Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Philip » 18 Feb 2012 09:40

Where is the comma,why no full stop? This is only to be expected as the loser will pull out every stop to try and sabotage the conclusion of the contract.Expect more dirty tricks .

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Vipul » 18 Feb 2012 18:23

If the objections are made in writing and have been made known, the detractors know that AK Antony to protect his squeaky clean image will pick up the gauntlet in trying to review it , or there is enough scope for any one of the 4 stage MOD clearance determinants to pick this up, not to speak of the CVC, the NSC or the Ministry of Finance. We have to remember that it was the MOF which had taken objection to the Airbus tanker deal after the MOD had approved it and is now going through the retendering process.It will be interesting to see at what price the deal will now be clinched as compared to the "previous high" prices.
It will be very pertinent to find if these bureaucrats have objection to the life cycle cost parameter and the calculations thereof just in the case of Rafale (Nit-picking to sabotage it) or if they object to the indice/methodology in general and are thus contesting the resultant life costs arrived both for Rafale and Eurofighter.If it is the former then Dassault will have to be very savvy with these thick skinned, pot bellied and rank pulling bureaucrats.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6704
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shyamd » 19 Feb 2012 05:11

AKA told IAF Chief that MRCA will be scrapped if anything dodgy (read: Corruption) by IAF in the L1 evaluation is found.

skganji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Location: U.SA/India.

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby skganji » 19 Feb 2012 05:57

pandyan wrote:so, what's wrong in asking questions? it is part of the review process.


There is nothing wrong in questions if they are asked with a genuine interest . How much does this MoD officials know about a Military aircraft, technical aspects of it . Do they really understand the intricacies of a military aircraft selection ?. These officials may be just corrupted . Who knows what happens in the government circles in Delhi and how the money flows through the hands of these officials. Enough of these non-sense by GOI in Bofors scam. Recently read about Amar Singh's involvement in Cash-for-Votes scam and how UPA-I survived buying MPs. The GOI can't be trusted that it will be corrupt free even in this aircraft selection. Already Britain is upset with Raffy's selection. Who knows what the Brits might be secretly doing in Delhi pulling the strings to scrap Raffy's selection ?. Just wait and see Tamasha till the MoF clears this deal. Overall it should be based on Technology and other factors like Cost and overall management of the aircraft are essential in making this selection. IAF can't waste their precious time again they spent on this selection .

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kartik » 19 Feb 2012 08:03

An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 19 Feb 2012 08:11

Its a whole new process (that not only took into account the unit prices but also calculated the 'life cycle costs' - which takes into account the cost of maintenance and spares for the period, estimated at 40 years, the aircraft would remain operational) and is the FIRST of its kind in the world, ever! When calculating life-cycle costs for the coming 40 years, aren't certain assumptions bound to be made?? There is no way to be 'precise'. The assumptions were probably made with the 'most likely' predictable use of the aircraft over a number of years based on the information available today. There is no way in hell one can come up with precise numbers without making certain assumptions.

Its like someone asking them to precisely predict the future and even if they come up with most probable scenario, its not good enough.. If its a matter of miscalculation, its understandable but when a finance minister questions officials about cost associated with respect to their assumptions (for example..) of likely flying hours, sorties, fuel consumption for those sorties, service hours, etc over the course of the life of the aircraft, it seems ridiculously unreasonable. I just hope common sense prevails.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 19 Feb 2012 08:17

Kartik wrote:An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale


Absolutely fantastic.. Thanks Kartik.

Love his conclusion :)

If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Singha » 19 Feb 2012 08:30

methinks IAF is not too worried about radar size limitation. with lots of MKI and lots of PAKFA plus increasing awacs cover they are confident of big radar coverage so they went for the best strike oriented plane which no doubt is the rafale.

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby suryag » 19 Feb 2012 08:37

Thanks Karthik ji, how inept are the french they can produce only 12ac/year. They are as inept as the HAL which can only produce the same number of LCAs. LCA MK3(if at all there is ever one) would be what raffy is right now

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kartik » 19 Feb 2012 08:42

shukla wrote:Its a whole new process (that not only took into account the unit prices but also calculated the 'life cycle costs' - which takes into account the cost of maintenance and spares for the period, estimated at 40 years, the aircraft would remain operational) and is the FIRST of its kind in the world, ever! When calculating life-cycle costs for the coming 40 years, aren't certain assumptions bound to be made?? There is no way to be 'precise'. The assumptions were probably made with the 'most likely' predictable use of the aircraft over a number of years based on the information available today. There is no way in hell one can come up with precise numbers without making certain assumptions.

Its like someone asking them to precisely predict the future and even if they come up with most probable scenario, its not good enough.. If its a matter of miscalculation, its understandable but when a finance minister questions officials about cost associated with respect to their assumptions (for example..) of likely flying hours, sorties, fuel consumption for those sorties, service hours, etc over the course of the life of the aircraft, it seems ridiculously unreasonable. I just hope common sense prevails.


Its not the first time in the world. Companies like Boeing and Airbus do such analyses regularly while pitching aircraft for airlines. Boeing especially has some very good analysts who have some good models on airplane performance, lifecycle costs including introductory costs and maintenance costs. From being personally involved in such analyses, I can say that a LOT of assumptions are made because some real world scenarios just cannot be modelled without making a model that becomes extremely complicated.

For instance, how does one know the exact utilization per day (in flight hours) that an airline will make of its fleet for 50 years? They go with a simpler calculation that basically looks at the routes that the airplane will serve, the estimated time for each route, the network efficiency factor for the airline and then come up with the number of flights per day- using that they devise the maintenance schedule for 50 years (when a A, B or C check must happen) to come up with the estimated costs of operating that airplane over 50 years.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kartik » 19 Feb 2012 08:45

suryag wrote:Thanks Karthik ji, how inept are the french they can produce only 12ac/year. They are as inept as the HAL which can only produce the same number of LCAs. LCA MK3(if at all there is ever one) would be what raffy is right now


They aren't inept. THey are simply producing what is the least number of Rafales they can while maintaining that assembly line. The French govt. cannot afford to acquire the number of Rafales that Dassault can produce, so the 12/year is a mutually agreed number. Dassault can scale up that line to 36 per year if they need to.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 19 Feb 2012 08:51

Kartik wrote:For instance, how does one know the exact utilization per day (in flight hours) that an airline will make of its fleet for 50 years? They go with a simpler calculation that basically looks at the routes that the airplane will serve, the estimated time for each route, the network efficiency factor for the airline and then come up with the number of flights per day- using that they devise the maintenance schedule for 50 years (when a A, B or C check must happen) to come up with the estimated costs of operating that airplane over 50 years.


So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4331
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby putnanja » 19 Feb 2012 10:43

Assumptions are based on some historical data, which IAF used to calculate the figures. It may be that the Defence ministry officers might not be aware it, or need more clarifications. One cannot make assumptions in vacuum. There needs to be some basis for assumptions. And some members are asking how those assumptions are arrived at. So whats the big deal, happens in many companies too. We are making a big deal of the file notings.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3409
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kartik » 19 Feb 2012 13:56

shukla wrote:So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..


The reason may be that in this case, some of the assumptions may have been made after consulting with the customer. In Boeing's case, they know their equipment and its time before breakdown or failure, so they can give a good ballpark figure of how much it costs to keep a particular piece of equipment in service before a scheduled check comes up.

In this case, the IAF has no way of knowing when a particular equipment on board the Rafale may fail except for asking Dassault and AdlA to provide some data that they could use in their calculations. Some equipment may not even be in service, so how is one to come up with their longevity or their maintenance headaches? When we got the Kopyo for the Bison, its advertised MTBF was one thing, and its real MTBF quite another. Which would mean that had they done a life-cycle cost analysis of how many man-hours it would take to keep the Kopyo in service and how many spares would be required for that, they'd find that their calculations would've been wrong because they had gone with the manufacturer's data.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the calculations are skewed in Dassault's favour- the same is true of every other manufacturer as well who would've been consulted and asked to give data that was used in the life-cycle costs calculations.

Companies like GE, that provide turbofans to airlines have to keep a very very tight watch over their predicted failure rates, since they basically provide warranties for each turbofan that end up costing them a bundle if the engines fail for any reason that cannot be blamed on the user. So they do very detailed failure analyses using methods to statistically determine the odds of a particular failure occurring over a very large number of simulations (Monte Carlo simulations where thousands of cases are run with each variable being randomly varied). If the odds of it failing are very low, they are more comfortable making claims of a certain piece of equipement lasting as long as they claimed it will when they sold it to the customer.

If the IAF is going to introduce clauses in its contract that hold the manufacturer responsible for penalties if their equipment fails to meet the MTBF data they've given for the life-cycle cost calculations, then they may find out to their shock that the MTBF numbers may suddenly drop dramatically. After all brochure figures are one thing, and in-field figures are another. This is also what has happened to the IA, with the T-90, where the manufacturer's claimed performance and reliability specs are hugely bloated and are routinely exposed as being unreliable when the equipment is used in conditions that are dramatically different from bench test conditions or the relatively benign environments of the OEM nation.

That is one of the reasons why some Air Forces are now literally renting out the hours for operating some aircraft, such as trainers (Israel is also following that route, with an IAI/Elbit JV called TOR to buy the M-346 Master and then rent out each flying hour to the IsAF). Why be responsible for all the hassles that arise out of the equipment failing prematurely if another company is willing to do it for you, make sure that your reliability goals (which are paramount for any service) are met AND go run after the OEM when equipment doesn't meet reliability requirements?

Another model is where the OEM offers to meet the customer's reliability requirements with support contracts, but this is again basically money in their pockets for doing something that they claim their aircraft can do anyway. For e.g. Boeing offers a warranty with the C-17 that the user can buy, which basically takes care of this situation arising- they offer the guarantee that a specified range of requirements will be met. If they cannot meet that requirement, they stand to pay for not doing so.

Reliability and maintainability are two outstanding benefits of the C-17 system. Current operational requirements impose demanding reliability and maintainability. These requirements include an aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent, only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour, and full and partial mission availability rates of 74.7 and 82.5 percent, respectively. The Boeing warranty assures these figures will be met.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby VishalJ » 19 Feb 2012 16:59

PHOTO of Me, Shiv & Dassault Test Pilot Dominique Sébastien who gave me his 'France' Patch which he has worn while & since flying Rafale missions over Afghanistan.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 19 Feb 2012 17:21

Kartik wrote:
shukla wrote:So in essence, there are bound to be assumptions (which is what I was trying to point to in a round about way as well)..then why the questions? Why not just accept that assumptions are going to be a part of such a complicated calculation process and move on? Why question the assumptions? Is to come up with an alternate set of assumptions as these ones were not representative enough of the potential use of the aircraft? And who's to say those won't be questioned? In which case it sounds like a never ending story..


The reason may be that in this case, some of the assumptions may have been made after consulting with the customer. In Boeing's case, they know their equipment and its time before breakdown or failure, so they can give a good ballpark figure of how much it costs to keep a particular piece of equipment in service before a scheduled check comes up.


I see your point. Just hope its just a routine part of the process and doesn't serve as seeds for unwarranted and unwanted media attention to derail, what should be, a reasonably smooth acquisition process.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby member_22539 » 19 Feb 2012 19:01

Kartik wrote:
suryag wrote:Thanks Karthik ji, how inept are the french they can produce only 12ac/year. They are as inept as the HAL which can only produce the same number of LCAs. LCA MK3(if at all there is ever one) would be what raffy is right now


They aren't inept. THey are simply producing what is the least number of Rafales they can while maintaining that assembly line. The French govt. cannot afford to acquire the number of Rafales that Dassault can produce, so the 12/year is a mutually agreed number. Dassault can scale up that line to 36 per year if they need to.


Yet this logic won't apply to the LCA or the Rafale itself if made by HAL, another example of the negative bias against anything remotely native.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Singha » 19 Feb 2012 21:06

^ :rotfl:

so its the PLAAF which is kimono shivering this time - the writer saying the J-10B and J-11 even with improved engines and radars would be insufficient to deal with the rafale.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kanson » 19 Feb 2012 22:12

Kartik wrote:An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale


Even if it is Nth time, always fresh to read.

The final handling manoeuvre was to complete a low-speed loop in full afterburner starting from 170kt and maintaining 16° AoA. The loop was simple to fly and control and I used just over 2,000ft vertically to complete it:
There was a debate here whether a/c can employ afterburner in low speed loop seen in Airshows.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35341
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2012 23:49

so babudom adds the real strategic aspect of expenses for the enemy.. the more time we take to decide, the enemy goes into faster acquisitions.. and suddenly, for the enemy all those investments are a waste since the new delayed acquisition of India is much much superior! haaha!

still.. I would say superior, only when we get GaN for Rafale, and if possible slam a mig29ish retractable refuler pod.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3746
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Rakesh » 20 Feb 2012 00:09

RKumar, I am very disappointed that you posted that analysis by China military outlook. We have many Chinese apologists on this forum (and elsewhere) who will read that and claim that it is all bogus. In fact the F-10, F-11 and the upcoming J-20 are the best that the aviation world has ever seen --> bar the F-18 Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II. In fact only these two aircraft are capable of keeping India's lungi intact and right where it should be. Now that the Rafale has been chosen as L1, India's very future as a nation is now in doubt...because swarms of J-20s, F-11s and F-10s will now fly over Delhi in a victory fly past for the slap that we are about to get from the Chinese. Only China makes the world's best - with the exception of America - military equipment. The rest...like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.

In fact the J-20 is so advanced and state-of-the-art, that even before concrete & verifiable information about ANY of its capabilities are out...we are already dhoti shivering. All hail Mao!

P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby naird » 20 Feb 2012 00:26

Kartik wrote:An old article on the flight test of the Rafale by Peter Collins for FlightGlobal magazine. The best details you'll ever get on the Rafale anywhere! A must read for all BRFites interested in knowing what the Rafale is like.

Flight Test- Rampant Rafale


It is always a fantastic read - love to read it every time !!

However Critics (read Typhoon fans) have severly questioned his professional analysis and quite a many of them dismissed it as being too childish in making 'fanboy' remarks! Reason being cited are as follows - The only modern fighter that Peter has undertaken sortie on is the Rafale ! - He does not - has not evaluated any of other modern - contemporary fighters (EF, F18 , Gripen , etc). He used to be a Wing Co for the earlier versions of Harrier jet and as such is not abreast of the recent developments in aviation industry. Due to this fact he was bowled over when he saw Rafale without understanding pretty much all fighters nowadays offers similar capabilities....

Anyways who cares - i have bookmarked that link !!

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby RKumar » 20 Feb 2012 00:51

^ :rotfl:

Well it was nice to read sensible analysis then keeping our dhotis wet without knowing the shortcomings and strengths of the opponent. The problem in relation to China is language, so we really don't know their real capabilities. Other nations produce reports to serve and implant their goals in our head. I would like to see people try to find out more and more about their real capabilities coming from their own mouth although I admit it is really hard and time consuming task to find any useful info.

From day one Raffy was my favourite ... and I am happy that IAF, MoD and GoI selected it. But I would like to see India getting critical technology which can help us setting up robotic LCA and AMCA production lines along with engine R&D setup and production. Well we still have a long way to go, GoI, MoD, DRDO and HAL has major and serious work to do this time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35341
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby SaiK » 20 Feb 2012 02:34

I hope HAL gets into integration and testing, while major of components and parts assembly line goes to private sector.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby rohitvats » 20 Feb 2012 04:19

Rakesh wrote: <SNIP>P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.


You counter-revolutionary bourgeois you......you need to be sent immediately to the re-education camp for spreading western propaganda against the glorious movement of the proletariat..... :twisted: :mrgreen: :P

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Philip » 20 Feb 2012 06:07

Lohit,you are long.You need to be le-educated! The words should be spert as "counter-levoutionaly,"le-education","plopaganda"and "ploletaliat"!

Comlade Lakesh is no counter-levolutionaly,he is showing himserf to be a rickspittle petit-bourgeois lunning dog of capitarism.Islaeri Ravi indeed!
Just wait and see who gleat-reader-in-waiting Comlade Xi "Jumping" Jinping wirr make exampre of.... "Short-Lee",pun intended!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15780
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby NRao » 20 Feb 2012 06:55

God, what has become of these threads? Georgian flags, a deformed cheetah, and now we have the unique French influence of inability to spell words properly? Down with the Rafale. Banish it to the underworld. Let the Ozies buy it.

One to more serious maters, we need a name change. Here from a very authoritative source:

Katrina can't dance

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2012 08:15

the J-10 has the size and boxy shape of the Mig-31 albeit with bigger wings and canards. so it should be fast and more manouverable than Mig-31. but a dogfighter or wvr kamandu it does not look like.

if it reaches production in this form factor would be suited for a high alt BVR standoff shootdown LRAAM mission like Mig31 and naval ASM strike using high loiter time/range to outlast and wear down enemy CAP units.

but no doubt they are working on a parallel project to produce a J-10 sized fighter and that will be the one to watch...not this elephant.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 20 Feb 2012 16:33

BAE Eurofighter: Warton and Salmesbury 'no direct job losses'

Mr Menzies is among a group of MPs meeting David Cameron later to "reiterate the importance" the Eurofighter has to the region. He said: "We want to drive home to him that everything must be done even at this late stage to secure this order. "The deal is very important, not just for the export potential of this aircraft, but also for the jobs and the skills we have in the North West."


Thought of a perfect kahavat for the Brits.. "haath to aya par muh na lag" :wink:

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 21 Feb 2012 12:32

New horizons
The Week - Air Vice Marshal Mohan John (retd)

The main challenges in inducting the Rafale to the IAF will be training and infrastructure

The air force is more technology oriented than the army or the navy. In a combat scenario, all other factors being the same, the air force with better technology will come out ahead. With two nuclear-armed neighbours, and given India's political relationship with them, it is imperative that the IAF has the best technology that the country can afford. The MMRCA deal is about induction of such technology.

In 1974, the IAF was trying to inculcate cost consciousness among its personnel. One step taken was to mark each item of equipment, including the aircraft, with its cost. Every time you came near the MiG-21 FL, you were reminded that the aircraft cost 076 lakh. Today, you will not get a high-end car for that money! This aspect of the low cost of Soviet/Russian aircraft became a kind of mantra in the IAF. As the IAF progressed professionally, the flaw in this logic came out. The IAF had started the process of ‘life cycle cost' studies of the aircraft in its inventory. By then it had inducted a number of MiG variants (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27 and MiG-29) and the Mirage-2000. The study brought out that, when the life cycle costs are worked out, aircraft like the MiG-29 are not really cheap.

In 1985, I joined the newly inducted Mirage-2000 fleet. The aircraft was a technological marvel. What surprised me the most was the ease with which you could adapt to and assimilate these new technologies. I think it was the way in which it was presented to the pilot in the cockpit. It all seemed so natural and logical, and left you wondering how you managed without these technologies so far. While the aircraft performance was in a different league, mainly because of the innovative fly-by-wire system, basic flying was extremely simple. It was the management of the onboard systems that required skill. The availability of onboard systems like the multimode radar and the navigation and weapon-aiming systems made it possible to exploit the aircraft operationally for tasks limited only by your imagination.

Also, the Mirage-2000 has an exceptionally good flight safety record. As I went up in the hierarchy of the IAF, I got to see these aircraft from a different perspective. As the chief operations officer of a flying base, and thereafter as a base commander, I realised that the MiG-21 and other Soviet/Russian aircraft were not really maintenance friendly. Keeping these aircraft fly-worthy was a challenge. Compared with them, the Mirage-2000 was in a totally different league.

The Mirage-2000 is built on a modular concept. Most modules had built-in test equipment. If the test showed ‘no-go', the faulty module just had to be pulled out and replaced with a functional module, and you were good to go. Even the engine was a module. Replacing an engine, which is required at times, took a little more than an hour. In the case of the MiG-21, an engine change was a major job which took significantly longer time and more effort to accomplish.

In 1993, I was part of the team bringing in more Mirage-2000 aircraft from France. Dassault, the manufacturer of the aircraft, made it a point to show us the Rafale, which was in the process of being operationalised for induction into the French air force and navy. The aircraft embodied an extension of the Mirage-2000 philosophy, but was more than a generation ahead in technology.

My association with the Mirage-2000 fleet included a fair amount of interaction with the French representatives, especially from Dassault. They are hard-nosed businessmen. If you have the money, and are willing to pay, they will deliver the required service. They did not seem too concerned with matters like foreign policy. However, like any businessmen, they will not waste an opportunity to exploit the customer if the opportunity arises.

In 2006, I was part of a delegation to the Farnborough Air Show. The Indian delegation was in demand because of the MMRCA deal. We were given briefings by all vendors in the fray. One common point about the two American vendors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was that, when queried about specific equipment or weapon options for the F-18 and the F-16, the standard reply was “We will have to check with the State Department”. I do not think Dassault does business under such constraints. The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby shukla » 21 Feb 2012 12:44

The power of high technology
MyDigital - Arun Kumar (Professor of strategy and corporate governance, IIM-Lucknow)

Technological innovations have caused a fundamental shift in the science and management of warfare and national defence preparedness, especially in the past 25 ye­ars. Rather than being a te­st of numerical strength, organisation and bravery, wars have become extensions of computer games, joysticks and GPS systems picking up data from satellite systems. Unmanned US drone aircraft are a great example where experts sitting in front of computer screens command it to aim at and destroy a high-value target sitting in a moving vehicle 5,000 km away (from Hawaii) in an otherwise inaccessible Waziristan area. Firms are introducing other major technological innovations such as remote ja­mming of communication eq­uipment, enemy radars and aircraft, hacking computers for intelligence, and hitting the enemy precisely.

A state-of-the-art airplane has to do all of these while maintaining its firing systems integrity, achieving quick advantage in case of dogfights and dropping payloads precisely deep into enemy territory while avoiding detection. Each of these technologies is an extremely sophisticated combination of other pieces of technologies. An example is stealth capability, which is a combination of plane design, flight capabilities (high-angle vertical manoeuvres and low-flying), material coatings and onboard software. The pilot’s seat and cockpit, his visor-helmets, and onboard avionics are pieces of fly-by-wire technology that helps control and maintain the man-machine interface. Nations that have such technologies have a great sense of pride and accomplishment and showcase it to the rest of the world. French president Nicholas Sarkozy, for example, hops from one country capital to the next across the globe whether it is Brasilia, New Delhi, Abu Dhabi or Kuwait, lobbying to sell the planes. One should not expect our prime minister to go out and sell rice, wheat and tea to the world — that would be humiliating.

It is indeed ironical that a nation, which worships Ma Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge and Ma Laxhmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity, has to import the former and export the latter. Ideally, it should the other way around. Unfortunately, we as a nation rely heavily on destiny, heavenly miracles and false oracles hoping to come out of miseries and afflictions. Prosperity is an outcome of a nation’s capability to imagine and envision a future and determinedly create an eco-system where brain-intensive enterprises thrive. Small nations without many natural resources in Europe are prosperous by selling brain-made goods to developing nations (such as Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon).

Finally, based on personal observations as a professor at universities in France, Britain and Germany, I offer three pieces of gratuitous advice to the Indian team that will negotiate price and business terms with Dassault Aviation — makers of Rafale: One, there are steep experience curve effects on high-tech and capital intensive-items such as a fighter plane. In brief, this scientific principle means that for every doubling of cumulative output, the production costs come down by a certain exponential factor. In simple terms, this can result in huge cost benefits to the manufacturer. For example, if an item costs Rs 1,000 for the first output, and has an experience effect factor of say 20 per cent (common in equipment with large development costs), the 128th piece shall cost only Rs 380. At this factor rate, conceptually, if the first Rafale costs Rs 600 crore, then the 128th would cost only Rs 228 crore. Second, do not let the glamorous yet chimerical ch­arm of Paris, champagne, Mo­ulin Rouge cabaret and other (monetary and material) allurements soften the hardball approach required to safeguard Indian security and financial interests. It happened in the case of Mirage fighter aircraft. Third, the project has long gestation periods, delivery and transfer-of-tec­hn­ology and maintenance sch­edules. The team needs to have a watertight contract on price escalations. The country has already suffered steep cost increases for the retro-fitted Ru­ssian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (now INS Vikramaditya). The French negotiating te­am will certainly have tho­ught deeply about the scientific principles, financial aspects, as well as how to exploit the traditional psychological we­aknesses of Indians. Negotiation is also a high-tech game, implications of which cannot be underestimated.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12487
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Feb 2012 13:25

^^^ gratuituous advice indeed. poor understanding of defense tech, and rather patronising to think that procurement specialists don't understand price curves...

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12896
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby negi » 21 Feb 2012 21:56

I for one would give the Professor benifit of doubt in fact in all honesty our past record at closing deals involving ToT or offsets is not something to be proud of.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12487
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Feb 2012 22:05

prafesar is bajaoing his own baja at expense of IAF, and that too speculatively

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12896
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby negi » 21 Feb 2012 22:08

I don't think so afaik IAF as such does not have much say in price negotiations or the financial side of the procurement itself.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kersi D » 21 Feb 2012 22:48

Rakesh wrote:Only China makes the world's best - with the exception of America - military equipment. The rest...like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.


WRONG WRONG WRONG

China makes the world's best military equipment.

AND

Pakistan makes the world's second best military equipment.

The rest of the world like the Europeans and others make only inferior and useless equipment.

SO WHY THE HELLWE DID NOT CONSIDER THIS J10, J11,J23.3434, J31.54 ?

Why do we settle for the nth best equipmnet

K



Kersi

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kersi D » 21 Feb 2012 22:50

rohitvats wrote:
Rakesh wrote: <SNIP>P.S. By the way...let us conveniently ignore the fact that the F-10 and F-11 are shameless (and inferior) copies of the Israeli Lavi and the Russian Su-27.


You counter-revolutionary bourgeois you......you need to be sent immediately to the re-education camp for spreading western propaganda against the glorious movement of the proletariat..... :twisted: :mrgreen: :P


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby Kersi D » 21 Feb 2012 22:55

shukla wrote:New horizons
The Week - Air Vice Marshal Mohan John (retd)

The main challenges in inducting the Rafale to the IAF will be training and infrastructure

The air force is more technology oriented than the army or the navy. In a combat scenario, all other factors being the same, the air force with better technology will come out ahead. With two nuclear-armed neighbours, and given India's political relationship with them, it is imperative that the IAF has the best technology that the country can afford. The MMRCA deal is about induction of such technology.

In 1974, the IAF was trying to inculcate cost consciousness among its personnel. One step taken was to mark each item of equipment, including the aircraft, with its cost. Every time you came near the MiG-21 FL, you were reminded that the aircraft cost 076 lakh. Today, you will not get a high-end car for that money! This aspect of the low cost of Soviet/Russian aircraft became a kind of mantra in the IAF. As the IAF progressed professionally, the flaw in this logic came out. The IAF had started the process of ‘life cycle cost' studies of the aircraft in its inventory. By then it had inducted a number of MiG variants (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27 and MiG-29) and the Mirage-2000. The study brought out that, when the life cycle costs are worked out, aircraft like the MiG-29 are not really cheap.

In 1985, I joined the newly inducted Mirage-2000 fleet. The aircraft was a technological marvel. What surprised me the most was the ease with which you could adapt to and assimilate these new technologies. I think it was the way in which it was presented to the pilot in the cockpit. It all seemed so natural and logical, and left you wondering how you managed without these technologies so far. While the aircraft performance was in a different league, mainly because of the innovative fly-by-wire system, basic flying was extremely simple. It was the management of the onboard systems that required skill. The availability of onboard systems like the multimode radar and the navigation and weapon-aiming systems made it possible to exploit the aircraft operationally for tasks limited only by your imagination.

Also, the Mirage-2000 has an exceptionally good flight safety record. As I went up in the hierarchy of the IAF, I got to see these aircraft from a different perspective. As the chief operations officer of a flying base, and thereafter as a base commander, I realised that the MiG-21 and other Soviet/Russian aircraft were not really maintenance friendly. Keeping these aircraft fly-worthy was a challenge. Compared with them, the Mirage-2000 was in a totally different league.

The Mirage-2000 is built on a modular concept. Most modules had built-in test equipment. If the test showed ‘no-go', the faulty module just had to be pulled out and replaced with a functional module, and you were good to go. Even the engine was a module. Replacing an engine, which is required at times, took a little more than an hour. In the case of the MiG-21, an engine change was a major job which took significantly longer time and more effort to accomplish.

In 1993, I was part of the team bringing in more Mirage-2000 aircraft from France. Dassault, the manufacturer of the aircraft, made it a point to show us the Rafale, which was in the process of being operationalised for induction into the French air force and navy. The aircraft embodied an extension of the Mirage-2000 philosophy, but was more than a generation ahead in technology.

My association with the Mirage-2000 fleet included a fair amount of interaction with the French representatives, especially from Dassault. They are hard-nosed businessmen. If you have the money, and are willing to pay, they will deliver the required service. They did not seem too concerned with matters like foreign policy. However, like any businessmen, they will not waste an opportunity to exploit the customer if the opportunity arises.

In 2006, I was part of a delegation to the Farnborough Air Show. The Indian delegation was in demand because of the MMRCA deal. We were given briefings by all vendors in the fray. One common point about the two American vendors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was that, when queried about specific equipment or weapon options for the F-18 and the F-16, the standard reply was “We will have to check with the State Department”. I do not think Dassault does business under such constraints. The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.


Superb Summary.

But get ready for Kh 31 and Kh 29 and RWR AE and ODAP 500s form all the Rodina lovers.

K

SShah
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 11:25
Location: California

Re: Raffy wins - Go Katrina!

Postby SShah » 22 Feb 2012 00:40

While Brits are saying "Do everything to get the deal back" I hope we get ready ASAP to deal with an act of highly sophisticated espionage aimed at killing the Rafale deal. I think it's a matter of time if not already underway in some sort of a way. I pray that it is unsuccessful. :evil:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests