SEF,which will allow funds for the future as well as the present (LCA).The SEF only if HAL can't ramp up its production significantly and prove that it can. For the LR strike req.,MP's option. "PLan B" is always with us,more MIKIs more attractive now that it has fired BMos from its belly,something that the Rafale cannot do!

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Nov 2017 10:58

Austin wrote:Part 2: How much did the Rafale actually cost?

Other than "fly-away" Unit cost comparison, the rest are variables that can't be easily compared. Things like weapons (how many and what kinds), infrastructure (how many bases at what support-level), PBL (how many flying hours/year under what scenarios for how many years), training (how many pilots and crews), ToT/Offsets (which ones and how much), specific customizations (how many/much), etc are subject to significant variability from one deal to another.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Nov 2017 11:02

Yet again,who needs a 250KM range SCALP ASM now which is inferior to BMos and we've also successfully tested Nirbahy,who's air-launched version when it arrives will obviate the need for SCALP.Why do we need this firang weapon when we've two "made in India",designed in India superior weapons?

PS:I forgot the DRDO's glide bomb too!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Nov 2017 06:30

Wait til the Rafale mlu comes along, we'll see much more rnd then. ..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Nov 2017 08:45

Regarding Philips statement of dissolving ADA and giving HAL full control - one simple query. Does anyone remember why ADA was founded? It was because HAL's design department had evaporated.

Does anyone recall why MMR floundered? It was because HAL which got the MMR went nowhere with it & multiple subsystems had issues.
In contrast, LRDE has an Uttam prototype in testing.

I submit HAL simply does not "get" R&D and has a long ways to go before developing regular expertise beyond integration.
HALs INCOM radio was to be the IAF's standard fit. It did not meet the mark either.

So, ADA which is all about design, whose engineers handled everything from developing their own design software, will be absorbed by a PSU which puts license manufacturing at the same level as indigenous programs.

Its a recipe for a mess. HAL has some experience in LCA subsystems, but the overall design is all ADA with aero inputs from NAL, FBW inputs from CLAW and a host of other places. HAL's Iron Bird team handles the hardware rig for the FBW & a lot of the structural tests are done there as well. But there are multiple reports that those teams were never given the kind of resources or recognition from erstwhile HAL management.

IMHO, if LCA has to move beyond Mk1, Mk1A and not wither on the vine, it needs MLUs, it needs regular upgrades, not just avionics but systems within as well. And ADA needs to do that, and remain independent from HAL.

ADA within HAL has every chance of being ignored and then disappearing as is what happened to earlier design teams at HAL.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Nov 2017 10:15

I feel that ADA should be independent. every design and r&d facility should be, at least to some extent. There can be no creativity without autonomy.

Having said that, there should be an Apex body with the IAF mainly leading it and ADA / HAL associated projects. And to which the ADA and HAL are answerable, at least to some extent. Leave the design to ADA, production to HAL, and management to IAF.

Let the IAF be given the responsibility of but also the authority. Otherwise it will always be a reluctant stakeholder.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Nov 2017 11:56

Part 3: From light fighter to nuclear delivery platform: Long road to the Rafale

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 25 Nov 2017 15:50

Philip wrote:The IAF saw a golden opportunity to obtain a new toy made in the West,which if one looked carefully wasn't needed at all becos we already had 270+ MKis on order.These had proven to be the supreme masters in the air in any continent barring the F-22.That too avaiolable at less than half the price of a single Rafale!

The Rafale provides capabilities that go significantly beyond the Su 30 MKI, which undoubtedly is also a great fighter.

The critics of the Rafale deal are undermining national security.