Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jan 2014 20:31

RakS has made the same point I've been making.We need large numbers in the IAF's inventory.The avowed aim is to have a fleet of more than 40 sqds. This cannot be accomplished by buying the most expensive aircraft on the market.Only two capable aircraft can be acquired at reasonable cost,the LCA ($25-30M for MK-1/2) and the MIG-29K/35 ($32M upwards).As is being done to the F-18SH,stealth variants of both aircraft can be developed for not too much extra cost,to give them much greater enhanced stealth capability,while not being pure stealth birds,which are costing a bomb,at least $100m whether from east or west (T-50/FGFA or JSF).The MIG-29K is supposed to have stealth coatings that has reduced the RCS of the basic MIG-29 by a factor of at least 4 .
I posted the USN's CNO,Adm. Greenert's views ,with the huge development of PGMs,on payload centric aircraft as being the cost effective solution,instead of buying "luxury" birds.

We could have both our cake and eat it too if we dropped the number of Rafales to be acquired to around 60-80 ( at $70M-$100M each from approx 5.B to $9B),acquired the same number of MIG-29s/35s (around $35M each,$2.5B to $3.0B),and still have a couple of billion spare cash in hand,possessing 160 aircraft instead of just 120! The extra $2-3 B can pay for 100 LCAs .This will give us a total of 260 aircraft (Rafales,MIG-29/35s and LCAs) instead of just 120 Rafales.Which would you rather have?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2014 21:32

Philip wrote:As is being done to the F-18SH,stealth variants of both aircraft can be developed for not too much extra cost,to give them much greater enhanced stealth capability,while not being pure stealth birds,which are costing a bomb,at least $100m whether from east or west (T-50/FGFA or JSF).

The 'stealth' variants of the SH and F-15E have found no takers. They've been questions raised, both about the cost and the degree of stealth delivered. Neither approach - enclosed weapons pods on hardpoints or conformal weapons pods - has been adopted by any other aircraft developer whether European, Russian or Chinese. Not to mention, the performance cost will be even higher for the Tejas than it would for heavier aircraft.

The MIG-29K is supposed to have stealth coatings that has reduced the RCS of the basic MIG-29 by a factor of at least 4 .

That would put it at a Rafale/EF/SH level. Very unlikely.

I posted the USN's CNO,Adm. Greenert's views ,with the huge development of PGMs,on payload centric aircraft as being the cost effective solution,instead of buying "luxury" birds.

Long range munitions like the Tomahawk can be intercepted by both enemy fighters and short range air defence systems. The US can afford to fire off hundreds of cruise missiles, regardless of their efficacy, before dispatching the fighters. That's not a luxury we can afford.

We could have both our cake and eat it too if we dropped the number of Rafales to be acquired to around 60-80 ( at $70M-$100M each from approx 5.B to $9B),acquired the same number of MIG-29s/35s (around $35M each,$2.5B to $3.0B),and still have a couple of billion spare cash in hand,possessing 160 aircraft instead of just 120! The extra $2-3 B can pay for 100 LCAs .This will give us a total of 260 aircraft (Rafales,MIG-29/35s and LCAs) instead of just 120 Rafales.Which would you rather have?

That would be an extremely poor decision. The acquisition of a weapon system doesn't end with the flyaway cost. If we induct the Rafale and the MiG-35, we end up paying the non-recurring costs associated with both - spares, support, training, munitions, infrastructure - but spreading it over smaller production runs. Even considering commonalities between the MiG-29UPG and MiG-35, fact is the IAF will be forced to persist with an additional aircraft type post-2030.

Result: higher unit acquisition costs for both aircraft and a bigger headache for an air force already fielding an over-diverse fighter fleet.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 23 Jan 2014 04:30

Philip wrote:120+ Rafales the "backbone" of the IAF? The numbers are too small and at those prices unaffordable.The 270+ MKIs are the real backbone,while if it all ends well,the 200+ LCAs will be the little buggers,pun intended! If numbers are the issue,then just buy MIG-29s.At just $32M a 29K,one can get 2 MIGs for the price of just one Rafale ($70-100M) and have a whole lot of engines,spares thrown in as well.

Going by the latest news about the fact that reliance is going to be the principal manufacturer of the components along with the wings, we can see more than 250 Rafales flying IAF colors by 2030.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2014 05:15

Will they be the official sponsors of the IAF then? We may see their logo plastered on flight suits and aircraft!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2014 15:35

Rafale flies with an incredible payload- 6 AASM bombs, 4 MICA missiles, 2 Meteor missiles, 3 drop tanks!

The RAFALE has successfully completed its first test flights in a new heavily-armed configuration, comprising six air-to-ground precision AASM Hammer missiles, four medium and long range air-to-air missiles from the MICA family, two very long range METEOR missiles, as well as three 2,000 liter fuel tanks.

This preliminary work, self-funded by Dassault Aviation are conducted in collaboration with the Direction Générale de l’Armement (the French Defense Procurement Agency) and will eventually lead to a complete clearance of the flight envelope.

By increasing the capabilities of its fourteen hard points, including eight under the wings, the RAFALE is the only fighter aircraft in the world capable of carrying 1.5 times its own weight. Its “omnirole” capability responds to the needs of countries requiring, at a controlled cost, an operational and versatile tool capable of fulfilling all missions more effectively, whilst mobilizing fewer resources. Two RAFALE aircraft represent the same potential as six MIRAGE 2000 class aircraft.

This new configuration, unmatched in the versatility and firepower it represents, has been made possible thanks to the open architecture of the aircraft designed from the outset to perform all of the missions previously assigned to seven different types of aircraft in France. As a veritable “force booster”, the RAFALE is a tool for rationalizing armies.

This new development, which combines great autonomy with the versatility of the weapons system, demonstrates the power and operational superiority of the RAFALE, which already has a unique range of configurations, including the unique ability to strike deeply, with two Scalp cruise missiles and three 2,000 liter fuel tanks, as used by the French armed forces during Operation Harmattan in Libya in 2011.

Thanks to this new technical performance, Dassault Aviation is again demonstrating, a few days after being awarded the contract for the F3-R standard by the French Minister for Defense, Mr. Jean-Yves Le Drian, that the RAFALE is part of a continuous improvement process to meet users’ requirements.

The Rafale further improves its versatility

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Jan 2014 16:07

Philip wrote: We could have both our cake and eat it too if we dropped the number of Rafales to be acquired to around 60-80 ( at $70M-$100M each from approx 5.B to $9B),acquired the same number of MIG-29s/35s (around $35M each,$2.5B to $3.0B),and still have a couple of billion spare cash in hand,possessing 160 aircraft instead of just 120! The extra $2-3 B can pay for 100 LCAs .This will give us a total of 260 aircraft (Rafales,MIG-29/35s and LCAs) instead of just 120 Rafales.Which would you rather have?

I'd rather have 120 Rafale and I'd imagine so would the IAF.

You forget that for "every" LCA, Mig35 etc - you need to train a pilot, you need crews to maintain it and you need to fuel it etc. If 120 aircraft can do the job of 250 aircraft better, cheaper and more effectively, its better to choose 120 Rafale over 250 Migs any day of the week. As the capability per platform increases the number of platforms need not keep increasing. We aren't in the game of matching sopwith camels or Bf-109s with the enemy. We need "capability" more than redundancy as numerically we can never afford to match the "two-front war" scenario 1-to-1. Fighter pilots are not like jawans, who can be churned out at an industrial pace in this day and age. Also, while "lifetime costs" cycle for aircraft are being taken into account, the associated costs of training pilots, training ground crew, pensions, salary, benefits etc is not being factored into the economics of war when we have the "quantity" vs "quality" argument.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Jan 2014 16:09

Philip wrote:Will they be the official sponsors of the IAF then? We may see their logo plastered on flight suits and aircraft!

Compared with the number of aircraft Lockheed and Boeing have built? the number of aircraft the Mig Corporation has built? the number of aircraft Sukhoi has built ?

Reliance will seem like an infant in the sandbox of Titans.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jan 2014 16:56

126 Rafales, and dropping 63 options - those can go for $6.3Bn spent elsewhere - $2.3Bn for upgrade of 50 Su-30s to Super 30, 3Bn for FGFA, another Bn for LCA/AMCA development.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jan 2014 17:13

the AASMs are very expensive. we need to fund and accelerate to completion not just the basic LGB Sudarshan but variants with the same seeker and control fins of 250lb, 500lb and 2000lb. secondly we need GLONASS guided variant of the same. we also need folding wing range extention kits for 500lb weapon, with glonass guidance to hit known targets from a safe distance.

just buying 100 AASMs to keep wrapped in cotton wool isnt going to suffice.

just as the cellphone revolution has percolated down to 90% of indians, we need 90% of IAF planes to have ready and abundant access to smart and long range weapons.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jan 2014 17:54

>>>we need to fund and accelerate to completion not just the basic LGB Sudarshan but variants with the same seeker and control fins of 250lb, 500lb and 2000lb. secondly we need GLONASS guided variant of the same. we also need folding wing range extention kits for 500lb weapon, with glonass guidance to hit known targets from a safe distance.

i believe all these are being worked on at DRDL/RCI/ADE per the open reports about different parts of the overall effort.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 24 Jan 2014 18:28

Why is the Rafale carrying less than 2000kg of bombs supposed to be so impressive, the MKI demoed about three times as much in IronFist.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Jan 2014 07:57

RAFALE Fighter Jet Completes First Test Flight In New Heavily Armed Configuration

The RAFALE has successfully completed its first test flights in a new heavily-armed configuration, comprising six air-to-ground precision AASM Hammer missiles, four medium and long range air-to-air missiles from the MICA family, two very long range METEOR missiles, as well as three 2,000 liter fuel tanks.

By increasing the capabilities of its fourteen hard points, including eight under the wings, the RAFALE is the only fighter aircraft in the world capable of carrying 1.5 times its own weight. Its “omnirole” capability responds to the needs of countries requiring, at a controlled cost, an operational and versatile tool capable of fulfilling all missions more effectively, whilst mobilizing fewer resources. Two RAFALE aircraft represent the same potential as six MIRAGE 2000 class aircraft.

This new configuration, unmatched in the versatility and firepower it represents, has been made possible thanks to the open architecture of the aircraft designed from the outset to perform all of the missions previously assigned to seven different types of aircraft in France. As a veritable “force booster”, the RAFALE is a tool for rationalizing armies.

This new development, which combines great autonomy with the versatility of the weapons system, demonstrates the power and operational superiority of the RAFALE, which already has a unique range of configurations, including the unique ability to strike deeply, with two Scalp cruise missiles and three 2,000 liter fuel tanks, as used by the French armed forces during Operation Harmattan in Libya in 2011.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 25 Jan 2014 08:33

shukla wrote: RAFALE Fighter Jet Completes First Test Flight In New Heavily Armed Configuration

shukla wrote: comprising six air-to-ground precision AASM Hammer missiles, four medium and long range air-to-air missiles from the MICA family, two very long range METEOR missiles, as well as three 2,000 liter fuel tanks.

shukla wrote:Two RAFALE aircraft represent the same potential as six MIRAGE 2000 class aircraft.

and along with Spectra is the only reason why i am such a big fan of Rafale. MOD + IAF please buy it ASAP

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jan 2014 08:39

Rafale carrying 1.5 tons of weight is fine but they would be a flying brick then as such heavy load and various payload on its points would also disturb its aerodynamic flow and quality of flying.

Texafr · Post by **Texafr** » 25 Jan 2014 18:33

abhik wrote:Why is the Rafale carrying less than 2000kg of bombs supposed to be so impressive, the MKI demoed about three times as much in IronFist.

Each AASM 250 weighs 340kg, so 6 AASM 250 represent 2040kg of bombs.

Singha wrote:the AASMs are very expensive. we need to fund and accelerate to completion not just the basic LGB Sudarshan but variants with the same seeker and control fins of 250lb, 500lb and 2000lb. secondly we need GLONASS guided variant of the same. we also need folding wing range extention kits for 500lb weapon, with glonass guidance to hit known targets from a safe distance.

The AASM family is a different weapon from LGBs. An AASM can destroy a target at more than 50km standoff range, 6 AASM can be fired in less than a minute at widely separated targets (a swift action which prevents an enemy reaction to the strike) and the AASM has a success rate near 100% whereas LGBs have a success rate of 70%. Both weapons are useful.

**
The GPS-guided version of the AASM proved particularly useful when mission planners called for multiple targets to be hit in quick succession, to preserve surprise. A Rafale can multi-fire the AASM quickly, and we launched 12 from two aircraft within a minute on one mission. They hit targets dispersed over a wide area munitions storage areas, training camps, and a headquarters, said Tricot. On that mission in early February, another two Rafales were standing by armed with GBU-12s, so that if any target was not destroyed, it could be re-attacked using the laser-guided weapon.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... li-mission
**

Austin wrote:Rafale carrying 1.5 tons of weight is fine but they would be a flying brick then as such heavy load and various payload on its points would also disturb its aerodynamic flow and quality of flying.

Obviously a heavy load will modify the flight characteristics of an aircraft. Dassault is testing several heavy configs with the "new" hardpoints to demonstrate that the aircraft can take off safely regardless of the external conditions and perform a combat mission with the payload. So far, the flight trials are going well.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 26 Jan 2014 11:57

Modify the flight characteristics a little bit is putting it mildly. If that aircraft it jumped by an enemy fighter it will have to ditch *all* of those heavy stores and then either flee or fight. So much load is only possible in conditions of total air superiority and ability to whack all possible SAM sites.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 26 Jan 2014 12:54

100% price escalation on Rafale fighter aircraft to Rs 1.75 lakh crore likely to dent IAF's strike capability

In January 2012, when Rafale was declared the winner, its price was quoted between $60-65 million (Rs373-Rs400 crore). A top defence ministry official said the price of a fighter jet made by Dassault could now cost $120 million (Rs746 crore). The second bidder, Eurofighter, had quoted $80-85 million (Rs497-Rs528 crore). The price hike would mean that the deal would cost India nothing less than $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore),” said an Indian Air Force (IAF) official, who is privy to discussions of the cost negotiation committee.

The defence ministry headed by AK Antony has developed cold feet after the cost doubled compared to the original estimate. With the general elections just months away, Antony is unsure about the fate of the deal, a defence ministry official said. “As the negotiations continue, the cost is spiralling out of hand. It is a major worry,” he said.

The IAF, which is fighting its depleting combat strength, was banking on Rafale as this was going to be the force’s leading fighter plane for the next four decades. “With chances of the MMRCA deal getting inked appearing dim, there seems to be no solution to the immediate problem of shrinking squadron numbers as existing aircraft are forced into retirement,” said another IAF official.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jan 2014 12:59

The price hike would mean that the deal would cost India nothing less than $28-30 billion.

- What is the total amount of the contract?

- This is confidential information you need to ask this from the Indian government.

- As far as the estimate of $ 20 billion?

- No, it's much more.

Eric Trapp
CEO, Dassault

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 26 Jan 2014 15:36

This is a scandal. The Rafale was chosen over the Typhoon only on the basis of its lower bid. Then how can the MoD allow price escalation over the bid value. Now there is obviously no way to determine if the Rafale is indeed cheaper than the Typhoon.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 26 Jan 2014 16:36

we don't want Rafael or Typhoon any more, I am fed up of this MRCA project. by the time they sign contract, that fighter will become outdated and we will have to pay for MUL also. IAF should be satisfied with what it has it is not going to face any 5th generation fighters for next 10 years then why they are so eager to buy costly fighters.

amount to be spent on MRCA can be used as setting up ultra modern facilities of testing LCA, AMCA & its engine development. Include private companies for development of LCA & AMCA. If now they start to become serious in localising or develop technology in aircraft sector by another 10 years we can catch up with China otherwise take my word we will be a buyers only ever after 20 years and not become producers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jan 2014 19:02

the 6 AAM + 6 AASM + 3 fuel tank config is neither here nor there.

- in a atmosphere total air superiority there is no air threat and they could replace the AAM with AASM or LGB or maybe retain 2 mica if someone manages to get a Mig21 up.
- in a contested situation, how do they envisage the rafale changing over into A2A mode to defend its formation - it will have to right away dump the 6 expensive AASM and 3 drop tanks and go into burners to gain speed, height and energy for the fight....or should it shoot off the meteors and keep going hoping for a kill? mission kill right there. plus hope tankers are online to make it back now that drop tanks are gone.

a more realistic mission profile might be a few rafales with A2G weapons + 2 mica each and a escort formation only with A2A missiles.

the whole problem with doing DPSA with 3 drop tanks is if you get bounced when far enough out, and forced to drop tanks, how to make it back to tanker in safe airspace....there is a fine balance equation there...not a problem in beating up the likes of coastal states like iran, syria or libya...sprint 300km and you are safely behind the curtain of carrier based interceptor screens and can tank in peace....a huge problem over mainland china or even TSP. in contrast a true large hunter like MKI or F-15 with CFT will not only suffer less drag but maintain the same range on internal fuel.

I figure when the time comes to kick a$$, it will be MKIs pointing their noses skywards into the gathering dusk, loaded for bear with 2000lb weapons, CBU105 and KH59s.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 26 Jan 2014 19:10

Viv S wrote:The price hike would mean that the deal would cost India nothing less than $28-30 billion.

- What is the total amount of the contract?

- This is confidential information you need to ask this from the Indian government.

- As far as the estimate of $ 20 billion?

- No, it's much more.

Eric Trapp
CEO, Dassault

That is the last straw on this camel's back.

Get out of the deal and pump prim the Indian establishments even if they still end up somewhat lower on quality so long as we can get numbers. Probably also get a PPP going.

What are these figures! Do they want to plug the hole in their national budget with Rafale sales?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 Jan 2014 19:31

Not sure if this was posted before.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... india.html

The Real Reasons for Rafale’s Indian Victory

(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published Feb. 1, 2012)

By Giovanni de Briganti

PARIS --- While many observers cite technology transfer, prices and performance as being major factors in India’s selection of the Rafale as its next-generation fighter, reality is very different even if these factors obviously did play a significant role.

In the same way that it is true that Rafale lost several competitions through no fault of its own, it must be recognized that its victory in India was also won, to a great extent, through no fault of its own. The real reason for its victory is political, and the long memory of Indian politicians was a major contributing factor.

This is not to say, however, that Rafale’s own impressive qualities had nothing to do with its selection. The Indian Air Force, which was extensively briefed by the French air force in the autumn, was particularly impressed by its operational performance during the Libyan bombing campaign and in Afghanistan. Rafale also has a naval variant which could be of future interest to India, given its plans to buy and build aircraft carriers, while the recent decision to upgrade India’s Mirage 2000H fighters will simplify the air force’s logistics chain, as these will share with Rafale many weapons and other equipment.

The Indian Air Force also is a satisfied user of long standing of French fighters, going back to the Dassault Ouragan in the 1950s. It was also particularly appreciative of the performance of its Mirages during the 1999 Kargil campaign against Pakistan, and of the support it then obtained from France. During that campaign, India obtained French clearance – and possibly more - to urgently adapt Israeli and Russian-supplied laser-guided bombs to the Mirages, which were thus able to successfully engage high-altitude targets that Indian MiG-23s and MiG-27s had been unable to reach.

Rafale was preferred because of lower costs, and the Indian air force's familiarity with French warplanes such as the Mirage, Bloomberg reported Feb. 1 quoting an Indian source who asked not be named. "Unit-wise, the French plane is much cheaper than the Eurofighter. Moreover, the Indian air force, which is well equipped with French fighters, is favouring the French," the source said.

To Indian officials, France’s steadfastness as a military ally contrasted strongly with that of the United States, which stopped F-16 deliveries to Pakistan (but kept the money) when it found it expedient to do so, and slowed or vetoed delivery of components for Light Combat Aircraft that India was developing. And, of course, the 1998 arms embargo, decreed by the US after India’s nuclear test in May of that year, left a very bad taste in Indian mouths. France, on the contrary, was the only Western nation not to impose sanctions on that occasion.

That, Indian sources say, was New Delhi’s real reason for eliminating Boeing and Lockheed Martin from the fighter competition; India has resolved, these sources say, to buy only second-line equipment from the U.S., such as transport (C-17, C-130J) or maritime patrol aircraft (P-8I). Vital weapons such as missiles and fighters, when they cannot be locally produced, will remain the preserve of France and Russia.

Political considerations were also a significant factor playing against Rafale’s final competitor, the Eurofighter Typhoon. As this aircraft is produced by a consortium of four nations, each with different foreign policies and different attitudes and tolerances to arms exports, Indian officials were a bit nervous about their ultimate reliability as a single supplier.

Germany is a long-standing Indian aviation partner, and a respected role model for Indian politicians, many of whom were educated there. German companies – essentially the former Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, now part of EADS - helped Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. develop both the LCA and the Advanced Light Helicopter, now called Dhruv. These links were the reason the Eurofighter bid was led by Germany’s Cassidian, and not BAE Systems, the former colonial power. But Germany had dithered over technology transfer for LCA, soft-pedaled on ALH tech transfer when German pacifists raised their eyebrows, and coughed when India almost went to war with Pakistan over Kargil and Kashmir, so in the final analysis it could not be considered a reliable supplier of major weapons.

Italy has never sold a major weapon to India, and so could bring neither influence nor reputation to support Eurofighter, while the third partner, Spain, is totally absent from the Indian military landscape.

This left BAE Systems as the best-known Eurofighter partner in India, and so by default as its ultimate public face. BAE in 2003 sold £1.5 billion’s worth of Hawk jet trainers to India, with a follow-on, £500 million order in 2010. However, its previous major sale to India was the Jaguar light attack aircraft in the 1970s. In fact, this aircraft was jointly developed by Britain and France on a 50/50 basis, and while it was license-produced by HAL it was never really successful as a fighter. Furthermore, France could claim as much benefit from its Indian career as BAE.

Taken together, the Eurofighter partner nations posed an even thornier problem: in case of war, German law prohibits deliveries of weapons and spares, Italian law and public opinions would demand an embargo, while Spanish legislation is murky. What would happen, Indian politicians must have wondered, if after buying the Eurofighter they went to war? Would spares and weapons be forthcoming, or would they be embargoed? The political risk was obviously too big to take.

Weapons also played a significant role in persuading India to opt for Rafale: not only is its weapons range mostly French-made, and thus not subject to a third-party embargo, but so are all of its sensors. Eurofighter, whose air-to-air missiles include the US-made AIM-120 Amraam and the German-led IRIS-T, and whose primary air-to-ground weapon is the US-made Paveway, was obviously at a competitive disadvantage in this respect.

Furthermore, the Rafale is nuclear-capable and will replace the Mirage 2000N in French service as the carrier of the newly-upgraded ASMP/A nuclear stand-off missile; it is also capable of firing the AM-39 Exocet missile, giving it an anti-ship capability that its competitors do not have. India is also interested in fitting its BrahMos supersonic missile to a wide range of its combat aircraft, and Rafale could apparently carry it.

Given that India had sworn to buy the cheapest compliant competitor, it would have been unable to justify picking the Rafale had this not been offered at the lower price. While official figures have not been released, and indeed may never be, initial reports from New Delhi claim that Rafale was offered at a unit price of $4-$5 million less than Eurofighter, which is a surprisingly large advantage given the French aircraft’s reputation of being high-priced.

The French offer also featured substantially lower costs of ownership, according to the same reports, thanks to lower fuel consumption and simpler maintenance requirements.

If true, these figures imply the French offer undercut Eurofighter by over $600 million, which is a large enough difference for one French insider to wonder whether Dassault Aviation will ever make any money on the contract.

But, even if it doesn’t, the Indian contract gives Rafale instant legitimacy, not only because of the thoroughness and transparency of the bidding process, but also because India is the only country to have fought four and a half major wars since 1948, and so knows something about air combat.

For Dassault, the Rafale program will now remain active, with a stabilized production line, for decades to come, and the company will have that much more time to find additional customers. Keeping its production line and supply chain humming at an economically-viable rate are sufficiently valuable achievements to push immediate profits into the sidelines. Supporting 126 – and possibly 206, if India buys an optional second batch – combat aircraft, and providing spares, fixes and upgrades over the next 40 years, will generate gigantic profits, and this more than justified lowering Dassault’s notoriously high profit margins.

In fact, as one industry official noted, "this is France's answer to 'Al Yamamah', but with twice as many aircraft," drawing a parallel with the UK's sale of Tornado fighters and related services to Saudi Arabia, which was instrumental in keeping BAE Systems prosperous throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

And, as French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet told reporters during an impromptu press conference in Parliament, France may soon find “that good news travels in formation,” implying that further, long-deferred contracts might soon be announced.

-ends-

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 26 Jan 2014 19:33

rakshit wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote:I think IAF should buy MRCA in equal numbers of Su-30s i.e., 250+ as IAF think role of Tejas makes it a light fighter and can be brought between 200-250
It is better for IAF if they go for 270 nos each of Su-30, MRCA, Tejas replacing Mig-21s, Mirage and Mig-27s making total 45 sq (810 fighters) in addition Mig-29's 62 nos (59+3) will be replaced by PAKFA with 4 sq (72 nos) Jaguars 148 nos will be replaced by FGFA with 8 sq (144 nos) and if AMCA go ready by that time it can be slowly inducted in place of older Su30 and Tejas will be replaced by newer blocks (Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4) there by IAF can attain at least 50+ squadrons in next decade.
Such fancy numbers only look good on paper. 250+ Rafale alone will cost a bomb, let alone the FGFA and PAK-FA. Moreover inducting huge numbers of Rafale is logically not a good option. The rest of the world is shifting its focus towards 5th gen fighters and reiterating the fact that stealth is very prudent, inducting 250 rafales, 250 tejas is not the need of the hour.
Though i agree that there is an acute shortage of fighters, developmental issues of the FGFA, AMCA should be taken care of on a regular basis and their development fast tracked.

Also i often wonder, why is the mig 29 SMT or mig 35 underestimated by many?? India has been pretty comfortable with the russian fighters for many years. The Mig has matured over the years incorporating all the developments in the field of military aviation. If anything that the IAF wants and is not present in the mig, then i dont think its development would be an issue. I feel Mig 29 k is one of the finest fighters in the modern era with a huge scope in the future too. I am not saying that india should have chosen mig 35 over rafale. I am pretty sure the IAF knows exactly what is wants. But if in future the development of AMCA or the FGFA is delayed which i am pretty sure is bound to happen, I think adding Migs to the existing fleet of the mig 29 ups(being upgraded) is not a bad option.

as we look at IAF future plans IAF believe it needs 45 sq to keep vigil at two front but for them PAKFA is not ok! then are they pointing towards F-35s? they can only answer to that.

I understand having 250+ Rafaels needs minimum $50 billion + but it was MoD & IAF decided to call for bid to MRCA project with 124 nos with additional 64-74 nos. I also understand that Mod now thinks it is the right time to change the vendor as Russians are also started to bullying us.

If we think the role of Rafael, while IAF having SU-30s, which is a Multirole expensive to maintain I don't think another expensive fighter doesn't make sense.

It is 100% sure that IAF needs to buy less expensive fighters, with commonality with existing fleet and easy to maintain. As for as I know Mig-29/35s are the only option as both IN & IAF will have it. Why not MoD interested in buying Mig-35s with ToT or invest heavily on MCA or Tejas Mk.2 or Mk.3 versions which may solve many problems.

If IAF thinks to buy 63 Rafales with additional 100+ Mig-35s it feels then it is economically viable

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jan 2014 21:02

Jan 26, 2014 :: Brazil rejects white elephant Rafale for Saab

White Elephant? Make that a White Whale because the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft will cost the Indian taxpayer more than $22 billion in equipment, spares and other services, not to mention the fact that it will be almost as expensive to maintain in flight as some commercial jets. The high cost of the Rafale is the reason why France has thus far not been able to sell any of these military jets to an air force other than itself. Even that induction has reportedly been reduced to a number which makes the aircraft irrelevant in an actual conflict. The French air force may buy only a little over two dozen aircraft over the years from Dassault Aviation, far less than the number it had originally agreed to purchase. Almost certainly, the undistinguished performance of the Rafale in the Libyan theatre in 2011, and its ineffectiveness in quelling insurgents in Mali two years later (where helicopter gunships proved far more deadly in taking out the enemy than this high-performance, super-high cost aircraft) may have helped such a decision by the French authorities. Besides, of course, the fact that it will be hugely expensive just to keep the aircraft in operation, although it needs to be said that NATO member states that specialise in producing weaponry said that it would be financial suicide to actually use the aircraft in appreciable quantities.

Based on the information given to him, this columnist elsewhere argued in 2011 and subsequently that the zeal which Nicolas Sarkozy (then President of France) displayed in ridding the world of Muammar Gaddafi was because of the need to sharply ramp up defence sales to the Gulf Cooperation Council powers. His economy on a downward slide and the defence sector gasping for oxygen, Sarkozy looked towards the GCC and India (both locations where decisions over procurement get made on grounds having some relation to the Swiss) to purchase huge volumes of super-expensive French equipment, especially the Rafale. That Sarkozy was an admirer of the major shareholder of Dassault Aviation is something he or his spouse Carla Bruni ever kept secret. The GCC wanted Gaddafi to go, so off with his head. They wanted Bashar Assad to disappear, which is why Sarkozy's successor Francois Hollande has been declaiming about the "civilisational necessity of getting rid of cruel dictators", except — of course — those buying French armaments. Thus far, however, despite doing the GCC's bidding and getting rid of Gaddafi, a man who unwisely unilaterally disarmed himself just years before his public execution in the presence of French Special Forces, and by leading the wolf pack against Assad, no GCC defence ministry has placed orders for the Rafale. It is only India, and that too without asking for the removal of any inconvenient personality, which has placed an order for the Rafale which will cripple the economy for years to come, and make the Air Force as financially strapped in its operations as the Navy has become after it went in for that huge shard of floating junk, the aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov".

Not surprisingly, given that the government in Brazil is much more accountable to standards of good governance than any government in India has been, Brasilia chose the Saab option. Some years ago, when the Air Force MMRCA deal was being discussed in the media, this columnist had indicated his preference for Saab, not just buying the Gripen fighter but the entire company, which was then available for a price below what the Rafale purchase will entail. Such a takeover would have given India access to a level of technology that the DRDO, committed as that organisation is to ensuring that each project lasts as long as the career cycle of its scientists, has never achieved. Dassault offered no such technology transfer, only a few inconsequential transfers of knowhow. Given that the company is being rescued by the India sale, such parsimony in technology transfer is testimony to the low negotiating skills of those who finalised the Rafale contract. Of course, the Gripen was attacked by backers of the Rafale as being single-engined as against the double-engine French aircraft. However, there is no demonstrable safety difference between these two types, while the Rafale has the disadvantage of needing two pilots rather than a single aviator at the controls.

Next to the Gripen, the best aircraft for the IAF to buy would have been the Boeing F/A Hornet, which is a far superior specimen than the other aircraft that was offered, the F-16 (which the US administration pushed hard for India to buy). That purchase would have given India a toehold in the hi-tech segments of the US defence industry, still far and away the world's best. However, by going in for the Rafale, this country has paid through both nostrils to acquire an aircraft that by the time it gets inducted in volume will already be obsolete when compared to its Chinese counterparts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jan 2014 21:12

We'll now be able to buy almost 4 MIG-29Ks for the price of one Rafale,which is overtaking even the JSF as the world's most expensive fighter after the zillionaire class F-22,to delicate to be used in combat!

Just think how $30B could be more usefully spread around the services for priority acquisitions. The LCA could do with some steroids and "more of the same" of Russian birds is the sensible,affordable option.The FGFA/T-50,Russian version is expected to enter series production sometime around 2017/18.At $100M the current price for that stealth bird,buying the Rafale would be absurd.Secondly,even in the US,thinking is moving to more affordable forces,with the USN's CNO calling for more payload specific platforms to be used instead of "luxury" birds.Just imagine that the JSF is going to perform the task of the A-10 too!
We never had the very best of eqpt in the 60s and 70s,yet saw off Pak in style.The time has come for us to "cut our coat according to our cloth",and sadly Parisian bespoke tailoring is unaffordable. The IAF had better get its Plan B/C ready.

koti · Post by **koti** » 26 Jan 2014 21:35

It doesn't add up. Why will a 4 gen aircraft cost that much. The initial costs were reasonable and logical. Why will the cost increase to double the initial estimate? I can't get the logic.
Newer fulcrums are appearing to be a better choice in my opinion too, as they are capable of dealing with the possible threat perceptions in our neighborhood and come with a huge cost, commonality and doctrinal advantages.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jan 2014 21:58

Purely for giggles:

Jan 20, 2014 :: Rafale a worthy choice by the IAF

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jan 2014 06:29

After an inordinately long RFP and evaluation process, they have spent over two years negotiating a contract, and are still not close to agreement. This whole process is beyond ridiculous now.

I wish they had ordered the 126 M2K-5 as per the original plans, without this whole farce of MMRCA procurement.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 27 Jan 2014 08:09

The Rafale idea was pure BS from day one. We prided ourselves on having the most sophisticated selection process forgetting that the selection process is not the objective. (What else is new--we don't have any new howitzers either for over 30 years because of this disease). Next we piled on the BS of "ToT" thinking naively that such a thing is even possible. Finally we insisted that HAL handle the manufacture and Dassault be responsible for HAL's output. In the meantime, the price went from 10 billion to 30 billion, likely because of the huge risk Dassault was being asked to take with HAL. At the end of it, the real objective is nowhere in sight and the IAF still doesn't know where its next fighters are going to come from. Looking back, only someone who had fallen on his head at birth could have dreamed up this absurd tragicomedy.

The best choice for us was the Shornet and it probably still is. I absolutely don't buy the nonsense about "sanctions" because if that were remotely on the cards, could we be bigger idiots to choose an American engine for our most critical strategic weapon, the LCA? For 30 billion, we could get 300 F-18 Super Hornets along with electronics and weapons systems that are better than the Rafale's. If we admit we were stupid and go this route even now, the IAF could get some very capable medium fighters within a couple of years, not a decade. We would probably end up getting more "ToT" via license manufacture of the F-18 with a Tata than we ever would with any airplane. On second thought, it may be too late for 4th gen at all so maybe we should go for the F-35 instead. After all, the PAKFA is probably not going to come now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2014 09:08

Rafale has won the MMRCA race fair and square ....so Shornet or EF being best is just good academic discussion.

The key problem is the long drawn selection and finalisation process from MOD/GOI .... which country in the world takes 15 years to select a type that was stated to be urgent requirenment by IAF way back in 2000.

Rafale would have been a lot cheaper had the entire MMRCA saga would have completed in a fixed time frame say 5 years max from RFI to Selection. ( but still it would beat the AJT selection process that took 20 plus years ! )

We need to fix our system first before we start blaming others ........ blaming others for all our mess is our favourite past time but we rarely look into ourself and try to fix what we know is obviously very wrong.

I wont be very surprised if MMRCA deal is being left to signed for the new GOI , its a political hot potato for any GOI to sign the deal least of all MMS that embedded in scams.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 27 Jan 2014 12:38

Austin wrote:Rafale has won the MMRCA race fair and square ....so Shornet or EF being best is just good academic discussion.

The key problem is the long drawn selection and finalisation process from MOD/GOI .... which country in the world takes 15 years to select a type that was stated to be urgent requirenment by IAF way back in 2000.

Rafale would have been a lot cheaper had the entire MMRCA saga would have completed in a fixed time frame say 5 years max from RFI to Selection. ( but still it would beat the AJT selection process that took 20 plus years ! )

We need to fix our system first before we start blaming others ........ blaming others for all our mess is our favourite past time but we rarely look into ourself and try to fix what we know is obviously very wrong.

I wont be very surprised if MMRCA deal is being left to signed for the new GOI , its a political hot potato for any GOI to sign the deal least of all MMS that embedded in scams.

How dare you speak with such uncommon good sense which will reduce BR posts by 80%!

The timeline on similar "MMRCA-type" deals with UAE, Brazil etc. will all show that:
1. Governmental incompetence is the nature of the beast in any country.
2. High stakes complex deals involve lots of brinkmanship type negotiations which can also backfire.
3. Media reports are almost always speculative, and driven by specific lobbies in such situations.

Bottomline, in the history of warfare, it cannot be proved that X or Y lost a war or battle because A weapon system was chosen over B weapon system, yet read every thread on BR and the majority of posts point to this being the case.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jan 2014 13:36

>>>Bottomline, in the history of warfare, it cannot be proved that X or Y lost a war or battle because A weapon system was chosen over B weapon system,

The Tawakhalna would not have lost or even if it had, it would have inflicted severe casualties on the US Army during ODS if their T-72s were not so outgunned in terms of ammo and sights.

The Syrians were hammered by the Israelis over the Bekaa valley due to a combination of AWACS, higher TW ratio fighters on the Israeli side and all aspect IR missiles.

The examples are many wherein better technology and good tactics give a significant advantage to one side and often lead to overwhelming dominance.

In our own exercises with the French - our Mirage 2000Hs got hammered in BVR from their RDI equipped Mirage 2000Cs. Better radar, active homers and hence better tactics.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2014 13:46

RajitO wrote:2. High stakes complex deals involve lots of brinkmanship type negotiations which can also backfire.

More complex would be time taken to negotiate they own cut and that of babus in the deal

3. Media reports are almost always speculative, and driven by specific lobbies in such situations.

Very True , If one looks at history of MMRCA reporting in the years gone by even by reputed news paper in india it would prove the same ....speculation at its best quoting sources that does not want to be named

The only time to believe other wise is direct quote by MOD/High Ranking Chief carried by multiple news paper or interviews quoted verbatim .......elze mostly its speculation ..... the more controversial the headline the more eyeball , truth is the real casualty.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 27 Jan 2014 14:03

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On a more serious note, arcane offsets procedures don't help either. And not just babus want to make money. Google Saudi Arabia and Al Yamamah!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 27 Jan 2014 16:53

Rafale Tested with Maximum Weapons Load – 12 Guided Weapons Underwing

Photo: Dassault Aviation

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Jan 2014 17:09

it has been discussed above. more a concept/airshow thing than a realistic warfighting mix. can anyone afford to equip their AF with the 100s of mica and meteors such configs can soak up?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 27 Jan 2014 18:45

The cost of all those weapons on the Rafale will be around 20 million USD. The MICA AAMs cost 2.5 million USD each(using the M2000 upgrade deal as reference) totalling 10 m USD. The AASMs cost around 300k+(to france), so 6 of them will come around to 2 m USD. I remember reading that the cost of the Meteor AAM has escalated to 2 million GBP(again this is cost to home countries, not export price). So 2 of these should come to at least 7 m USD. That is 10 + 2(+) + 7(+) =19+ million USD.
Spiraling cost of weapons adversely effect the war waging capability of any country. Take the case of France and its performance in Libya. While the fan boys were tomtoming stories about the Rafale's ultra long range strike missions, destroying tanks form 50 km away etc., the real story was that the French ran out of weapons at an early stage of the conflict and had to go running to khan. This in spite of the fact that they had deployed only a fraction of their AF, in a conflict against a third rate military. Having some uber weapon systems in your armoury is completely different from having an effective well oiled war machine.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Jan 2014 21:16

What about the reserves ? Each fighter would require atleast say, four times the amount of AAMs, no ? And using your number of $2.5M, it works out to 40M per fighter.

And 2.5M per missile is daylight robbery.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 27 Jan 2014 22:09

Yes the European missiles are expensive, However the Katrina will be mated with Russian missiles and hopefully down the line with our own missiles.
If the learning curve is followed by our MOD ,( hopefully in the contract,) enough info will be available fm OEM, such that upgrades can be done inhouse , possibly with Israel on board.
The IAF wants the bird, They seem confidant that it will be more than good enough till the AMCA comes in numbers.
Also the Raffy is already compatable with American weapons ,which were used in Libya , so thats another not so expensive alternative,
With the bird having multiple options as far as weaponary is concerned, the corrosponding tactics incorporated by opposing airforces will have a built in delay till the type of missile can be narrowed down(I taking a hail mary pass here) and diversonary measures deployed.
The logistics of stocking the same is the downside