Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jan 2014 21:08

arthuro wrote:On RCS before adding external stores you better start with rafale RCS (about 1m2) than with a SU-30 mki which was assessed at 15m2 during Garuda exercise in France by mirage 2000-5 pilots.

Links please. How old were the Sukhois in question?

Sure a rafale with external loads will not be VLO. But 5m2 or even 10m2 with a full load is still far better than a loaded SU-30 mki.

A clean Rafale isn't VLO either, but that's not the issue. Fact is, unlike a Su-30 the Rafale is forced to carry three huge, thoroughly unstealthy, external fuel tanks along. If its RCS is 10m2 and the Su-30MKI's 20m2, the difference in range at which the latter will be detected will be less than 10% higher.

Also this could hardly be an issue for the rafale as all the competition had to carry its weapons externally. And if you want to compare to the F35 no way it could match such a massive fire power and range with internal store only.

If the F-35 is carrying its payload internally, then there is an active airborne or ground based threat. Its better to carry less than to become a massive fireball.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jan 2014 21:19

>>If its RCS is 10m2 and the Su-30MKI's 20m2, the difference in range at which the latter will be detected will be less than 10% higher.

19% actually, but yeah, tactically pretty limited in the overall scheme of things.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jan 2014 21:41

And if you want to compare to the F35 no way it could match such a massive fire power and range with internal store only.

As far as theF-35 is concerned it should not matter. While in the case of the Rafale it may or may not.

In any event any non-Indian plane costing $160 mil per plane is a little too much. Especially at this point in time.

The MMRCA is meant to fill the IAF holes and IMHO needs to be ready to be packed of in 20 years.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jan 2014 21:46

Karan M wrote:>>If its RCS is 10m2 and the Su-30MKI's 20m2, the difference in range at which the latter will be detected will be less than 10% higher.

19% actually, but yeah, tactically pretty limited in the overall scheme of things.

Typo. Should have been '20% higher' of course. 1:2^0.25.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 18 Jan 2014 22:11

andy B wrote:
mahadevbhu wrote:^^^ fancy picture boss. Now I know why the IAF wants it and why it costs so much.

but still at 126 million $, while F 18 is 60 million, Su 30, 60 mil $ and LCA Tejas is 30 mil$....too much!
400% agreed saar was putting the pic up as its a new weapons config with the meteor under the central fuselage and mica on no.3 station. The prices being potrayed for the rafale are increasingly looking outrageous at best. I'd be perfectly happy with more SU30s, LCAs and rest of the saved funds ploughed into AMCA. A frontline weapons platform like a fighter is IMHO a big no no from Khan. Dont get me wrong fwiw the SH is a beaut of an aircraft and an absolute workhorse with a massive capability investment pipeline. But Khan has screwed us before and will most certainly do so again and I'd rathrr have my sword arm mostly free of any 'sudden' cho#$iyagiri. The other thing is the way IAF has pursued and implemented the Vajra upgrade makes me think that if they really want the rafa they are probably gonna end up getting it somehow.

The Amrus have a propensity to suddenly and without warning act against the interests of its allies. They're generous people, but sometimes tough to deal with.

French Russians- better the known devil than the unkown angel.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 18 Jan 2014 22:17

Viv S wrote:
Brando wrote:^^ That's nice but the Su30mki costs "x2" as much per flight hour in maintenance and fuel costs. Until the Russians can come up with something akin to the JDAM or AASM, the Su30mki isn't going to have the same versatility in the "swing role".
Given that the Rafale's acquisition cost is being estimated at over $160 mil/unit, the running costs will need to be very low to bridge that differential. Once the Rafale's MLU bill arrives, the Sukhoi is all but sure to have a lower life-cycle cost.

Better yet, buy more Tejas to complement the Su-30MKIs. You could get what.. five of them for the cost of one Rafale. That's 35 hard-points laden with fuel, missiles, support pods and bombs.

But its not the same radar and the same electronic intelligence , the same life cycle reliability, the same UX, the same optoelectronics.

Obviously, the IAF, when given a choice by the DOD, like to go in for the BEST weapons available around the world.

This is a choice, which is not available to almost anyone else. Everyone buys from their national champions only.
Slowly we will too. And our national defense manufacturing champions will be integrated with the French Russian and American ones too, thereby giving us access to the best of technology from abroad with a good amount of indigenous content.

See. I am glad we can give the IAF the choice to choose their own favourite weapons. It is their lives on the line...they get the luxury of choosing the weapons they go to battle with .

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Jan 2014 22:32

mahadevbhu wrote:But its not the same radar and the same electronic intelligence , the same life cycle reliability, the same UX, the same optoelectronics.

Post Super Sukhoi upgrade. A more powerful radar. Improved EW systems. Likely a new IRST as well. Operational availability will be lower yes, but there'll be a bigger pool of aircraft to bank upon.

And for the Tejas Mk2's sub-systems (IRST, active decoys, ECM/ESM antennas), European vendors can still be approached if necessary.

Obviously, the IAF, when given a choice by the DOD, like to go in for the BEST weapons available around the world.

By opting for an enhanced Tejas order, we can improve the standard of commonality across the fleet, give an impetus to domestic development, reduce the unit of the aircraft, and deliver a highly cost-effective fighter to the IAF, boosting its numbers.

For niche tasks; deep strike, SEAD/DEAD we can opt for a next gen platform.

See. I am glad we can give the IAF the choice to choose their own favourite weapons. It is their lives on the line...they get the luxury of choosing the weapons they go to battle with .

The decision belongs to the MoD and rightly so. The IAF needs an effective aircraft, but the decision also needs to be balanced with the available budgetary resources and with a focus on developing indigenous capabilities (and you can't rely on ToT for the latter).

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 18 Jan 2014 23:00

Karan M wrote: For those pinpricks you are talking about, they extracted billions of $ & military supplies from the US, revitalized their conventional forces, got money to restart their nuclear armaments program on a bigger footing, and after all that, they continue with their terrorism.

Whats not to like for them?

But more importantly, the US:

1. gave us a semblance of peace in Kashmir for the past 10 years, when the pakis were busy with the other border.
2. brought an ally back into power in afghanistan.
3. afflicted our neighbours' society with jihadi cancer even more.
4. Turned the Pak Taliban against the TSPArmy and state.

and that is all things that india has benefited from.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 18 Jan 2014 23:06

Post Super Sukhoi upgrade. A more powerful radar. Improved EW systems. Likely a new IRST as well. Operational availability will be lower yes, but there'll be a bigger pool of aircraft to bank upon.
And for the Tejas Mk2's sub-systems (IRST, active decoys, ECM/ESM antennas), European vendors can still be approached if necessary.

that's right. But the Rafale electronics will remain uber sexy and in a league of its own.

The decision belongs to the MoD and rightly so. The IAF needs an effective aircraft, but the decision also needs to be balanced with the available budgetary resources and with a focus on developing indigenous capabilities (and you can't rely on ToT for the latter).

[/quote]

I disagree. when a soldier's life is on the line, and he is saving citizens lives on the battlefield, one gives him the best machine for the job. Its not like buying a brand of TV or a lathe machine.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Jan 2014 23:27

mahadevbhu wrote:I disagree. when a soldier's life is on the line, and he is saving citizens lives on the battlefield, one gives him the best machine for the job. Its not like buying a brand of TV or a lathe machine.

Yup, when it comes to importing uber maal no expense is to be spared. Even if it means cutting down on Kerosene supplies for our troops deployed in high altitude areas

.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2014 00:31

May I make a small request please? If you could avoid making such comments to support your point it would be very helpful. Having served I just think such comments maybe be slightly hurtful. I'm sure the IAF don't go out their way to make sure we infantry men have a tough time. There is an important place for the rafale as most reasoned posts here have shown. However I strongly believe that morale, tactics, reliable equipment , training and logistics are more important than absolute cutting edge tech.

Karan M

+1 re the US

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 01:05

I'm referring to the PAUC which is more than just Flyaway cost and ToT. The Rafale cost of production for France was around $145 mil/unit in 2009 IIRC. Subtract VAT and then add the cost of inflation over five years plus a profit margin and you'll still go well over $150 mil. And this before the cost of ToT is applied.

Its no wonder that the CEO of Dassault was quoted saying that value of the deal was 'much more' than $20 billion ($160mil/unit).

Does not make any sense and hardly impressive/expensive. What french tax payer paid in the 80's or 90's etc... to fund rafale program is of no importance for India as regards rafale costs. A rafale at the latest standard with AESA etc is billed between 69 Millions euro and 80 Millions euros to France depending on versions and that what counts today.

What has been spent has been spent...I don't think expenditures done in France 10 or 20 years ago on rafale program will influence french decision makers on rafale procurement/development in 2014...Well they even decided to keep investing in the program with the F3 "R" standard and any decision would be based on other factors than money invested years ago.

If india decided to buy all its rafale at flyaway cost conditions that would be the basic price. As India decided to go for full ToT and license manufacturing the price will be naturally higher, but that is not specific to the rafale.

I don't see anything shocking with the deal price considering what's India is getting : 126 aircrafts with support facilities and weapons, full ToT and full license production. Doubling the price of the basic flyaway cost in France does not seem absurd and a fair deal.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jan 2014 02:09

mahadevbhu wrote:But more importantly, the US:

1. gave us a semblance of peace in Kashmir for the past 10 years, when the pakis were busy with the other border.

Thats rubbish i am afraid. That peace has been bought by the unsung Indian infantryman who mans the borders 24/7 and has made it very hard for Pakistan to infiltrate. And hence Pak targets him and his brethren.

2. brought an ally back into power in afghanistan.

And also sought to fell him for a more compliant one. Gates says it.

3. afflicted our neighbours' society with jihadi cancer even more.

And made them turn out more brainwashed zombies who will be used against India.

4. Turned the Pak Taliban against the TSPArmy and state.

And will promptly cut a deal with them first chance it gets.. with India being the mutual enemy.

and that is all things that india has benefited from.

yeah, sure.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jan 2014 02:13

>>69 Millions euro and 80 Millions

$ 93 and 108 million...wooohoo....!

vs $26Mn for the LCA and $65 Mn for the Su-30 MKI...

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 02:32

I know it is quite a touchy topic and many will jump on me but the LCA and SU-30mki do not come nowhere close to the rafale. The LCA program speak for itself and has limited potential (short range, small payload) while the Su-30 is big and powerful but that's just about it with no sensor fusion and poor situational awareness not talking about huge running costs with its short life engines and high gas consumption.

Then come the LCA mk2 and super mki upgrade...But frankly I am inclined to think they are way overhyped by many on this board as far as capabilities and program schedule are concerned. I fully understand the pride surrounding those programs (especially the LCA mk2) but an external observer can be rightfully careful and less enthusiastic considering record achieve with the LCA.

really there is no offense intended.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 19 Jan 2014 02:41

@ Euro 69 million per plane v/s Tejas 26 million USD exchange rate of 1.354 USD to Euro
you get 3.56 Tejas for 1 Katrina
@ Euro 80 million for the gold plated option which I guess is what we are opting for
you get 4.17 Tejas for a Katrina
I understand this is pure arathmitic and can not be co-related with capabilities
hence just on fly away cost and no TOT
we could get between 448 to 525 LCA for the price of 126 of the Raffy

With TOT @ $20 - 25 billion this deal will be over a decade, lets add 8 percent inflation per annum,
without compounding ie $36-45 billion as total cost. If a Scorpion is added into the calculation, we might reach an alarming figure, which we will have to pay, as by then our left nut will be french owned. So forget AMCA as with the PAK-FA holding on to the right one (with possibly a v'aditya thrown in.) Very pessimistic veiw to say the least. with a realistic probability of this senario panning out (Murphy's law)

However as the USSR and China have proved and are proving quantity has a quality of it own.

This deal needs a good think we should not rush into the 18 at fly away cost, Till we ink it we have leaverage

If we go down this route at this price we might be starving the future acquisitions of the IAF As who knows if we will be on the Hindu growth rate or not down the line.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 19 Jan 2014 03:25

Viv S wrote: 'RAM-treating' the pylons, missiles, or most importantly fuel tanks wouldn't change the fact that they interact poorly with the airframe as far as RCS is concerned. For that matter I can claim that the Su-27 has an RCS of 10-15m2, so the 'RAM treated' Su-30MKI should have a much lower RCS.

Also don't these tanks increase the drag? Thus affecting the mileage of otherwise claimed fuel-sipper rafale?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2014 03:48

Data fusion for you:

@ 5 billion, the Rafale is and will be the very best of bester planes ever thought of.

@10 billion, it will a great buy.

@15 billion, it is an OK plane.

@20 billion it is financial suicide.

And, that does not even take into consider the ammunition, with is around another $10 billion (and counting).

And, then that vulgar thing called MLU- check out the cost of making the M2K look young (again?)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 09:05

arthuro wrote:Does not make any sense and hardly impressive/expensive. What french tax payer paid in the 80's or 90's etc... to fund rafale program is of no importance for India as regards rafale costs. A rafale at the latest standard with AESA etc is billed between 69 Millions euro and 80 Millions euros to France depending on versions and that what counts today.

My mistake. I meant APUC (Average Production Unit Cost) not PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost).

The APUC or production cost for the Rafale is $145 million (incl VAT). This does not include the cost of development. The total program cost (incl R&D) for the Rafale will be close to $250 mil/unit.

Assuming no part of the development cost is passed onto India, it will still cost over $150 mil/unit, not counting ToT costs.

I don't see anything shocking with the deal price considering what's India is getting : 126 aircrafts with support facilities and weapons, full ToT and full license production. Doubling the price of the basic flyaway cost in France does not seem absurd and a fair deal.

Given that there's already a program to import fifth gen aircaft and another to develop an indigenous model, I'm afraid $20 billion+ is not something we can afford to spend on a 4.5 gen fighter. Particularly when HAL is already manufacturing two types of fighter aircraft.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 19 Jan 2014 09:27

arthuro wrote: really there is no offense intended.

How close are you to the ground realities of the LCA and the Su30, to make such a judgmental comparison between the rafale and them?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 09:37

arthuro wrote:I know it is quite a touchy topic and many will jump on me but the LCA and SU-30mki do not come nowhere close to the rafale. The LCA program speak for itself and has limited potential (short range, small payload) while the Su-30 is big and powerful but that's just about it with no sensor fusion and poor situational awareness not talking about huge running costs with its short life engines and high gas consumption.

First off, France is surrounded by allies and needs a long range fighter to bomb Serbia, Libya, Syria etc. All of the IAF's potential adversaries are right across the border and the IAF has forward air bases on both fronts.

Secondly, the Su-30MKI will have one of the most powerful radars ever fielded on a fighter after its AESA upgrade. And you can safely expect improved EW, IRST and sensor fusion.

Also you don't seem to have considered the effect of data-linking on the fleet. Nor buddy refueling. Multiple Tejas embedded with one or more Sukhois is the very definition of the force multiplier effect. Low RCS. Long radar range. IRST & EW sensors dispersed over airspace. Not to mention an abundance of hardpoints for jamming pods, LDPs, ESM pods and recon pods.

Another avenue to productively invest savings from an MMRCA cancellation is in additional AEW&C aircraft which the IAF is sorely lacking.

Then come the LCA mk2 and super mki upgrade...But frankly I am inclined to think they are way overhyped by many on this board as far as capabilities and program schedule are concerned. I fully understand the pride surrounding those programs (especially the LCA mk2) but an external observer can be rightfully careful and less enthusiastic considering record achieve with the LCA.

I'm afraid, this is utter guesswork on your part. The scope of the Su-30MKI can be judged from the Su-35 and PAK FA programs (both of which are designed to feature a fairly high degree of sensor fusion).

As far as the Tejas is concerned, I'd like to point out that similar skepticism was once shown with regard to the Gripen. Today, the Gripen's exports stand at over 125 and counting (incl leases), while the Rafale has yet to secure its first sale.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 09:49

mahadevbhu wrote:I disagree. when a soldier's life is on the line, and he is saving citizens lives on the battlefield, one gives him the best machine for the job. Its not like buying a brand of TV or a lathe machine.

If India is spending X amount of money on defence annually, then whether that figure is low, high or just right, is a different debate.

The issue here is what sort of return we're getting for that amount. Maximizing the increment in combat potential achieved per rupee spent, serves the interest of the soldier as much as it does the interests of the nation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jan 2014 10:10

Karan M wrote:>>69 Millions euro and 80 Millions

$ 93 and 108 million...wooohoo....!

vs $26Mn for the LCA and $65 Mn for the Su-30 MKI...

Thats probably because in selection of MMRCA a new concept of Total Life Cycle Support is taken into consideration ....something missing in MKI buy or for that matter even Tejas.

A higher unit cost reflect the Life Cycle Support Cost ( minus the weapons cost ) has been taken into account other factors like industry offset and TOT cost and Lic prod cost is involved.

Another known factor is French equipment cost has tradationally been on the higher side with the trade off being its works well and is sanction proof ( atleast till date )

All said and done Rafale IMHO is a great buy even with the gripe that it comes with higher cost the trade off involved specially sanction free equipment and TOT etc etc be more aware of it that I do plus a proven platform means it would be fully the proverbial combat ready from the day its inducted ( something even Su-30 wansnt till IAF got to MKI std in couple of years )

On another note all this talk of Tejas Mk2 being a better buy than Rafale as its cheaper etc is just a canard spread by few when we know that Mk2 is just a paper plane with huge potential and Mk1 is just starting its squadron life.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 10:17

Eric Leiderman wrote:@ Euro 69 million per plane v/s Tejas 26 million USD exchange rate of 1.354 USD to Euro
you get 3.56 Tejas for 1 Katrina
@ Euro 80 million for the gold plated option which I guess is what we are opting for
you get 4.17 Tejas for a Katrina

These are just flyaway costs. The procurement cost will be much higher.

You need to add in the cost of spares (additional engines, radars, HMDS and consumables), cost of training for entire new type (incl simulators), setting up local support infrastructure (servicing, overhauls), cost of support delivered by the OEM. Then add in the cost of munitions and support pods specific to the Rafale, such as the AASM and Damocles.

Thereafter we come to the costs incurred at HAL, first to customize it (domestic data-links, IFF etc, and integration with local or 3rd party equipment/munitions) and then all the costs associated with setting up local assembly/manufacture.

Plus add the bill for ToT. And then finally factor in a profit margin for Dassault.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 10:26

Austin wrote:Thats probably because in selection of MMRCA a new concept of Total Life Cycle Support is taken into consideration ....something missing in MKI buy or for that matter even Tejas.

A higher unit cost reflect the Life Cycle Support Cost ( minus the weapons cost ) has been taken into account other factors like industry offset and TOT cost and Lic prod cost is involved.

Its Life Cycle Cost was only measured against that of the Eurofighter. Would you care to hazard a guess as to the cost of a Rafale MLU (in 2014 dollars)?

Another known factor is French equipment cost has tradationally been on the higher side with the trade off being its works well and is sanction proof ( atleast till date )

We're paying over $45 million to upgrade the Mirage 2000's avionics (carrying on to 2021), when the Tejas Mk1 is available for $26 million. Worth it?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 19 Jan 2014 10:41

Akshay Kapoor wrote: I'm sure the IAF don't go out their way to make sure we infantry men have a tough time

If the the IAF ends spending a disproportionate amount of the budget buying obscenely expensive fighters, the soldier ends up getting shafted because there is not enough money left to buy all the kit he needs. That is just how it is.

There is an important place for the rafale as most reasoned posts here have shown.

Most of these are specious arguments at best. Go through the ones made by the its proponents and it is apparent that the Rafale is trying to fulfill requirements of its own creation. Somehow the combination of its specifications wrt RCS, range, running cost, "sensor fusion" etc are exactly what the IAF needs. As though the Rafale is its solemate plane. But in reality these arguments are being made just to disqualify the LCA and the MKI. A combination of these two fighters (and the FGFA, AMCA in the future) can perform all the missions required by the IAF.

However I strongly believe that morale, tactics, reliable equipment , training and logistics are more important than absolute cutting edge tech.

You hit the nail on the head. In the end the Armed forces will not get the best of weapons that are out there but only those that the country can afford. This is true for every country, not just for us but also the wealthiest nations like the US.

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Jan 2014 10:49

The last deal between India and Russia for Su-30MKI was for USD 40 million per unit. let us assume annual costs of USD 10 million per aircraft. The cost of Rafale is estimated at around USD 100 million per aircraft. If per annum costs are estimated at 5 million even then cost of ownership of Rafale is much higher is we take cost of capital to India at 10% per annum. Rafale would have longer life but Mirage upgrade shows that after around 30 years, the value of airframe is only 13%.

So assuming cost of capital at 10% for India on USD 40 million, linear depreciation of full airframe in 20 years at 40/20 million, annual costs at 10 million we get:-

So per annum Sukhoi cost is USD 4 + USD 2 + USD 10 million= 16 million

Similarly for Rafale cost of capital at 10% for India on USD 100 million, linear depreciation of almost full airframe in 30 years at 80/30, annual costs at 5 million, we get:-

Per annum costs of Rafale to be USD 10 million + 2.7 + 5= 17.7 million per annum as cost of ownership.

Now let's try LCA

USD 2.5+1+1= 4.5 millon per annum. So what is better 200 Rafale or 800 LCA ? which can energize indigenous aero sector and we can go for deeeeep indigenisation Or even 100 sukhoi + 400 LCA for cost of 200 Rafale.

Remember Darin III upgrade is around 4 million USD per Jaguar while Mirage upgrade is USD 40 million per aircraft.
O

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2014 13:39

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2014 13:43

^^^^

Completely agree with Karan M. We have paid for the so called 'peace' in blood and toil.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 14:00

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 14:02

My mistake. I meant APUC (Average Production Unit Cost) not PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost).

The APUC or production cost for the Rafale is $145 million (incl VAT). This does not include the cost of development. The total program cost (incl R&D) for the Rafale will be close to $250 mil/unit.

Assuming no part of the development cost is passed onto India, it will still cost over $150 mil/unit, not counting ToT costs.

I start wondering whether you are intellectually capable of understanding rafale prices. There is little interest in responding to your fantasy even when you had access to latest (2014) official french figures :

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html

Rafale C : 68,8 Meuros
Rafale B : 74 Meuros
Rafale M : 79 Meuros

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 14:37

I'm afraid, this is utter guesswork on your part. The scope of the Su-30MKI can be judged from the Su-35 and PAK FA programs (both of which are designed to feature a fairly high degree of sensor fusion).

As far as the Tejas is concerned, I'd like to point out that similar skepticism was once shown with regard to the Gripen. Today, the Gripen's exports stand at over 125 and counting (incl leases), while the Rafale has yet to secure its first sale.

India is willing to buy the rafale with all the Technology, know-how etc at a high price compared to LCA mk2 and a Mki upgrade because there is simply a reason some on this board refuse to see...

IAF/india know that nor the LCA Mk2 nor the Mki upgrade will bring the capabilities and/or technologies that are dreamt by some members on this board.

Instead of accusing IAF or Indian MoD of incompetence for choosing the rafale you should instead understand what are the reasons which make them say "there is no other alternatives" and why they are ready to pay so much to get the rafale and its technology.

Obviously they are not so confident with the LCA mk2 and Su-30 mki upgrade to stop pushing for a rafale deal as some would like.

There is a distortion between what is dreamt by LCA/SU30 enthusiast which gives LCAmk2 and SU30 all attributes and the reality perceived by Indian authorities. Otherwise like many say : Why going ahead with the rafale ?

I believe they are perfectly aware there is a huge difference in technology and capabilities in favor of the rafale. I believe they know LCA mk2 potential is very limited and that they are less than confident considering previous record on this program. I believe Su-30 mki upgrade (if it happens...) will increase sensor&EW performance but it will not change SU-30 mki old gen weapon architecture. It will remain a big aircraft with a big radar but with limited sensor fusion and thus will remain a step behind in terms of sensor integration, situation awareness and survivability. This rationale is consistent/coherent with decision of Indian MoD/IAF to push for a rafale deal.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 14:38

arthuro wrote:I start wondering whether you are intellectually capable of understanding rafale prices. There is little interest in responding to your fantasy even when you had access to latest (2014) official french figures :

Rafale C : 68,8 Meuros
Rafale B : 74 Meuros
Rafale M : 79 Meuros

Do you realise that flyaway cost isn't the same as procurement cost?

Average cost of production - €101 million (2010).

http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/ ... mement.pdf

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 14:42

arthuro wrote:India is willing to buy the rafale with all the Technology, know-how etc at a high price compared to LCA mk2 and a Mki upgrade because there is simply a reason some on this board refuse to see...

The Rafale can't be afforded. This is a fact that you refuse to see...

Instead of accusing IAF or Indian MoD of incompetence for choosing the rafale you should instead understand what are the reasons which make them say "there is no other alternatives" and why they are ready to pay so much to get the rafale and its technology.

Have you wondered why its been stuck with the Cost Negotiation Committee stage for three years?

This rationale is consistent/coherent with decision of Indian MoD/IAF to push for a rafale deal.

What was the rationale behind the French MoD cutting orders from 286 to 225?

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 14:47

Actually the quoted senate figures above are the procurement costs...Just type the text and make an automatic google translation and you'll see by yourself if you don't understand french. In fact Fly away costs should be even less.

And your link is not working. I remember last time you completely misunderstood the link you provided to make your point. It was in French so you have perhaps an excuse.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 14:53

arthuro wrote:Actually the quoted senate figures above are the procurement costs...Just type the text and make an automatic google translation and you'll see by yourself if you don't understand french. In fact Fly away costs should be even less.

And your link is not working. I remember last time you completely misunderstood the link you provided to make your point. It was in French so you have perhaps an excuse.

Perhaps you can translate - prix unitaires de production - because it sounds like unit cost of production to me.

This link should work.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 14:55

The Rafale can't be afforded. This is a fact that you refuse to see...

Say who ? An obscure expert or an isolated MP ? You ? Not Indian MoD nor the IAF.

Have you wondered why its been stuck with the Cost Negotiation Committee stage for three years?

Don't pretend you don't know. It is the most complex contract ever negotiated organizing full ToT and License production. Never the contract has been called into question, all proponents pushing for a faster resolution...Mirage 2000 upgrade took years to negotiate as well...

What was the rationale behind the French MoD cutting orders from 286 to 225?

A mere diversion to avoid facing reality.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jan 2014 15:00

vic wrote:The last deal between India and Russia for Su-30MKI was for USD 40 million per unit. let us assume annual costs of USD 10 million per aircraft. The cost of Rafale is estimated at around USD 100 million per aircraft. If per annum costs are estimated at 5 million even then cost of ownership of Rafale is much higher is we take cost of capital to India at 10% per annum. Rafale would have longer life but Mirage upgrade shows that after around 30 years, the value of airframe is only 13%.

Problem with that argument is there are figures and these figures are just assumption not backed by any offical numbers.

The fact remains is MMRCA was the only deal where Life Cycle Cost was taken into consideration ... now that Rafale won the deal on its own merits is another matter ..... Life Cycle Cost would mean though the initial cost of the aircraft will be higher and indeed the cost of the deal itself , cost of operating the aircraft through out its life span of 30 plus years taking all into consideration would justify the money spent and indeed would be far better choice of choosing an aircraft based on just unit cost that IAF has been following as policy so far.

We do not know the operational cost per hour for MKI and the numbers of hours it flies heard it was close to 250 hours but not sure , what is the availability of MKI at any point in time and what is the maintenance . spares cost etc ( i am excluding weapons here )

Probably its safe to say Rafale would better the MKI in all these assuming all thing being equal as its in medium fighter class ,by how much we dont know unless MOD puts some figures out to compare the two.

Much of the cost escalation is also of our making the perpetual time that MOD takes to clear one critical deal that spans across many Government is legendary and should merit a place in Guinness Book Of Record.

Time is money for any deal and the more time we spend on defence deal the more will we end on paying for every year the deal gets delayed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jan 2014 15:06

arthuro wrote:Say who ? An obscure expert or an isolated MP ? You ? Not Indian MoD nor the IAF.

The fact that its taken three years to sign and is still far from concluded. And unlike you, many folks here have been followed India's economic news (growth rate, current account deficit, fiscal deficit) closely. Though to be fair, it wouldn't be the first unaffordable thing the govt has signed up for and then regretted later.

Don't pretend you don't know. It is the most complex contract ever negotiated organizing full ToT and License production. Never the contract has been called into question, all proponents pushing for a faster resolution...Mirage 2000 upgrade took years to negotiate as well..

This isn't the first full ToT and license production deal signed by the MoD (case in point: Su-30MKI). And if it were so complex they wouldn't have been projecting a signature before the end of FY 2011-12. They wouldn't have waited until Dassault's financial bid expired. And most importantly, the figure of $12 billion wouldn't have morphed into 'much more' than $20 billion.

The reference to the Mirage upgrade is certainly apt. Especially when contrasted with the MiG upgrade that was initiated at the same time, was far more extensive, and yet got signed three years before the Mirage deal did.

What was the rationale behind the French MoD cutting orders from 286 to 225?
A mere diversion to avoid facing reality.

Humor me. What was the rationale behind the French MoD's cut?

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 19 Jan 2014 15:09

Viv S wrote:
arthuro wrote:Actually the quoted senate figures above are the procurement costs...Just type the text and make an automatic google translation and you'll see by yourself if you don't understand french. In fact Fly away costs should be even less.

And your link is not working. I remember last time you completely misunderstood the link you provided to make your point. It was in French so you have perhaps an excuse.

Perhaps you can translate - prix unitaires de production - because it sounds like unit cost of production to me.

This link should work.

To put things straight:

-Your paper describe the program unit cost (cost of development+cost of procurement)/number of units procured.

between: the point of the paper was to show that Program unit costs is increasing in many programs due to reduction of orders. But that point is only relevant for french decision makers as if the information was known at the beginning of those program different arbitrage would have been done.

-The senate figure is the procurement cost : cost of procurement/number of units procured :

For the senate figure as they say they only don't take into account development costs (but every thing else) this should be the procurement cost. Otherwise they would have described what else they don't take in their calculation or simply say it is the flyaway cost.