Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 09 Aug 2013 08:20

Those Micas are for chinese planes. For paki aircraft dumb bombs and mg will be ok as most of them will be taken out on the ground.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Aug 2013 09:13

The MIG-35 is basically the MIIG-29 OVT.The IN has ordered almost 50 MIG-29Ks,plus 60+ MIG-29s of the IAF are being upgraded and the Russian navy is going to acquire at least 40-60 for its own use to replace old SU-33s.Ex-east bloc nations like Poland are upgrading theirs.The Germans have a few,here's an interesting tit-bit.

The East German Migs were Russian export models and thus are less capable than their Russian counterparts. For example, the engines were downgraded to 90% maximum power. The radar system is less powerful, with detection range reduced to about 40km. Interestingly, even so, these Mig-29s have proven themselves more than capable on practice sorties against F-16 Falcons, defeating them with ease.

IAF exercises between M-2000s and MIG-29s saw the MIG-29 win every time (AM Masand in VAYU).

Nov.2012 report:
http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/4/2012/11/16/64/print/

The manufacturing facility of RAC MiG was able to manufacture hundreds of aircraft per year during the Soviet era. However, the enterprise has almost stopped the assembly of new aircraft by early 2000s. At present the Lukhovitsi-based plant is undergoing the new birth connected with assimilation of new technologies and increase of its output. The enterprise is equipped with the state-of-the-art digital NC machines.

The major renewal of the MiG’s plant is linked to the development of new family of fighters: MiG-29М/М2 and MiG-29К/КUB, along with «4++»-generation fighter MiG-35. These vehicles are designed as the new platform with a great potential for increasing combat capabilities during a long period of time using technologies incident to the fifth-generation fighters.

The new fighters resemble MiG-29, but in fact these are brand-new vehicles with significant upgrades of fuselage structure and aircraft equipment. Moreover, some parts of these jets are made of new advanced materials.

Russia will start the deliveries of 29 MiG-29K/KUB fighters to India in 2012.
- 16 such jets have already been delivered to the customer in accordance with the first contract and now we are starting implementation of the second contract on delivery of 29 fighters. We will start the deliveries this year", -Korotkov said following the results of the on-site meeting of Duma’s Defense Committee.

The contracts on deliveries, overhaul and upgrading of aircraft in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America (including deliveries of spare parts to some operators of MiG aircraft) form the basis of export order backlog. India leads the way among the foreign clients of RAC MiG. MiG Corporation is upgrading the jets of Indian air forces in the network of MiG-29 UPG program implemented in accordance with the contract signed in March 2008. The first six jets have undergone the overhaul and upgrading at RAC MiG’s site. Over 90% of the jets will be upgraded in India.

Besides production of carrier-based fighters intended for Indian and Russian navy, RAC MiG should deliver the first MiG-35s to the Russian air forces next year. It is expected that the Ministry of Defense will place additional orders for these jets in 2013-2014.

Russian Ministry of Defense intends to form at least two squadrons of MiG-35s by 2015. Initially it was planned to sign the contract on delivery of MiG-35s to the Russian air forces in 2009, however that did not happen. MiG-35 aircraft will be manufactured in single-seat (MiG-35) and two-seat (MiG-35D) versions.

According to the state defense order, four new MiG aircraft will be delivered to the military forces next year and the deliveries of first multi-role MiG-35 aircraft is scheduled for 2014. The first vehicle intended for Russian air forces has already been placed on the aircraft assembly jig.

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 28 Aug 2013 19:34

Hope those who matter hear this , One of US's strong pillar of growth was the Defense industry. We should support our defense industry with continued funding and nurturing , and judiciously spend what the country save by hard work.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2976/64794/.html

Nevertheless, every crisis can be turned into an opportunity. And the time for that has now come. Indigenization should begin with the most worrisome element of our foreign dependency - military imports. Modern weapons on the international market at the best of times register 10-15 percent inflation year on year in dollar terms. With the rupee declining the way it has, I don't think massive military imports of expensive systems are viable any longer even on the 'I need the best basis'. What is the point of having the 'best' if you can't affordably operate it? A foreign weapon system will need foreign spares. With the rupee's current decline the projected life cycle costs of all foreign weapon systems have gone up commensurately. With India's CAD being what it is, I wonder how the government is planning to finance future imported spares.

On the other hand, a major push to indigenization will result in more Indian jobs, a smaller CAD which will boost the rupee, and further development of India's industrial base.
Do remember, despite the spectacular import push of the last ten years, India's Navy continues to wait for new conventional submarines with delays in the Scorpene project, and the Army for artillery equipment that has seen endless rounds of trials as foreign suppliers have competed to hurl allegations against one another. It is time that India actually showed some real growth rather than financialize itself, only to see the 'gains' inflated away by a weaker rupee.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 29 Aug 2013 06:55

INR $68.7 = $1 --> How much does a Rafale cost now??

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 29 Aug 2013 07:19

They can only buy 25 instead of 125 now.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Aug 2013 07:34

Prediction: MMRCA is sacrificed to the FSB. The SG/NAC nexus are into serious income redistribution before it is earned.

The MMRCA deal is not going to happen. GoI will insist that HAL be the primary contractor and Dassault will resist because they cannot guarantee HAL's QA. Having seen a portion of the latter's efforts on the shop floor, I would opt for anyone but.

This is going to be hard to accept. But we can no longer afford the MMRCA given the INR's fall and effect on the budget deficit @ 2x what was projected. Nor can we afford the EF or the F-18 and certainly not the Rafale.

Panic buying will prevail when there is the next Kargil incident. Another bunch obsolete of CKD SU-30MKIs will be 'fast tracked' by the Empowered Group of Ministers.

I must say that I am breath taken by both the cynicism and the dismissal of the greater national good by these INC worthies. They will come up with buy the vote initiatives. Anything to save the family business.

In short, UPA/Pakistan win. IAF and rest of us lose.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 29 Aug 2013 14:21

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 8w.twitter

The Super Hornet loosk better everyday, new CFTs and soon enclosed weapons pods being tested. Hopefully EPE will also head into flight testing as well. Raffy just seems soo much more expensive and such a terrible waste of mulah.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Aug 2013 20:56

No worries. More Upgraded Super-30 MKI will end up in the stable. No other choice at this point. 3-4 more squadrons is good enough. We don't need to spend 25 BN for 125 tiny planes. Money saved can be used for other useful things. India is not US. We also have other needs.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Aug 2013 23:08

Pranay wrote:INR $68.7 = $1 --> How much does a Rafale cost now??

Worse than you think. The scary part is that elections are next year and GoI may conclude this deal before then.

Jan 2012:
$1 = Rs. 50
EU 1 = Rs. 65

Jan 2014:
$1 = Rs. 75
EU 1 = Rs. 100

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Aug 2013 23:09

what makes everyone think that the deal is being done on the current spot value of Rs/Euros or Rs/Dollars?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Aug 2013 23:14

^^^The planners did look in to currency fluctuation and it will be paid out over time. They probably did look in to currency devaluation, but at some slower rate. Now, the base rate has been changed and regular devaluation will occur. It is too expensive.

Best is to have 200 LCA + 100 SH (to fill the gap).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 00:30

Best is to have 200 LCA + 100 SH F-15SE(to fill the gap).

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 30 Aug 2013 05:16

Lalmohan, the payment burdon will depend on the spot rate at each installment.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Aug 2013 05:33

If the deal was in $, then the planners should have kept the $ amount allocated already. if so, the $ would be now ++ right?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2013 07:09

if the SH and the SE cost about the same, I would prefer the SH - simply because the USN is committed to 700+ airframes and its decades long upg support chain. usaf will not buy the SE I think, its a export product with likely buyers being Singapore, Soko, perhaps japan(if JSF-A is delayed),Saudis, perhaps Israel...

also, later on after CATOBAR (ADS_2), part of the fleet around 30 units could be transferred to naval aviation to form up 2 squadrons.
by that time IAF will get their "fifth gen" toys to play with and not so prestige issue to hand-me-down a few units to poor brother IN.

under UPA3 we can look forward to yearly spot rates of 75, 100, 125, 150... from now on.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Aug 2013 07:48

Singha wrote:if the SH and the SE cost about the same, I would prefer the SH - simply because the USN is committed to 700+ airframes and its decades long upg support chain. usaf will not buy the SE I think, its a export product with likely buyers being Singapore, Soko, perhaps japan(if JSF-A is delayed),Saudis, perhaps Israel....

I remember reading recently about phenomenally long life of F 15 airframes, thought it was not these links:
http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2013/ ... art-i.html

A series of comprehensive structural upgrades will allow the F-15C's airframes to remain viable until 18,000 flight hours have been reached (Source 2).

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ys-375612/

"Previous F-15E full scale testing successfully demonstrated 16,000 flight hours of operational usage with no catastrophic failures or evidence of life limiting fatigue issues.

With much bigger nose than SH plus Su 30 like supermanueverability at supersonic speeds. Maybe they'll put in their APG 79 radar.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 30 Aug 2013 08:27

Difficult to imagine that both buyer and seller would not have hedged their currency risks. Certainly, the French were more likely to have done so being the sellers and if they did, they would have hedged against the Rupee going UP vs the Euro not down and are now sitting on a potential bonanza. Even if our geniuses had done some hedging, we likely would not have bet on such a massive Rupee collapse.

One silver lining. The French have even more leverage now and less reason to take on the potentially unlimited risk of underwriting HAL's performance or lack thereof. If they force GoI into giving in and accepting Reliance as the major consolidator, there is absolutely no doubt that Reliance will emerge as a world class aerospace company in a few years, leaving HAL in the dust. One doesn't have to love Reliance to know that they are deadly serious with their money and will deliver and then some. One thing the French have agreed to by contract is "full ToT" and I expect that they will be held to that agreement. Going by the record, it is almost certain that Reliance (and hence India) will absorb and internalize far more of that ToT than HAL ever would.

Of course, it is always possible that GoI will tell the French to take a hike and leave the IAF high and dry. Nothing new.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Aug 2013 08:56

the F-15 is a notoriously labourious airplane to build with more man-hours spent than any Western fighter. Techniques for building it are also quite dated by Super Hornet standards and all of that reflects in its higher per unit cost. But its also a very robust airframe and thats why it can last so long. I don't know if it'll be cost effective for Boeing to simplify production processes or the structure of the F-15 Silent Eagle, so while it may look like a modern quasi-5th gen fighter, its innards will be very similar to the F-15 Strike Eagle.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2013 11:48

its a strike eagle with a few skin deep mods .

the F-18 in land based role should last longer than naval airframes for sure.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Aug 2013 16:02

I was just checking the number of aircrafts in the different air force which according to me is still very
much relevant against a quality opponent and below are some of the numbers.
Not included USA and Russia Air force, since i just realized based on the numbers, just US Marines and
US Navy have sufficient number of aircrafts to take on the best available in the Chinese Airforce
Aircrafts left out are like the Mig 21/23/27 , Jaguars, Tornado etc. Also not included in the numbers are
future aircrafts currently on order

India
Mig 29 68
Mirage 2000 55
Su 30 150
[Total] 273
China
J 10 200
J 11 250
[Total] 450
Pakistan
F 16 63
[Total] 63
Israel
F 15 65
F 16 175
[Total] 240
Japan
F 15 150
[Total] 150
Sweeden
Gripen 160
[Total] 160
UK
Typhoon 75
[Total] 75
Saudi Arabia
F 15 125
Typhoon 20
[Total] 145
France
Mirage 2000 200
Rafale 100
[Total] 300
S.Korea
F 16 120
F 15 60
[Total] 180
Turkey
F 16 180
[Total] 180

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2013 16:23

TSP is not in the big league for sure.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Aug 2013 16:31

^^^^
By TSP u mean Pakistan right ? (BTW what is the full form for TSP).
If yes, then you are absolutely right. It was just for reference that nothing to worry from Pakistan end

and PAF is definitely not in BIG
league.
But for sure USA and Russia are simply just in a completely different orbit

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Aug 2013 18:28

Terrorist State of Pakistan (TSP)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Aug 2013 20:01

If we are needing urgent induction, then a new type is not a way to go.

From all my research, it seems it takes about 10 years from contract signing to get through documentation, protocols, limitations, ground staff, spares, support to be really operable for war like conditions.

I think inducting a existing type is the way to go. 2 Refurbed or new Mig-29s squardons / 4 Extra Super-30 - brahmos enabled squadrons / one extra LCA mk-1 squadron + 3 extra rudra/lch squardons + 4 units of pinaka-2/prahar till 2020 should tide us well into PAKFA, LCA - Mk2. The airframe hardly matters anymore, except for uptime and sortie rates and we have enough experience with the existing types + built up spares to achieve good rates. Its the weaponry accurate delivery on demand that makes the difference. These will come at a fraction of price of Rafale and be as or more effective without handing over our war fighting capability to france or khan uncle ( for sh 15 / 18 types )

I think enabling the army to look out for themselves upto 100/150 kms allows AF to look at things more strategically and play a better supporting role. Mud moving is important, but i think tech is getting better to allow airborne heli based artillery to do very useful first strike accurate damage.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Aug 2013 20:17

NRao wrote:Best is to have 200 LCA + 100 SH F-15SE(to fill the gap).

The best option is 100-200 extra LCAs + 40-80 MKIs.
-Most Cost Effective and affordable
-Most beneficial to local industry
-No headache of a new type of aircraft, weapons and sensors
-And most importantly it can be bought with no delays, no trials and Zero controversy.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Aug 2013 20:34

dhiraj wrote:...
Israel
F 15 65
F 16 175
[Total] 240

Wiki says 80+ F15s and 320+ F16s.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 30 Aug 2013 21:59

[quote="dhiraj"]
China
J 10 200
J 11 250
[Total] 450

Isn't PLAF operates Su-27 & Su-30s

Japan
F 15 150
[Total] 150

JASDF operates approx 200+ F-15 & and if J-10 & Gripen are qualified then I believe Mitsubishi F-2 also they have 75+

you have left Egyptian Air Force which operates
F-16 - 200+
Mirage - 50+

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Aug 2013 23:57

What is the availability rate for the different modern fighter aircraft of today?
That is, what is the percentage of time available vs. time unavailable due to scheduled maintenance.

The Su-30MKI may be great, but it may have a very low availability rate.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2013 01:43

Even the MiGs when spares were low, managed a rough 60% availability rate. The Su-30 will do much better, in the range of 80% and above. If the platform was very hard to maintain, or spares were low - the IAF would not be deploying it everywhere including exercises. Ironically, the one item which the IAF was hoarding was the tire/s for the platform, which are in short supply even in Russia. They are to be now made by MRF, as I remember.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Aug 2013 02:02

I don't think the F-15 in USAF inventory have an availability rate of 60-80%. The F-16 is suppose to be better in that regard.
The last thing anyone wants is the MMRCA having a low availability rate.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2013 02:15

The newer USAF F-15s definitely have an availability rate of that level, at least if they are not trials units or the first of a new block etc. The oldest ones (F15Cs in USAF are pretty old) may be having issues. The F16 too would have a decent availability rate. What you have to distinguish between are the cause and the effects. Let me explain. The two engined larger aircraft usually have a much higher MMH/FH (Maint Man Hour/Flight Hour), this coupled with the higher spares burn (as versus a single seater, and often more expensive as well), mean that these aircraft need more resources to maintain the same availability rate as a single seater. The Su-30 will definitely have a higher MMH/FH than the Rafale (which is much newer), but this affects smaller AF (like the Euro ones) more than the IAF which has more manpower, and is willing to put up with manpower heavy jets. Coming to the spares part - this is why the IAF always wants local production. For aircraft like the MiG23BN, MF and the MiG-29 the IAF has had to do phenomenal jugglery to keep the spares supply going (often with reverse engineered local spares made at the IAF BRD, HAL or by local vendors) since these aircraft were never made at HAL, so we never got TOT for them. Similarly, for the Mirage 2000, the IAF pays through its nose to Dassault and its suppliers. Unlike the local vendors (BEL, HAL etc), foreign OEMs cannot be armtwisted to keep the spares on their inventory and they just tell the IAF that x is going out of production, and if the IAF wants to continue support, it has to place orders
These are the perils of maintaining an aging fleet. To address this, as I mentioned- one, they ask for TOT - which includes as many as possible of the high frequency usage spares (est.), they hoard spares (as mentioned above), and finally there are upgrades - maintaining the oldest gen avionics and mission systems is not only risky from the viewpoint of combat (in)effectiveness, but also simply impossible to continue - when those units are no longer in production. Another thing the IAF is trying now, is to have the vendor commit to providing an assured availability rate - this system is already in vogue in the west. RAF, USAF have outsourced a lot of their inventory managament and maint tasks to the vendors themselves and ask for an assured availability The IAF has done this with the C-17s, and HAL is in talks with BAe to do something similar for the Hawk. The MiG-29 Upgrade has let offsets go in lieu of MiG maintainign a spares stockpile in India and then working with the IAF to ensure a decent availability. This will be in common with the IN MiG-29K. For Su's and the rest - the other method of TOT, and local production kicks in.
Some positive steps are commonality of mission systems across upgrades - HUD, MFD, INS, radio etc. Another huge step forward was INMOLS - basically the IAF's inhouse ERP system for tracking spares across bases. Apparently it has made a significant positive difference to spares availability.
The MMRCA will come with its own dedicated logistics system, and Dassault has reportedly done a lot to improve on maintainability. But it will still be an expensive aircraft.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Aug 2013 02:32

Mort Walker wrote:
The Su-30MKI may be great, but it may have a very low availability rate.

About Su 30 according to Mayurica here :

http://mayurica.blogspot.in/

A combat sortie with a bombing exercise had been planned for the day. These men had been tasked to prepare the aircraft for a multi-role mission. They had a lot on their mind - from fueling to nitrogen replenishment to weapons loading. It is said that it takes about 50 to 70 man hours to prepare an aircraft for a fully loaded operational mission. This is precise engineering at work and flight engineers are often the unsung heroes of an air battle.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Aug 2013 02:36

Su-30 usage can also be judged by this quote from a USAF pilot who flew against the IAF in Cope India 2 at KKD AFB.

Quote:Moose69

As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets over 200 hours a year in the front seat...Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
I would feel comfortable against the MKI only in BVR...the thing has thrust vectoring for crying out loud

Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised.

Of course, they only did BFM with the MKI at that point in time (no BVR vs the MKI, and only with the K) so he was estimating.
Later, the IAF flew the MKI against the RSAF at KKD - with the more advanced Block 50/52 F-16s and the MKIs dominated in BVR as well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Aug 2013 02:52

USAF have outsourced a lot of their inventory managament and maint tasks

Even that is going to change dramatically in the (near?) future. And, the better part could be that India could be a part of that deal. TBD.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Aug 2013 19:35

Dhananjay wrote: About Su 30 according to Mayurica here :

http://mayurica.blogspot.in/

A combat sortie with a bombing exercise had been planned for the day. These men had been tasked to prepare the aircraft for a multi-role mission. They had a lot on their mind - from fueling to nitrogen replenishment to weapons loading. It is said that it takes about 50 to 70 man hours to prepare an aircraft for a fully loaded operational mission. This is precise engineering at work and flight engineers are often the unsung heroes of an air battle.

Is there any open source info as to how long it takes to prepare for a full mission for other modern FA? Although the IAF has enough manpower, but does it have enough skilled manpower for just such a preparation on a large scale? (This may explain why the MMRCA will be brought in over a large period time for proper absorption in to the force). To get to the expertise of a flight engineer and technical sergeant takes years of practical experience that cannot be prepared for from books alone. 50-70 hours tells me that it takes a half-dozen highly skilled persons from dawn-to-dusk to prepare the Su-30MKI ready for mission.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Aug 2013 19:39

very valid inputs.. these are what needs to get into operational requirement specifications and corrections that feeds into AMCA (lca++)

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Aug 2013 19:41

NRao wrote:
USAF have outsourced a lot of their inventory managament and maint tasks
Even that is going to change dramatically in the (near?) future. And, the better part could be that India could be a part of that deal. TBD.

USAF is a case where the contractor such as Boeing, LM, Raytheon, and NG work at USAF bases for regular maintenance. Contracts are setup this way from the time of acquisition of a weapon system. Many times the contractor himself is retired from the the USAF or USN. Many of these people have little or no college education, but they are worth their weight in gold because of practical mechanical and electrical experience.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Aug 2013 20:20

Mort Walker wrote: Is there any open source info as to how long it takes to prepare for a full mission for other modern FA? Although the IAF has enough manpower, but does it have enough skilled manpower for just such a preparation on a large scale? (This may explain why the MMRCA will be brought in over a large period time for proper absorption in to the force). To get to the expertise of a flight engineer and technical sergeant takes years of practical experience that cannot be prepared for from books alone. 50-70 hours tells me that it takes a half-dozen highly skilled persons from dawn-to-dusk to prepare the Su-30MKI ready for mission.

Probably Kartik and Jean M might have some idea.

Years ago I remember reading somwhere either keypublishing or geo site maybe f-16 dot net about preparation hours and cost per hour comparisons
f-16 vs mirage 2000

where f-16 was claimed to have a little edge compared to mirage 2000. But also was claimed that m2k was fastest to be prepared in IAF.

Also amongst all MMRCAs Rafale and grippen were claimed to be easiest and fastest to be prepared.

But mostly it was fanboi stuff. So nothing solid like Mayurica/Maroof Razaa link on other fighters.

Here this link says :

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6094.html

6. Others:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Frontal RCS: 0.1~0.5 m2 / 0.1 to 0.3 m2 (*13)
B. Pylonst: 13 and 3 / 14 and 5, all and wet (*14)
C. Prices: 154 million USDs / 148.5 million USDs (*15)
D. Prices: 80.1 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs (*16)
E. Maintenance: 8 (ef2k) / 7 Man-hours (Rafale) per flight hour.

6. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Frontal RCS: 0.1 m2 / 0.1 to 0.3 m2 (*13)
B. Pylonst: 11 and 5 / 13 and 5, all and wet (*14)
C. Prices: 57 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs (*15)
D. Maintenance: 15 (f18) / 7 (Rafale M) Man-hours per flight hour.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 01 Sep 2013 04:20

Thanks, Dhananjay.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Sep 2013 13:58

50 to 70 hours is a constraint for any live ops... but, one has to allow mission profile compared as well and not just platforms like Rafale and Ef2K. LRUs count, and MTBF is another issue as well. These all add up to ops cost. Such learning should actually go into Indian PAKFA and LCA/MCA.