VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

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.
sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby sahay » 14 Mar 2019 04:30

Austin wrote:#RafaleScam: The CAG’s History
How the game was fixed for the French fighter

https://www.stratpost.com/rafalescam-the-cags-history/

Shows how MMRCA was a farce from the start to the finish. This wasn't due to one or a small group of officers, there was institutional support for it. If the IAF as an institution was willing to repeatedly rig the competition to get the aircraft of their choice, what was the point of the entire exercise? A collective waste of money and time. DPP has clearly failed its objective here, and is useful only to project an air of transparency and fairness. MoD's blind insistence on it, which drove IAF to repeatedly rig MMRCA without any apparent incentive of corruption, should be questioned.

I was reminded of what Parrikar in a DD interview just after Modi's announcement in Paris. In his opinion, MMRCA should have never been a competitive procurement, and it should've been an IGA from the start.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 14 Mar 2019 05:26

Austin wrote:Yes but so is Eurofghter , Su-35 and even F-18 .

Like I said short of any change in GOI policy I dont see we buying additonal Rafale , They would constitute a small fleet of Aircraft for Nuclear/Strategic Detterent Role ...Much like Mirages are today.

The 110 figter competition will be limited to IMO Gripen, Mig-35 and F-16/21 and who ever offers the the lowest TCO with best TOT will win the Day.

Likely the fight is between Gripen and Mig-35 ......Unless US gives a blanket exemption to India from CAATSA that wont be applied now or under future by President/Congress.

Since its a Law it can be applied any time either by POTUS , US Congress would want a wiver all the time that we are buying less Russian product more US Stuff much like Pressler Amendment or by Deep State that can over ride both.

There is no change in any policy. If the Rafale ends up winning this contest, it will be additional Rafales only. Change in policy does not affect Technical Evaluations. Whoever wins the Technical Evaluation, moves on to the next stage of the contest. There has to be a viable counter argument against the technical down select. Who in the Govt can sit down with the IAF and have a technical discussion on the contest? The IAF knows what it wants and that choice must be respected.

I did not see any rona-dhona when the following happened;

1) C-17 beat the IL-76 in the Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft requirement.
2) AH-64 beat the Russian Mi-28 in the IAF's tender for 22 attack helicopters.
3) CH-47 beat the Russian Mi-26 in the IAF's tender for heavy lift helicopters.

There you go again, with the ToT. There is no ToT, despite whatever is written in the RFI. No company will give India any ToT. Stop with this ToT. Seriously, you got to let that go.

Agreements with the US is only valid for the 4 [or 8] years that the present Administration is in power. Once a new administration comes in, everything is up in the air. That is the reliability of the US as a partner. Even within the 4 [or 8] years, party majorities in the United States Congress (consisting of the House and the Senate) could change and can potentially override the Administration. The entire House goes through elections every two years and the Senate is the same, however only 1/3 of the Senate is up for grabs. Senators serve for a maximum of 6 years. But still the potential for veering away from the Administration's goals are likely.

The Gripen is a great aircraft, if we did not have Tejas Mk2 in development. No point in buying an aircraft whose capabilities will overlap with the Tejas Mk2. The Gripen C/D has the lowest TCO of all the competitors. I am not sure about the Gripen E (the bird on offer). But it very well might. But TCO is not the only factor in selecting the next MMRCA. The MiG-35 will not come. The IAF has a preference for a Western fighter and had zeroed in on the Rafale in the first contest. In all likelihood, it appears that the Rafale will win again. I doubt though, 110 aircraft will come.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 14 Mar 2019 05:32

Austin wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I think Austin got caught up in the recent CAG report, which stated that the MiG-35 was the only contender - in MMRCA 1.0 - to have met all the ASQRs :lol:


Yes Mig-35 would be a strong contender along with Gripen , Both has existing logistics established or will be established for Gripen via Tejas and SAAB as promised full TOT much like Russians did.

Likely Gripen has the lowest CPFH and being single engine it would be lower on Maintenace but Sweden is not a strategic partner so even if Technically it Wins perhaps hands down , Politically it may loose.

I am amazed how you can be so gullible to believe Saab's hype. I am sorry, it is not my intention to launch a personal attack on you. But you are displaying a complete lack of depth on this.

Yes, Saab has promised full TOT. But here is the reality. The Gripen E uses a General Electric F414 turbofan. Forget about the rest of the Gripen - of which there is plenty of non-Swedish tech aboard the aircraft - on the engine alone, Saab is blatantly lying. On what basis can Saab offer full ToT on the engine? Tomorrow if GE is told by the US Govt to stop the sale of the F414 engine to India, how do you plan to fly the Gripen? Perhaps a visit to Ikea?

Secondly, how does the Gripen have existing logistics established in India?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 14 Mar 2019 05:43

Mort Walker wrote:Which makes all the more sense to expedite the Rafale for 110 ASAP. The problem will be what is Dassault's production capabilities? The Rafale seems like a very specialized production similar to expensive European chocolates, fine liquors, and sports cars. All made and inspected repeatedly to ensure quality, but at a very very slow rate. It seems the production is far slower than the Mirage 2000 production. Even made in India still requires parts from France, which will be painfully slow.

The Pakis will be picking up a bunch of 2nd hand F-16s from the ME and other places once the F-35 starts coming out in significant numbers in the next 2-3 years.

They cannot expedite the current RFI. That will reek of nepotism. It is best to cancel the RFI altogether and order 36 - 54 Rafales.

And while Rafale production was painfully slow at 11/year till 2018, as of 2019 that number will go up to 26/year. The Merignac factory can go even higher than that number.

Please see this post by brar ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2332900#p2332900

If they sign the contract in 2019, deliveries of the first batch will start by 2022 and hopefully will be complete before the 2024 elections.

Numbers cannot be made up by just expensive toys (like the Rafale). They need to order at least two (I would like to see three) more Tejas Mk1 squadrons, sign the contract for the 21 MiG-29s from Russia, get the Qatari Mirage 2000s (if available) to shore up the fleet of the present 2.5 squadrons, sign the contract for the 18 Su-30MKIs, re-engine those Jaguars and complete the Darin III upgrade and complete the upgrade of the Mirage 2000s.

Do the above and it will give the IAF much needed breathing room, till the Tejas Mk2 enters service by the end of the next decade.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 14 Mar 2019 08:38

Sorry if posted earlier


Image

sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby sahay » 14 Mar 2019 09:22

To be fair, Qatar did order 12 more at 1.1 billion Euro, bringing the total to 7.4 billion for 36 aircraft. Of course, they did not spend 1.8 billion on enhancements like India did, plus they also reportedly did not ask for offsets or performance-based logistics.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2019 11:27

sahay wrote:
Austin wrote:#RafaleScam: The CAG’s History
How the game was fixed for the French fighter

https://www.stratpost.com/rafalescam-the-cags-history/

Shows how MMRCA was a farce from the start to the finish. This wasn't due to one or a small group of officers, there was institutional support for it. If the IAF as an institution was willing to repeatedly rig the competition to get the aircraft of their choice, what was the point of the entire exercise? A collective waste of money and time. DPP has clearly failed its objective here, and is useful only to project an air of transparency and fairness. MoD's blind insistence on it, which drove IAF to repeatedly rig MMRCA without any apparent incentive of corruption, should be questioned.

I was reminded of what Parrikar in a DD interview just after Modi's announcement in Paris. In his opinion, MMRCA should have never been a competitive procurement, and it should've been an IGA from the start.


The IAF as an institution is a good ol fighter boyz club ...They will not look at non-conventional solution and do some out of box thinking to reduce fighter squadron strength and rather invest that money in other capabilities to get more from existing fighter.

But rather insist they need some 45 plus squadron , Try to get the best aircraft in the business money can buy and keep coming with some RFI/RFP to meet the squadron strength requirement that was made many decades ago.

There is no feeble attempt made even to rationalise the fleet by reducing the combat types they operate and the weapon systems fleet wide to reduce long term OPEX ......Logistically IAF is in a big mess and adding many types in big and small numbers would have 40 years of impact on IAF OPEX and even CAPEX.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Mar 2019 12:08

First, rationalizing the fleet is fine. Who pays for the replacement? The Govt of India sure hasn't been. The current Govt could afford only 36 in the first tranche of Rafales. Hence IAF has gone for upgrades, that too after a huge delay.
Second, the squadron strength requirement for 45 units was made when PLAAF was but an obsolete joke. It isn't now. They are a serious contender for fielding a large number of decent tech. platforms, and in fact, question is whether 45 squadrons are enough to hold off both TSP and PRC.
Third, best aircraft in the business is incorrect. Didn't IAF cancel the FGFA contract? Nor has it asked US to field the F-35. They are focusing purely on 4.5 gen birds available, and unfortunately, they are expensive.
Fourth, force multipliers can't replace force. You can put a gold plated heavily upgraded fighter in the air. It can only be in one place at one time.

pratik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:07
Location: Zannat-e-Karachi

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pratik » 14 Mar 2019 12:18

In current situation, GoI shall triple the Rafale order. We are about to fight a war. Time to open wallet.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby MeshaVishwas » 14 Mar 2019 12:20

^^
Wishful thinking at best.

pratik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:07
Location: Zannat-e-Karachi

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby pratik » 14 Mar 2019 12:30

Prepare

OR

Alternatively do nothing and get ready for the defeated by northern neighbour

ashthor
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 11:35

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby ashthor » 14 Mar 2019 12:42

http://www.businesstoday.in/current/eco ... 26863.html

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said on Tuesday that India needs a bigger defence budget to modernise its armed forces during the next six-seven years.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 14 Mar 2019 18:22

Karan M wrote:First, rationalizing the fleet is fine. Who pays for the replacement? The Govt of India sure hasn't been. The current Govt could afford only 36 in the first tranche of Rafales. Hence IAF has gone for upgrades, that too after a huge delay.
Second, the squadron strength requirement for 45 units was made when PLAAF was but an obsolete joke. It isn't now. They are a serious contender for fielding a large number of decent tech. platforms, and in fact, question is whether 45 squadrons are enough to hold off both TSP and PRC.
Third, best aircraft in the business is incorrect. Didn't IAF cancel the FGFA contract? Nor has it asked US to field the F-35. They are focusing purely on 4.5 gen birds available, and unfortunately, they are expensive.
Fourth, force multipliers can't replace force. You can put a gold plated heavily upgraded fighter in the air. It can only be in one place at one time.


Karan M ji,

I have a sneaking feeling that the deal may be actually for more rafales but the pappu controversy, has, for the moment, drowned out that part.

The newer aircraft are getting really very complicated and are also capable of multirole performance so that bit about 42 sqdns or whatever number is being bandied about may not be actually applicable now, and under the present circumstances, a slightly lesser number may be advisable.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2019 21:10

Rakesh wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:Which makes all the more sense to expedite the Rafale for 110 ASAP. The problem will be what is Dassault's production capabilities? The Rafale seems like a very specialized production similar to expensive European chocolates, fine liquors, and sports cars. All made and inspected repeatedly to ensure quality, but at a very very slow rate. It seems the production is far slower than the Mirage 2000 production. Even made in India still requires parts from France, which will be painfully slow.

The Pakis will be picking up a bunch of 2nd hand F-16s from the ME and other places once the F-35 starts coming out in significant numbers in the next 2-3 years.

They cannot expedite the current RFI. That will reek of nepotism. It is best to cancel the RFI altogether and order 36 - 54 Rafales.

And while Rafale production was painfully slow at 11/year till 2018, as of 2019 that number will go up to 26/year. The Merignac factory can go even higher than that number.


They cannot afford more Rafale because if they did they would have gone for 36+36 or 36+54 with the original deal with outright purchase done.

Parrikar has clearly said that Rafale is a very costly aircraft and IAF does not need more than 36 and the original 126 AC deal would cost MOD 22 Billion USD in 2014 cost to be paid over 12 years something they cannot afford.

So some how we insisting that we should go for more 36 or 50 or 80 more has no basis whatsoever ...... If they could afford those they would have gone with those numbers with the original deal and would have got a much better cost than just buying 36 because of economics of scale of buying larger numbers.

Can you imagine how much Rafale would cost in 2020 compared to 2014 with Military inflation running twice that of civilian one and there was no clause in Original Rafale Deal that a follow up x numbers will be bought in some specified time frame to tie up the cost.

The idea of 110 fighter is to look at cheaper alternative that can be bought can be built in numbers to replace depleting squadron plus as a hedge against Tejas if the numbers do not bump up in the way IAF wants it.

The 110 fighter will be the low cost fighter option both in terms of LCC and LIC/TOT etc and even though you may agree or not , I dont see any thing other than F-16 , Gripen and Mig-35 making that cut.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2019 21:23

Karan M wrote:First, rationalizing the fleet is fine. Who pays for the replacement? The Govt of India sure hasn't been. The current Govt could afford only 36 in the first tranche of Rafales. Hence IAF has gone for upgrades, that too after a huge delay.
Second, the squadron strength requirement for 45 units was made when PLAAF was but an obsolete joke. It isn't now. They are a serious contender for fielding a large number of decent tech. platforms, and in fact, question is whether 45 squadrons are enough to hold off both TSP and PRC.
Third, best aircraft in the business is incorrect. Didn't IAF cancel the FGFA contract? Nor has it asked US to field the F-35. They are focusing purely on 4.5 gen birds available, and unfortunately, they are expensive.
Fourth, force multipliers can't replace force. You can put a gold plated heavily upgraded fighter in the air. It can only be in one place at one time.


The IAF is a Figher Jock Rich mans club , So Fleet Rationalisation is not in its agenda and its a disease since many decades.

They keep buying 30 odd , 40 odd and 60 odd fighters in past 3 decades from various vendors and keep increasing their logistics and OPEX burden.

They dont want to streamline their fighter types in to 1-2 types but insist on having Light Medium and Heavy types , I dont know why they cant have two types of fightes in their fleet.

They have reluctantly supported the Tejas program and only when Parrikar came into the picture did they accepeted it in different mark model.

They need to go for a 2 Fleet force say Tejas Mk1/2/3 and Su-30 later to be replaced by AMCA then then build their fleet on these 2 Types and build in Mark models ..Then work towards Tejas Replacement with 6th Gen Program today to replace Tejas 25 years from Today starting with earliest model.

Replace fighter squadron says 35 Squadron and then more force multpliers to support them like more AWACS, Refullers , ELINT/Jammers hopefully build in India by DRDO

Same goes for weapons rather then buying different types of PGM . A2M , BVR etc they should buy 1 types from any foreign wonder and go for Mark model update ....then replace then totally with Astra mark model etc

These things can be done if some one plans this today and try to crystal ball how IAF fleet will look 30-35 years from Today. It is possble if they plan it today and plan ahead for 30-35 years.

I wont be surprised that 15 years from now if we would be discussing which Aircraft IAF should buy for 6th Gen program and why an urgent need for 126 5th Gen fighter exisit because of delay in AMCA program. This is a cyclic thing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Mar 2019 22:21

chetak wrote:Karan M ji,

I have a sneaking feeling that the deal may be actually for more rafales but the pappu controversy, has, for the moment, drowned out that part.

The newer aircraft are getting really very complicated and are also capable of multirole performance so that bit about 42 sqdns or whatever number is being bandied about may not be actually applicable now, and under the present circumstances, a slightly lesser number may be advisable.


Problem is one aircraft can only be in one place at one time, and the numbers the PLAAF and PAF together can bring into theater are rapidly rising day by day. In that milieu, a 45 squadron force may be the bare minimum we need to prosecute a proper conflict wherein we dictate the in-theater escalation.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18381
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 14 Mar 2019 22:53

Karan M wrote:
chetak wrote:Karan M ji,

I have a sneaking feeling that the deal may be actually for more rafales but the pappu controversy, has, for the moment, drowned out that part.

The newer aircraft are getting really very complicated and are also capable of multirole performance so that bit about 42 sqdns or whatever number is being bandied about may not be actually applicable now, and under the present circumstances, a slightly lesser number may be advisable.


Problem is one aircraft can only be in one place at one time, and the numbers the PLAAF and PAF together can bring into theater are rapidly rising day by day. In that milieu, a 45 squadron force may be the bare minimum we need to prosecute a proper conflict wherein we dictate the in-theater escalation.


missiles and UCAVs are coming in a very big way. The days of the manned military aircraft may well be numbered.

That said, it may take more time in some parts of the world than others

we would benefit way more with much tighter integration at the higher echelons of the military hierarchy rather than run a piecemeal, semi independent type of operation in this day and age.

the life of a military plane may be 30-40 years with very expensive mid life updates etc. In these 30-40 years, going forward, there will be a sea change in mil hardware.

A 42 sqdn airforce just may not be on the cards as much more potent unmanned delivery systems start to make their way into the service necessitating a rethink in procurement policies and a drastic change in operational flexibilities. Space based high energy weapon systems will also start to emerge.

what is deterring the cheeni are our missiles which have lit a huge agni in some of their tender regions.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1915
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Vivek K » 14 Mar 2019 23:08

pratik wrote:Prepare or
Alternatively do nothing and get ready for the defeated by northern neighbour

Increase the LCA MK1 order from 40 to 100. Convert these to MK1A standard when 1A is being produced for the 83 a/c order. Double the Mk1A order to 170. Think like the Chinese to beat them at their own game - mass produce.

When the 45 squadron requirement was projected, I'm not sure it took into account current multi role aircraft like LCA, M2K, MKI and even the Mig 29. I'm not sure the Jags could be called multi role. So with the current fleet of aircraft that are extremely capable, and with keeping a high availability (80%+), IAF could take care of two fronts. The nearly 300 MKIs present a capability unlike any the IAF has had before. (For 24 PAF aircraft, 4 MKIs went up - does that not show IAF's belief in the aircraft?) Investment in force multipliers like aerostats, at least 10 more Netras (or a squadron) and datalinks with SAMs like Akash and others would deter aggression.

Instead of blindly going in for Rafales, IAF should seriously look at increasing production of LCAs and to embedding their PMs with HAL/ADA to get Mk2 off the ground quicker. Maybe the Mk2 could come in quicker than the additional Rafales. Also make up for shortfalls with Mk1A. Take the enemy threats into account before going off to get x-wing fighter to fight the empire!!

I would suggest -
a) increase order of Rafales to 54 or 60 (after election when Pappu is licking his wounds in Italy) (1 additional squadron)
b) Increase MK1 orders from 40 to 100 (3 additional squadrons). Take action to set up additional production lines NOW.
c) We hear about 18 more MKIs or 1 additional squadron.
d) There was also talk about mothballed Mig 29s (about 2 squadrons to be purchased).

I am sure the capable brass of the IAF has these in mind. But I like the noise they're making now. Need to keep pressure on these politicians to do more.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 14 Mar 2019 23:13

Rakesh wrote:I think Austin got caught up in the recent CAG report, which stated that the MiG-35 was the only contender - in MMRCA 1.0 - to have met all the ASQRs :lol:


It did not saar.....here is what it said, directly from the CAG report (No DDM involved)

Audit noted that aircraft of none of the six vendors that participated in the tender, could
meet all the ASQR parameters in technical evaluation. ASQRs parameters were
narrowly defined. In some cases they were also not clearly defined.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Mar 2019 23:20

chetak wrote:missiles and UCAVs are coming in a very big way. The days of the manned military aircraft may well be numbered.


Unless we have huge advances in AI or NLOS comms like SATCOM like launch on demand capability, we will continue to heavily depend on humans for the tip of the spear or even run LOS UCAVs etc.

That said, it may take more time in some parts of the world than others

we would benefit way more with much tighter integration at the higher echelons of the military hierarchy rather than run a piecemeal, semi independent type of operation in this day and age.


Agree but there still needs to be a baseline minimum available force. If the Opfor fields 4x planes, there is only so much we can do to reduce the force levels.

the life of a military plane may be 30-40 years with very expensive mid life updates etc. In these 30-40 years, going forward, there will be a sea change in mil hardware. A 42 sqdn airforce just may not be on the cards as much more potent unmanned delivery systems start to make their way into the service necessitating a rethink in procurement policies and a drastic change in operational flexibilities.


Problem is the off the shelf UAVs etc don't come cheap either. Take a look at the price demanded for 10 Heron TPs.. we are rapidly approaching LCA territory.

Space based high energy weapon systems will also start to emerge.


Yes, but in their absence with regards to what we have "here and now" we will have to procure equivalents. Its the same as the F-35 vs Rafale, we can all agree F-35 is more sophisticated, war winning, stealth etc.. but is it available to us & that too without preconditions.

what is deterring the cheeni are our missiles which have lit a huge agni in some of their tender regions.


Yes, but if we fall behind in conventional warfighting we will be vulnerable.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 14 Mar 2019 23:23

Katare wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I think Austin got caught up in the recent CAG report, which stated that the MiG-35 was the only contender - in MMRCA 1.0 - to have met all the ASQRs :lol:


It did not saar.....here is what it said, directly from the CAG report (No DDM involved)

Audit noted that aircraft of none of the six vendors that participated in the tender, could
meet all the ASQR parameters in technical evaluation. ASQRs parameters were
narrowly defined. In some cases they were also not clearly defined.


The ASQR like I have mentioned before, were just Mirage 2000 V Mk2 capabilities modified accordingly to get something equivalent or better. Any attempt to raise them high would run into audit objections (creating single vendor situation onlee).. so end result is everyone could claim to meet many of the ASQRs based on a more modest, earlier gen airframe. The biggest joke is that MiG-35 met the requirements by fielding a bare bones AESA radar, firing BVR missiles and claiming they met everything. Reality is that if that MiG-35 AESA was compared to the MSA on the EF Typhoon & its BVR armament, it would come out looking pretty shoddy.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 224
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby viveks » 14 Mar 2019 23:59

I dont know why people are wasting endless thread space trying to argue that we should go for some other platform instead of the Rafale. There are basically three major things that come to my mind when I see this platform.

1. First and foremost..."The Active Radar Cancellation computing capabilities" coupled with absorbent material used in the body is unlike any platform we would ever get exposed to so far. Even the upgraded Mirages dont have this in its arsenal...nor would the LCA mkX...nor any other.

2. EU suite & advanced flight control that would enable aircraft to automatically fly with computers with pilot leaving hands on stick even at 100 to 50 feet above sea level. Something that is not in any aircraft I have heard so far.

3. Aircraft Super cruise. Saves lots of fuel saved in flight even at super sonic speads.

4. Missile suites and weapon integration.

5.Not to mention the RBXXX AESA Radar capabilities developed by the French.

Now...this is a step up and PM has rightly stated that repulsion of other aircraft would have been more effective with this aircraft.

This capability is a stark change in tactics of the Airforce and people are refusing to acknowledge this capability.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Mar 2019 00:19

Karan M wrote:
Katare wrote:
It did not saar.....here is what it said, directly from the CAG report (No DDM involved)

Audit noted that aircraft of none of the six vendors that participated in the tender, could
meet all the ASQR parameters in technical evaluation. ASQRs parameters were
narrowly defined. In some cases they were also not clearly defined.


The ASQR like I have mentioned before, were just Mirage 2000 V Mk2 capabilities modified accordingly to get something equivalent or better. Any attempt to raise them high would run into audit objections (creating single vendor situation onlee).. so end result is everyone could claim to meet many of the ASQRs based on a more modest, earlier gen airframe. The biggest joke is that MiG-35 met the requirements by fielding a bare bones AESA radar, firing BVR missiles and claiming they met everything. Reality is that if that MiG-35 AESA was compared to the MSA on the EF Typhoon & its BVR armament, it would come out looking pretty shoddy.


I scanned through the report, clearly all six aircrafts failed to meet the ASQR and both the selected aircrafts failed both field evaluation and price bid. But lets look at what were those deviations that Rafale couldn't meet.

Things that were not needed, vendor supplied version that is next generation, requirement redundant because its been achieved differently...

Here are some nuggets around ASQR not being met -

There was at least one situation where the vendor offered alternate or advanced
technology to achieve the same function. However, such offers rendered their technical
bid noncompliant to the ASQRs which needed exemption or waiver in order to be
technically accepted. Waiver of RM was accorded only for two of the six deviations
:rotfl:

As per the TEC report, Rafale aircraft had failed to meet 14 ASQR parameters.
SER stated that the non-compliance of the three parameters viz “W1”, “W2” and “W3”
mode of radar would not have any operational impact. In addition SER also
recommended for waiver of one more parameters (“W4”). Further, Audit independently
noted that two of the ISEs viz. “W5” and “W6” proposed by the vendor were apparently
not needed in the first place as the detailed field evaluation trial report 64 had noted them
to be satisfactory.
:lol:

The Staff Evaluation Report had recommended for waiving of noncompliance of Rafale
aircraft to four ASQR parameters as they were not needed in the first place.
:roll:

Thus, the offers submitted by M/s DA and M/s EADS were non-compliant to RFP and
liable for rejection as non-responsive bids. It was specifically mentioned in the RFP
that the submission of bids in incomplete format would render the offer liable for
rejection.

Meanwhile, after determination of L1 Vendor during 2012, there were several
complaints alleging irregularity in the price evaluation process, including complaints
from Honorable MPs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 00:27

Yes, budget shopping of advanced fighters MOD style. :lol: :roll:

I scanned through the report, clearly all six aircrafts failed to meet the ASQR and both the selected aircrafts failed both field evaluation and price bid. But lets look at what were those deviations that Rafale couldn't meet.


Yes because they took Mirage 2000 V specs, looked at the RFI specs, added stuff available in fighter A, B but not C,D,E to the baseline Mirage 2000 V specs and came up with this hybrid ASQR which all A, B, C, D, E would have to meet. :|

Its completely opposite to how specs are usually drawn up in classic product development. I.e. draw up high level requirements (performance, cost) then derive functional requirements from those, then go looking at technologies that can meet the need.

Just makes the case for more indigenization. DRDO/BEL etc can add more advanced features without mentioning it & CAG getting upset at it not being required. Audit noted missile can hit x km, however vendor provided y km > x km. AHQs comment about this justifying an extra premium is not valid as it should have been in ASQR in first place. :roll: :lol:

India is probably the only case in the world where completely non domain aware bean counters or those without even an interest in the subject can sit & parse domain specific specifications and don't even understand product development & evaluation is a dynamic process & opinions/needs can change. :roll:

And our weapons procurement process is mix of RFIs--> mix and match requirements based on info gathered from RFI---> ask for system which is unavailable (mix of all) ----> gets stuck in endless trials and negotiations.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Mar 2019 00:38

Austin wrote:#RafaleScam: The CAG’s History
How the game was fixed for the French fighter

https://www.stratpost.com/rafale scam-the-cags-history/


There was no fixing, the DDM is not reading it right and hiding the facts.

First everything that he is talking about is technical evaluation of bids, not aircrafts. Errors crept into documents because of the narrow way ASQRs were written. CAG clearly said the ASQR were non-compliant with the DPP :mrgreen:

If you don't see a lot of Mig 35 mention in there than the credit for that goes to Russian babus (not to aircraft) who wrote the offer seems they really understand Indian babus very well.

Rejection of Mig and other 4 aircraft was not "only" because of the two factors that CAG mentions ( "growth potential" and "design maturity") they were flagged because that's where they found room to pick points.

At best the case can be made that it's still undermined which of the two aircraft was L1. No where CAG or Antony's MoD committee that recommended withdrawal of the MRCA deal/RFP claimed that EADS was the L1. Their contention is the methodology was not consistent.

Another factor that no one's mentioning is that the bids were submitted in the separate packages for direct cost of acquisition, life cycle cost, ToT cost etc.

EADS quoted higher price for the "direct acquisition" cost than Rafale. And Indian Negotiation team calculated the lifecycle costs for both and awarded L1 to Rafale.

Rest assured Rafael aircraft was fully compliant with all the ASQRs, their bid had some minor issues that were corrected (before trials) except for the two major sticking points that eventually caused the deal to collapse.
Last edited by Katare on 15 Mar 2019 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Mar 2019 00:42

Karan M wrote:Yes, budget shopping of advanced fighters MOD style. :lol: :roll:

I scanned through the report, clearly all six aircrafts failed to meet the ASQR and both the selected aircrafts failed both field evaluation and price bid. But lets look at what were those deviations that Rafale couldn't meet.


Yes because they took Mirage 2000 V specs, looked at the RFI specs, added stuff available in fighter A, B but not C,D,E to the baseline Mirage 2000 V specs and came up with this hybrid ASQR which all A, B, C, D, E would have to meet. :|

Its completely opposite to how specs are usually drawn up in classic product development. I.e. draw up high level requirements (performance, cost) then derive functional requirements from those, then go looking at technologies that can meet the need.

Just makes the case for more indigenization. DRDO/BEL etc can add more advanced features without mentioning it & CAG getting upset at it not being required. Audit noted missile can hit x km, however vendor provided y km > x km. AHQs comment about this justifying an extra premium is not valid as it should have been in ASQR in first place. :roll: :lol:

India is probably the only case in the world where completely non domain aware bean counters or those without even an interest in the subject can sit & parse domain specific specifications and don't even understand product development & evaluation is a dynamic process & opinions/needs can change. :roll:

And our weapons procurement process is mix of RFIs--> mix and match requirements based on info gathered from RFI---> ask for system which is unavailable (mix of all) ----> gets stuck in endless trials and negotiations.


You and CAG both are saying the same thing.....

The DPP states that SQRs should be broad based and realistic. It further states that the
SQRs must express the user’s requirement in terms of functional characteristics and its
formulation must not prejudice the technical choices by being narrow and tailor-made.
However, instead of stating the user’s requirement in terms of functional parameters,
ASQRs specified the exact design or technology required to perform the desired
function. This created difficulties during technical evaluation and different
technologies, even if they served the same functional requirements were rendered noncompliant
with the narrowly defined ASQRs. Audit identified six such parameters.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 15 Mar 2019 00:48

Here is the CAG report, if anyone's interested in reading it.....

CAG performance Audit of Airforce

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 01:20

We should be happy the Rafale was chosen. It works and has a coherent supply chain maintained mostly within one country and its upgrades dont have to face such a mess.

https://www.ft.com/content/7f7cb524-632 ... 2f7ee26895

Austria to phase out Eurofighter jets
Decision blamed on spiralling costs and aircraft’s military limitations
He went on: “We need to get the escalating costs of the Eurofighter under control and minimise the enormous cost risks associated with it.”


Example of complicated supply chain..
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... bat-ready/
According to a report in Der Spiegel, the Bundeswehr has claimed in an official report to the Bundestag (Germany's legislature) that 39 Typhoon fighters were designated as ready for missions last year. But that report named any aircraft that was capable of flying as being "ready." In fact, only 10 aircraft currently have all their systems functioning, because of a problem that has plagued the defensive aid subsystem (DASS) of Germany's version of the Typhoon.

One component of the DASS is a wing pod that contains the aircraft's electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment—its gear for jamming the radar of incoming missiles—and parts of the aircraft's electronic support measure systems, which include radar lock warning and target identification.

During the development of the Typhoon, Germany decided to break off from the Eurofighter consortium and fund the development of a domestically built DASS by Daimler Aerospace (DASA). Eventually Germany re-entered the fold, and DASA was absorbed into the European defense conglomerate EADS. But the money-saving maneuvering has continued, as the Bundestag strove to reduce stock in repair parts and opt for "just-in-time" ordering.

Unfortunately, the DASS pods on Germany's Typhoons have been failing because of coolant leaks. And the supplier for the part needed to repair the leak is no longer in business. As the rest of Eurofighters' customers are upgrading their DASS systems to the Praetorian DASS from the Italian defense company Leonardo, the factory for the part was sold—and Germany, which did not opt for the upgrade, is now left without a supplier.


The Rafale is a multirole fighter. The EF is more of an A2A jet with A2G upgrades and is still struggling with a long term funded roadmap and is held hostage by 4 governments any one of which can put an oar in the IAFs serviceability.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7106
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Prasad » 15 Mar 2019 01:29

None of which have any love for us anyway.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 01:37

Katare wrote:You and CAG both are saying the same thing.....

The DPP states that SQRs should be broad based and realistic. It further states that the
SQRs must express the user’s requirement in terms of functional characteristics and its
formulation must not prejudice the technical choices by being narrow and tailor-made.
However, instead of stating the user’s requirement in terms of functional parameters,
ASQRs specified the exact design or technology required to perform the desired
function. This created difficulties during technical evaluation and different
technologies, even if they served the same functional requirements were rendered noncompliant
with the narrowly defined ASQRs. Audit identified six such parameters.


Yes, but this is only one part of the process. What CAG et al dont understand that is some SQRs will automatically prejudice technical choices!! This for instance, is completely stupid on the CAGs part to complain that ASQRs specified the exact design or technology required to perform the desired function... because they sometimes must.

Let me explain further.

Ideally, IAF should say:

Detect fair dinkum aircraft (with all around RCS of x sq mtr, lowest average of y sq mtr, in z band), in conditions of d jamming at L km distance.

Now, a product developer looks at that and says ok, fire control or no fire control?

IAF says ok, we will modify detect, to detect & acquire & prosecute.

Above results in
Aircraft Mfr 1 --> Radar
AM 2 ---> non conventional sources
AM 3---> Radar

specs from the first result in :
1. Aircraft manufacturer A fields radar B which weighs some 500 odd kg, uses PESA TWT based tech but which means aircraft is huge & heavy & expensive (midway in cost, highest in lifecyle) based on own industrial capability
2. Aircraft manufacturer B relies on datalinks & cooperative engagement with sensor grid (flying/ground based) and onboard IRST (cheapest) based on own industrial and other available sensor capability
3. Aircraft manufacturer C relies on state of the art GaN based fighter radar tech which allows for the above but comes at highest cost based on own industrial capability.

Now, IAF gets to choose between 3 approaches & decide which it wants. If this was done in India, e.g. LCA, then IAF has a role to play in choosing amongst the 3 choices and pushing the one it wants after discussing with designers. But in MMRCA we are buying from 3rd party vendors who have made the choice for us.

Now what IAF did was in *some cases* not all, just specified manufacturer 3's approach. The logic being the guys behind 3 have thought it through, they explained it well, matches our needs, lets go with their approach, we don't quite get vendor 1, 2s approach so we will "shape" the bid by putting "3's approach" in the bid & having 1, 2 demonstrate if they can do likewise.

However, in some other cases, it didn't rationalize this somewhat proper approach & just went by a generic high level (show us what you have) and included that everywhere.

What CAG guys are saying is "don't put 3, both 1 and 2 and 3 should be evaluated equally for optimal price and fairness", which too, honestly is rubbish. Their lack of domain awareness prevents them from understanding that sometimes, in trials, the better kit may emerge and hence the tick the boxes effort on excel may no longer be the entire answer.

What I am saying is from day 1, in MMRCA, AF should have had this high level requirement stuff locked down. What my concerns are, is that even with Rafale, some of the highest level "we need to do x" stuff was driven in part by what the vendor has told them, not from a long term or inhouse evaluation of what their needs were. Thats where reality will bite and vendor lock in, upgrades will pinch us in the future. I am not at all bothered by the fact that the IAF pre-judged what tech mattered most, what I wanted was that the tech selected should also always correspond to the highest level of performance which was the high level baseline, and that baseline should have been set without looking at the Mirage 2000 but at what IAF genuinely needed in a 2020-30s environment.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6339
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby nachiket » 15 Mar 2019 01:42

Austin wrote:There is no feeble attempt made even to rationalise the fleet by reducing the combat types they operate and the weapon systems fleet wide to reduce long term OPEX ......Logistically IAF is in a big mess and adding many types in big and small numbers would have 40 years of impact on IAF OPEX and even CAPEX.

To be fair, the IAF's original attempt at procurement would have rationalized the fleet a bit whether intentionally or not. They wanted 126 M2k's remember? It is the government which refused and forced the multi-vendor MRCA process down their throats.

Just imagine the IAF having 126+40 MICA armed M2k-5's available during the recent confrontation in J&K instead of the 40 mostly non-upgraded ones they did.

Also, you bemoan the current logistical mess on the one hand and argue for buying yet another new type (Gripen, F-16, Mig-35) on the other. It does not make sense.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 01:45

Yes, today. But tomorrow, or say in the 2020-30's, would those 126 Mirage 2000-Vs still be viable against a PLAAF fleet with more & more Flankers & J-20s. We had to go back to France for the Mirage 2000 upgrade because the French made it clear to us, that the cheaper Israeli offer meant a warranty void & hard-ball on long term spares & support. The Mirage 2000s are hence locked to a French upgrade roadmap which at the time, was clearly avoiding technologies on the Rafale (AESA etc) and even other items, we would have to pay through our nose like the UAE guys for the Mirage 2000-9.

The Govt's choice was IMHO correct. The AF was being asked to look at better via the MMRCA & ask for better.

What happened thereafter though was a disaster.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 01:53

Every platform has some string or the other attached. I hope GOI just accelerates AMCA and MWF fast. Enough is enough.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mide ... g-rafales/

DUBAI — The United Arab Emirates is awaiting final assurances from France and the Iraqi government to sell its fleet of Dassault Mirage 2000-9s before completing their deal for 60 Rafale fighters, Defense News has learned.

The UAE has been looking to sell its fleet of Mirage fighters to the Iraqi Air Force since 2011 and over the years discussions have faltered due to France blocking the deal, according to a UAE government official and a French source knowledgeable about the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6339
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby nachiket » 15 Mar 2019 01:56

Karan M wrote:Yes, today. But tomorrow, or say in the 2020-30's, would those 126 Mirage 2000-Vs still be viable against a PLAAF fleet with more & more Flankers & J-20s. We had to go back to France for the Mirage 2000 upgrade because the French made it clear to us, that the cheaper Israeli offer meant a warranty void & hard-ball on long term spares & support.

The Govt's choice was IMHO correct. The AF was being asked to look at better via the MMRCA & ask for better.

I have 3 issues with that.

1. That was not the reason the Gvernment changed the procurement. They changed it because they were scared of a scandal (single vendor situation).
2. It is not the government's job anyway to tell the AF to look at something better. The AF knows what it needs better than the MoD baboos. If the IAF felt that the M2k would suffice why should the government ask them to look at something more expensive, which as it turns out was too expensive for us and we couldn't buy it anyway. It seems the AF knew of our financial limitations better than the government did until they were told otherwise and asked to choose the best from all the contenders. They did that and then were told, "Oh wait. We can't actually afford that."
3. I agree that in ten years the M2k-5 may not be comparable to what the PLAAF can throw at us. But remember that if things had gone according to plan these aircraft would have been procured 15 years ago. You could say the same about the Rafale in the 2040's.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 02:15

nachiket wrote:I have 3 issues with that.

1. That was not the reason the Gvernment changed the procurement. They changed it because they were scared of a scandal (single vendor situation).


Be as it may, it was the right thing to have done. The Mirage 2000 V Mk2 was fundamentally a platform with no growth path because the OEM vendor has a competing product they wish to push hard & they provide no support for 3rd party systems integration which we have to do on our own. Even the upgraded Mirages (ironically) are not compatible with some key items which were present on the non upgraded Mirages, having been integrated by India on its own.

2. It is not the government's job anyway to tell the AF to look at something better. The AF knows what it needs better than the MoD baboos. If the IAF felt that the M2k would suffice why should the government ask them to look at something more expensive, which as it turns out was too expensive for us and we couldn't buy it anyway. It seems the AF knew of our financial limitations better than the government did until they were told otherwise and asked to choose the best from all the contenders. They did that and then were told, "Oh wait. We can't actually afford that."


The AF is unfortunately often not in a case that it knows what it needs better than the MOD baboos and vice versa. Both were locked in a dysfunctional, adversarial relationship without a proper policy led from the top down that looks at threats far into the future, immediate and tomorrows needs and leads them. This is a bane of the Indian set up, the French for instance know exactly what their limitations are, their sensor grid is, national requirements are, and create a Rafale tailored to that. The Russians know what they expect of their VVS, and then create a Su-30 from a Su-27 and so forth. We buy stuff. And when you buy stuff, you take what's available and sometime's whats available is either limited or just wont meet your needs for tomorrow.
The IA purchased the T-90. Today, they have a RFI out saying well, we just discovered the tank guns are at an evolutionary dead end and we need to replace the guns. This after they released RFIs asking for better ammo and finally realized what the DRDO/ROW developers were hollering.
So, there is definitely a huge dysfunction in our system wherein we buy what "we can get" for "yesterdays wars" (read Kargil) & run the risk of missing tomorrows conflicts.
Now coming to affordability/unaffordability.. would a Mirage 2000 V purchase have been that much cheaper? Take a look at the Mirage 2000 upgrades or the UAE 2000-9 purchase, with TOT, weapons packages etc .. it would have been a bomb even so.
So in the same vein about unintended consequences.. the IAF asked for something which was "more affordable" but it was not their primary aim. Their aim was to get an immediate combat boost because at the time, the Su-30s were in a torrid state serviceability wise (Su-30 Ks), the MKI had many many teething issues & Mirage 2000 had done a great job at Kargil.
Even today, can Mirage 2000s with Mica necessarily have an edge against Pakistani F-16s.. not necessarily unless we go passive, sneak around and Mica-IR them. In head on comparisons, the AMRAAM + AIDEWS equipped F-16 may have an edge or be equivalent against our upgraded Mirages.
So, the MOD's critical failure & to an extent, the IAFs has been to not set up this proper long term intrinsic threat & tech forecasting cell which worked with chosen vendors, Indian & abroad over a long term to come up with specific solutions for its long term needs. Instead of buy-modify-didn't like-buysomethingelse-MOD says run out of money etc.

3. I agree that in ten years the M2k-5 may not be comparable to what the PLAAF can throw at us. But remember that if things had gone according to plan these aircraft would have been procured 15 years ago. You could say the same about the Rafale in the 2040's.


Even if they were acquired 15 years ago, they would have to remain in service for another 25 years, what of the roadmap then? Can these fighters be upgraded today, to meet what we are seeing with the PLAAF's advanced Flankers?
This is fundamentally the difference between the Mirage 2000 & F-16 roadmaps. The latter have kept getting the latest in tech despite the F-35. Dassault OTOH does not want Mirage 2000 to cannibalize its Rafales so deliberately kept the latter at a somewhat lower level & has let the platform remain at that level with previous gen tech in many areas. The Gripen NG can field Meteors. Does a Mirage 2000 equivalent exist with an AESA radar able to do likewise? No, because that's where Dassault is pitching the Rafale & they don't want competition & if we wanted that sort of tech insertion to keep the Mirage 2000 current, we have to pay through our nose for that.
In contrast, the Rafale is now France's new fleet of choice. Its upgrade roadmap exists & is funded for the next decade or so and the aircraft will be kept viable. We can then buy into an upgrade which won't be unique to us.
Lastly, spares. Can we ensure all the suppliers of the M-53 supply us into the 2030s? One way or the other, we would have had to retire the Mirage 2000s as they are approaching the end of their lives. The upgrade keeps them going as multirole strikers against PAF but for the price and a 126 aircraft deal, we need far more.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Mar 2019 04:04

Austin wrote:They cannot afford more Rafale because if they did they would have gone for 36+36 or 36+54 with the original deal with outright purchase done.

Parrikar has clearly said that Rafale is a very costly aircraft and IAF does not need more than 36 and the original 126 AC deal would cost MOD 22 Billion USD in 2014 cost to be paid over 12 years something they cannot afford.

So some how we insisting that we should go for more 36 or 50 or 80 more has no basis whatsoever ...... If they could afford those they would have gone with those numbers with the original deal and would have got a much better cost than just buying 36 because of economics of scale of buying larger numbers.

Again incorrect. There was an urgent need to shore up the squadron numbers and the 126 MMRCA deal was going nowhere. Therefore the Govt ordered two squadrons worth of the Rafale. The same was done in the 80s, when the PAF acquired 40 F-16A/B. The IAF response was to the PAF acquisition of the F-16 was --->

1) Two squadrons of the MiG-23MF, the Indian Air Force's first BVR fighter. Armed with R-23, R-27 and R-40 BVR missiles. Later on, the R-73 close combat missile was also fitted I believe. However compared to the agile F-16, the MiG-23MF was a disappointment.

2) Next came two squadrons of the Mirage 2000 in 1985 - No 1 Tigers and No 7 Battle Axes. A much more potent platform and a worthy adversary to the F-16. Armed with the Super 530D and the Matra Magic II.

3) With local production of the Mirage 2000 fizzling out, then came the MiG-29. Initially two squadrons (No 28 First Supersonics and No 47 Black Archers) were ordered and a third one (No 223 Tridents) came later on.

The key point to note is that two squadrons are always the first batch. They are considered immediate. Additional aircraft are acquired depending upon need. Now please do not argue that since we bought three different type of aircraft to counter the F-16, thus the IAF will do the same with the next purchase. Those three different types were all for different reasons, as indicated above. Again, I emphasize the point to note is that two squadrons is the standard based on urgency.

Parrikar is gone. We now have another Defence Minister. Her name is Nirmala Sitharaman. You keep talking about Parrikar, as if his words are Gospel Truth. Defence Ministers come and go, Prime Ministers come and go and even IAF officers come and go! But if the IAF sees the value in additional Rafales, then additional Rafales is what they will get.

You keep talking about the cost of the original 126 deal and then argue for 110 MiG-35s, Gripen Es or F-16/F-21s. What do you think that deal is going to cost? This is not like buying bhel puri off a roadside vendor. The new MMRCA deal for 110 fighters will cost nothing short of $20 billion by the time you factor in all the bells & whistles listed in the RFI.

That economies of scale theory of yours is laughable. It does not work that way.

Austin wrote:Can you imagine how much Rafale would cost in 2020 compared to 2014 with Military inflation running twice that of civilian one and there was no clause in Original Rafale Deal that a follow up x numbers will be bought in some specified time frame to tie up the cost.

The idea of 110 fighter is to look at cheaper alternative that can be bought can be built in numbers to replace depleting squadron plus as a hedge against Tejas if the numbers do not bump up in the way IAF wants it.

The 110 fighter will be the low cost fighter option both in terms of LCC and LIC/TOT etc and even though you may agree or not , I dont see any thing other than F-16 , Gripen and Mig-35 making that cut.

One can calculate - fairly accurately - how much 2 additional squadrons of the Rafale will be.

Please see picture below and then read further on.

Image

I am going to go with an additional 36 Rafales, based on the table above.

* 36 Rafales x $105 million (unit cost) = $3.8 Billion
* Air-to-Air/Ground Weaponry = $1.2 Billion
* India Specific Enhancements = $2 Billion

The above comes to $7 Billion as $2 Billion will be saved in base infrastructure. I have mentioned this a number of times before - Ambala and Hasimara are being built up to house two squadrons *EACH* of the Rafale. Now even if you factor in inflation, it still will not be anywhere close to the $20 billion that 110 MiG-35s, Gripen Es or F-16/F-21s (your selection) will cost. Three additional Rafale squadrons would be ideal or 54 aircraft, so a total of 90 aircraft.

The remaining numbers could be made up via the following and will be ready well before all 110 MiG-35s, Gripen Es or F-16/F-21s are inducted;

* 18 Su-30MKI kits in negotiations with Russia
* 21 MiG-29 air frames in negotiations with Russia
* Additional Tejas Mk1 units, 2 - 3 more squadrons
* Complete the Darin III upgrade program for the Jaguar
* Another 20 Tejas Mk1A aircraft, therefore 1 additional squadron
* Additional Mirage 2000-9s (if available) to shore up No 9 Wolfpacks

Do all of the above and it will still work out cheaper than 110 MiG-35s, Gripen Es or F-16/F-21s. And it will also work out much quicker than completing the order for 110 MiG-35s, Gripen Es or F-16/F-21s.

The Tejas production is progressing fairly well. There is no bump, as you are insinuating. That is your imagination running wild. Just as you believe that the 110 fighters will be a low cost option. None of the OEMs - Rafale included - are low cost options.

The only cost effective option is the Tejas in different variants - Mk1, Mk1A and the Mk2. The Tejas will be India's mass produced fighter in triple digits. Cancel that RFI and invest in the above.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Mar 2019 04:07

Katare wrote:
Rakesh wrote:I think Austin got caught up in the recent CAG report, which stated that the MiG-35 was the only contender - in MMRCA 1.0 - to have met all the ASQRs :lol:


It did not saar.....here is what it said, directly from the CAG report (No DDM involved)

Audit noted that aircraft of none of the six vendors that participated in the tender, could
meet all the ASQR parameters in technical evaluation. ASQRs parameters were
narrowly defined. In some cases they were also not clearly defined.

Not necessarily :) This is from the CAG Report. But Karan Saar has explained that bit about the ASQR.

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36228
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby SaiK » 15 Mar 2019 05:29

Think about this: Couple of Squads of Rafale will boost the operational capability of IAF. Any MMRCA requirement draft will get a direct challenge from such operational data, and the future (ASQRs, x number of MMRCA) selection must match or better Rafale capability - This puts a pressure on homegrown MWFs as well ;) #justsaying

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2810
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby fanne » 15 Mar 2019 06:54

Rakesh wrote:Please see picture below and then read further on.

Image

I am going to go with an additional 36 Rafales, based on the table above.

* 36 Rafales x $105 million (unit cost) = $3.8 Billion
* Air-to-Air/Ground Weaponry = $1.2 Billion
* India Specific Enhancements = $2 Billion

I think the calculation is wrong. 36 Raf comes at 5 billion. Why would you again pay 2 billion for India Specific enhancement (I believe this was money for developing India specific enhancement). If they are equipment then yes, 2 B needs to be added.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16688
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2019 07:41

sahay wrote:what was the point of the entire exercise? A collective waste of money and time. DPP has clearly failed its objective here, and is useful only to project an air of transparency and fairness.


You do realize, that even if the above were true, which is highly debatable, the authors taken rather creative liberties with his analysis... IAF now has a complete 360 degree understanding of the 5 of the world's premier platforms, 2 of which, at one time or the other, were either on offer or in service, in a variant, in an adversary force. So no, it was not a collective waste of money and time.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Iyersan, madhu, RamSuresh, Sanju, sarathy, sudeepj, suryag and 137 guests