Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[brar_w]

But the key point is that the USN will be actively investing in the SH longer than any other participant

So the french which do not have any other tactical fighter in their pipeline won't be investing in the Rafale? Investing actively can also be for USN specific things such as data links for the NIFC-CA concept which have no relevance for India. I don't think we'll see a very aggressive MLU for the SH fleet because it already has a lot of the stuff (AESA etc) and that the upgrades will have to earn their way into the fleet. Most of those upgrades are company funded so available for those willing to sign even now. Other more major upgrades will happen to the growler through the next Gen jammer. Again, there is no requirement from the MRCA for an escort jammer and one does not go looking for capability one does not require. There is nothing in the pipeline for the SH beyond the Advanced international Shornet roadmap. Those will likely find their way into USN jets throughout the 2020's and early 2030's. Other investments would go into the F-35C which will have better returns, and on developing the next tactical fighter for the USN that will begin replacing the Super Hornets that were early builds. Just show me the sort of "upgrades" you are talking about which will find their way into the USN Shornets over the years.

[GeorgeWelch]

But the key point is that the USN will be actively investing in the SH longer than any other participant

So the french which do not have any other tactical fighter in their pipeline won't be investing in the Rafale?

No

They only funded AESA because Dassault begged them to help with export sales.

That does not bode well for the Rafale's future.

I don't think we'll see a very aggressive MLU for the SH fleet because it already has a lot of the stuff (AESA etc) and that the upgrades will have to earn their way into the fleet.

Well of course it's current now, but who knows what the future brings?

Again, there is no requirement from the MRCA for an escort jammer and one does not go looking for capability one does not require.

How do you know what India will or will not require for the next 30 years? It would be foolish to not at least consider the possibility. Why would you turn down extra capability?

Just show me the sort of "upgrades" you are talking about which will find their way into the USN Shornets over the years.

Give me a time machine and I'll tell you.

No one knows the precise future, but we do know the SH will be a bigger and more important part of the USN fleet than any comparable aircraft anywhere else in the world, therefore there is confidence that it will be modernized enough to remain relevant against top-line threats for decades to come.

[brar_w]

No

They only funded AESA because Dassault begged them to for export sales.

That does not bode well for the Rafale's future.

But they did and that is what counts. Also they are committed to an upgrade to the Spectra EW system. That has also been reported in the media.

Well of course it's current now, but who knows what the future brings?

So you do not know what will come the SH way of upgrades, yet you are 100% that it will come, and whatever comes will not come for the rafale.

How do you know what India will or will not require for the next 30 years? It would be foolish to not at least consider the possibility.

There is no requirement, because an EW escort jamming mission was not asked from the MRCA fighters. Had it most would have been disqualified. If the IAF wishes to field a dedicated escort jammer it will institute a program for the same, and in that program Boeing can show up with the growler. The Growler has no bearing on the MRCA, the IAF did not even evaluate it.

Give me a time machine and I'll tell you.

Again, you do not know of what these upgrades would be, yet you are certain that despite the law of diminishing returns Boeing will be kept well funded on Future additions on the Super Hornet, and that those upgrades would never be available for the Rafale.

No one knows the precise future, but we do know the SH will be a bigger and more important part of the USN fleet than any comparable aircraft anywhere else in the world

I can tell you what these upgrades will be like (broad idea) without a time machine, but at the same time also tell you that many of these upgrades will not be relevant to the IAF

[Viv S]

If you're going to start including other costs, then it's only fair to note that the last MKI batch was over $100 million each.

If you include 'everything' the SH is $120M+. If you include only the essentials you get $80M which is the procurement cost for the USN.

The MKI is supposed to be your topline fighter. I don't understand your eagerness to reduce it to a tanker or escort jammer.

There's no urge to buy a SH for $100M+ and use it as a tanker or escort jammer either.

N-LCA is rather dubious at the moment and LCA-MKII is a long ways away and naval 5th gen is basically a powerpoint slide.

That leaves MiG-29K as your ONLY carrier capable plane for potentially two decades or more. Like I said, SH provides flexibility and options.

1. The N-Tejas is based on the Tejas Mk2. And it WILL enter service with the IN.
2. The F-35 is very much an option for a fifth generation. And it may be joined by a naval PAK FA.
3. If the IN goes for the SH, it can forget about getting a 5th gen fighter. The MoD isn't going to sanction a fourth fighter type for just three carriers.

So the SH doesn't have any use to the military as a carrier-based aircraft.

No on both counts. The opposite of off-the-shelf is custom development. That really has nothing to do with manufacturing location. The plan was to buy the initial batch straight from the manufacturer, after which it was supposed to switch to local manufacture with no delay. So yes, the plan was for it to come quickly

By that definition practically every fighter IAF has bought in the last sixty years has been off-the-shelf (with the exception of the Marut).

There is nothing 'quick' about local manufacture. If the IAF wanted them 'quickly' it would have bought them off-the-shelf i.e. delivered assembled and ready-to-fly.

The point about development was TIME, whether India is actually involved in it or not is irrelevant from that perspective. The GNG is NOT a finished product and will require an extensive development cycle to be fully combat capable.

All that would have impacted is the single squadron to be delivered directly by SAAB. It would not have stopped HAL for gearing up to produce it.

At this point that comes across more like wishful thinking.

If you think the Indian industry is to stagnate for the next three decades, you're welcome to that opinion. I would imagine the Tejas Mk2 would be upgraded by HAL and they could spin some of that off into Gripen upgrades.

But the key point is that the USN will be actively investing in the SH longer than any other participant.

If anything the French and Swedes will be investing in their aircraft longer by virtue of inducting their aircraft at a later stage. For the USN, the F-35C will be the platform of choice and that is what it'll be investing in.

How well is the F-18C/D supported today? Aside from a SLEP what sort of MLU is available to F-18 operators who received aircraft after 1995. In the IAF's case, it'll have to operate the aircraft a full decade after the USN has phased it out.

Your entire argument is predicated on the SH having a lower MLU cost than the SV & Gripen and that somehow overshadowing both the acquisition and operating costs over 30 years of service. Unlikely.

[brar_w]

Aside from a SLEP what sort of MLU is available to F-18 operators who received aircraft after 1995. In the IAF's case, it'll have to operate the aircraft a full decade after the USN has phased it out

AESA radar and avionics improvements including mission computers etc.

http://s30.postimg.org/r6135lc41/RAYTHEON_AESA.jpg

[Viv S]

I expected to see this already up on the BR Top Stories page. Apparently not a lot of readers of Bureaucracy Today (cover story on Rafale) on the forum. Several errors in it but it does highlight the deal's staggering cost. Hopefully the mandarins in the MoD and MoF are taking note.

RAFALE Deal

Rs 62,000 Cr Rafale deal: A lethal French kiss?

By Soma Chakraborty and Anand Singh

The Indian Air Force authorities recently briefed Defence Minister Arun Jaitley on the IAF’s immediate requirement of 126 Rafale combat aircraft of France. The Rs 62,000 crore contract, being tipped as the mother of all defence deals globally, had run into a rough weather during the UPA regime. Now France is pinning its hope on the Narendra Modi Government to lock the deal. While the IAF is for the deal, Indian defence observers opine that the multi-billion dollar contract will be a “financial suicide” and instead the Government should invest in reviving the comatose indigenous aircraft industry. Bureaucracy Today brings to its readers an in-depth analysis of the worthiness of the Dassault Rafale defence deal.

The future of war is not now on the ground or at sea, but in the air. As Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, then commander of all American air combat units in France, famously said in November 1918, “The day has passed when armies on the ground or navies on the sea can be the arbiter of a nation's destiny in war. The main power of defense and the power of initiative against an enemy has passed to the air.”

A country without a strong Air Force is at the mercy of any aggressor. History tells us how air superiority played a decisive role and won battles in World War-I and II. The Indian border security is being continuously impacted by the rise of China as a militarily global power. But it seems India is yet to learn its lessons from history. India's annual defence budget for the year 2014-15 is USD 39.2 billion of which the major portion is earmarked for the Army. No doubt both strong Army and Navy are important for a country’s defence but air mastery is today the supreme expression of the entire military power. The large Army on the ground becomes ineffective in the absence of a strong air cover.

Defence experts say India contemplating finalizing a deal with French aerospace major Dassault for the supply of 126 Rafale fighter jets won’t give an edge to the country in the case of a war with China or Pakistan. Instead the deal will burn a big hole in India’s pocket.

RAFALE: A WHITE ELEPHANT?

In January 2012 when India chose the Rafale combat plane for exclusive negotiations, the company had quoted its price between USD 60-65 million (Rs 373-Rs 400 crore). Its rival, Eurofighter, had quoted USD 80-85 million (Rs 497-Rs 528 crore). But at present the cost has allegedly escalated by 100 per cent. A Defence Ministry insider tells Bureaucracy Today, “The cost has now escalated by 100 per cent. Now a Rafale fighter jet could cost USD 120 million (Rs 746 crore). It means that the deal would now cost India approximately $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore), making it a suicidal choice now.”

However, advocating the IAF’s choice for the Rafale, former Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi tells Bureaucracy Today, “After testing each and every aircraft, the IAF selected the Rafale as it met most of its needs. And in my opinion it is the best buy. Its price, technology, overall life cycle cost evaluation, serviceability everything matters for the IAF. Our process is a time-tested one.”

Appu Kuttan Soman, a diplomatic historian and a defence analyst, thinks otherwise. He opines, “Whichever aircraft is chosen would serve with the IAF until beyond 2050. Being a fourth generation aircraft, the Rafale, like all its competitors in the MMRCA bid, would be obsolete long before that. Since India would be acquiring two fifth generation aircraft—one being developed in partnership with Russia and the other being developed domestically—the MMRCA is essentially an interim buy.”

Industry insiders say even if the deal is finalized, the first of the Rafales will be delivered in late 2016. “The Light Combat Aircraft will enter squadron service in 2015, thus eliminating the raison d’etre for the MMRCA acquisition. Deliveries of the rest will continue into the 2030s. By then, stealth aircraft and UAVs would have proliferated. The Rafale would have become obsolete by the time it enters IAF service in large numbers. The fifth generation fighter India is co-producing with Russia is scheduled to begin production in India in 2022. Acquiring the Rafale when India is producing a fifth generation aircraft of roughly the same cost but much greater capabilities makes no sense,” Soman says.

Echoing the views of former Air Chief Marshal Tyagi, defence expert and retired Major General Gagan Deep Singh Bakshi tells Bureaucracy Today, “The Rafale deal is very good for India. The Rafale was chosen in 2012 by the IAF as it was a better option economically. It was cheaper when compared to that of the Eurofighter…The IAF found the French aircraft very good as its overall life cycle cost was lower than that of other planes. Also the factors such as how long it remains in service; how long it remains non-functional during its repair and recoveries. How fast it can be, how many sorties it can generate… And by the experience of the Mirage earlier with the IAF we have found that French technology is very good and its overall operating cost and life cycle come out well. The Rafale is a good fighter jet and we must buy it at the earliest.”

Contradicting Tyagi and Bakshi, another defence analyst, who doesn’t want to be named, says, “The deal will not be beneficial for India. The technology of the Rafale is outdated. The Rafale is not a well-desired fighter plane in the world. It is not as per international standards. France also wanted to sell it to South Korea but failed. I don’t know why India has to buy it. Maybe India does not want to buy any American or Russian plane.”

Sources say even A K Antony, the Defence Minister in the UPA-II regime, had developed cold feet after the cost of the Rafale spiralled to almost double the original estimate. Bakshi also admits that the price has escalated. “Due to delays, the price of the deal has gone up to USD 20 billion,” he says.

As per a report published in Sunday Guardian 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,” the report says.

Downplaying France’s inability to sell the Rafale to other countries, former Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major tells Bureaucracy Today, “That is a completely different matter. It would have happened due to the relation of France with other countries. It should not be the criteria for selection. The IAF concern is selecting the right weapon that meets its requirements. Definitely the Rafale is best for the IAF. After evaluating all the six jet fighters, the Rafale was shortlisted. And in the IAF during evaluation there is no ranking. The IAF just figures out planes which meet its needs. Suppose, three planes meet IAF requirements during evaluation, it lets the Ministry know that these aircraft have been shortlisted by the IAF. And from there it’s the work of the Ministry to lock the deal with any of the companies after cost negotiations.”

In December last year, Brazil rejected France’s USD 4 billion proposal for 36 Rafale fighter jets for cost reasons and went for the Swedish Saab instead. However, downplaying the Brazilian rejection, former Air Chief Marshal Tyagi tells Bureaucracy Today, “If Brazil has rejected the Rafale, it is because it has different requirements than India. In fact, the Saab is a cheaper fighter but it does not suit the IAF requirement.”

DOES INDIA REALLY NEED RAFALE?

Former Maj-General Bakshi tells Bureaucracy Today, “India needs new fourth generation fighter jets. And apart from the aircraft we wanted the complete Transfer of Technology with source codes and all…IAF was extremely happy with the earlier Mirage 2000. In fact, the IAF wanted to buy more Mirages but the Mirage factory has been shut down. In the meantime the French developed the Rafale and they offered it to us. Before finalizing the Rafale, the IAF did a very professional analysis of fighter jets. Practically the best in the results was the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Rafale was number two, but we went in for the Rafale as it was twin engine and best suited to fly at a low altitude even when there is any bird hit as at a low altitude the chances of a bird hitting are most and in such conditions the fighter falls like a stone. There was a series of factors that were looked into and the Rafale was found the best. Another reason to select the Rafale was that the serviceability of the aircraft is easier due to the modular replacement of the parts that can be changed instantly and hence making it to fly for much longer time during its service.”

He further says, “Air power is important as it gives the edge over the enemy. But currently the condition of the IAF is critical. And if you are weak in air then you are prone to lose the battle on the ground. The current bench strength of the IAF is down to 29 squadrons from its actual 45 squadrons. For going in a war, the IAF currently needs 60 squadrons but it never got that strength. When we look at the Chinese Air Force, they have now not only the quantitive fleet but also got the qualitative advantage above us. Today China has 913 fourth generation aircraft, whereas India has just 322. Earlier, the Chinese were only bigger but now they are better than us by three times and if China maintains the same speed to modernize its Air Force, then by 2020 they would be four times bigger than us with 1,300 plus fourth generation aircraft.”

Defence experts opine that India instead of buying defence technology from foreign nations should invest in developing its own indigenous fighter jets. “These planes are all technology and the delivery of the Rafale fleet will continue taking place till 2030. By that time, these planes will be obsolete. By the end of 2030, when all the planes are delivered, it will be totally out of technology. These are fourth generation planes and now fifth generation aircraft are in service,” a defence analyst tells Bureaucracy Today.

WILL MODI GOVT BITE THE FRENCH TOAST?

It will be interesting to see whether the Narendra Modi Government which has a strong proponent of indegenisation of defence equipment will lock the Rafale deal. Last month, Jaitley had told reporters that indegenisation in the defence sector is an issue which is already coming up in discussions and it is an area he is "personally willing to oversee".

A deal of the magnitude of the Rafale calls for greater transparency and a guarantee that the country will get benefits proportional to the investment. Though the proponents of the deal argue that it will help India get the critical technologies it lacks, but no detail has been disclosed what India asked for in terms of transfer of technology and what the vendor has offered. A questionnaire sent by Bureaucracy Today to Dassault Rafale on the technology transfer understanding between the company and the Government of India remains unanswered.

The defence budget is not limitless and India has other more cost-effective means of rectifying the IAF’s fighter shortage. A defence analyst opines, “India should develop its own indigenous plane. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a very good company. It has developed Tejas but it’s a light fighter plane, it does not serve the purpose. It has an engine problem. The Indian Government must give funds and incentives to the HAL so that it can upgrade its technology to develop an indigenous plane of fifth generation. It will take USD 20 billion and a minimum of 10 years but it’s like planting a tree. If you don’t plant a tree today after 10 years you will get nothing. But if you plant it today at least you will get something after 10 years. So this is very important.”

HAL Chairman and Managing Director R K Tyagi refuted the claim of a problem in the Tejas engine. He also refused to make any comment on the Rafale deal. “Don’t drag me into the issue (Rafale deal). Every deal has its own strategic importance,” he tells Bureaucracy Today, adding, “There is no problem with the engine in the Tejas.”

According to Soman, “The easiest way is to increase the rate of production of the Su-30MKI, which HAL is currently producing from raw materials. The LCA also will be ready for serial production before Dassault can deliver the first Rafale to India. For the price of one Rafale, the IAF can probably get three LCAs.”

Reiterating better infrastructure at airfields, former Air Chief Marshal PV Naik tells Bureaucracy Today, “We need indigenisation but it cannot be done suddenly. It has to be planned over, let's say, 10 years. It starts with restructuring of the DRDO, making it lean and mean and more responsive to the users' needs. PSUs also need to be ruthlessly restructured and made more accountable. The Ordnance Factory Board also needs a kick. The private sector needs to be encouraged to participate.” Insisting on a more budget for research, he says by the time we develop our own defence equipment the Government should “go in for a planned reduction in the foreign content”.

Local production is the backbone of any advanced aircraft industry. Defence observers opine that MK-II Tejas can meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA. Bharat Karnad, a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, writes in his column, “A viable alternative is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA…at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale.”

Defence experts believe the MK-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability with a better angle of attack and a heavier payload capacity than what the Rafale can manage. It has a similar range, about 600 km, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale. “Since MK-II are locally built, there will be capacity to hike production to meet any spike in demand for spares,” Karnad says.

[Viv S]

Aside from a SLEP what sort of MLU is available to F-18 operators who received aircraft after 1995. In the IAF's case, it'll have to operate the aircraft a full decade after the USN has phased it out

AESA radar and avionics improvements including mission computers etc.

http://s30.postimg.org/r6135lc41/RAYTHEON_AESA.jpg

Not subsidized by the US Navy. But available all the same, which was the point.

[brar_w]

Not subsidized by the US Navy

The development needn't be subsidized as its company funded (with some help from the USAF at one point). The price is at par with the subsidized scalable radar that Northrop has developed which will wind its way into the USAF F-16's.

[Cosmo_R]

Promoting 'swadeshi' in defence

Some numbers:

An example of this is the defence ministry's key procurement dilemma: that is, whether to sign the controversial Rs 1-lakh-crore contract for 126 Dassault Rafale fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The new government would relish the glitzy spectacle of a Rafale-signing ceremony. That would please the public and placate the IAF, but it would also require allocating Rs 15,000 crore as the signing advance; and commit the IAF to annual instalments of some Rs 10,000 crore, payable yearly till 2023-24.

$2.496463 billion @ signing, and
$1.664309 billion each year from 2015(?) through 2023 (of, what, $45 billion def budget?)

So, approx $18-19 billion?

Putting it in USD terms does not tell the whole story. When the MMRCA was being contemplated, the USD = 40INR. Today at $=60 INR, the impact on the budget is greater than just the cost escalation as a function of the delay.

There is just no way this deal can go through. It's suicide. I know it's crazy but I expect Obama to a full court press on NaMo in September to derail the Rafale.

[Viv S]

The development needn't be subsidized as its company funded (with some help from the USAF at one point). The price is at par with the subsidized scalable radar that Northrop has developed which will wind its way into the USAF F-16's.

The idea put forward was the USN support for the SH would make support as well as MLUs cheaper than for the SV. Which is clearly disproven by the Hornet's example. Competitive upgrades are available but they're not under-written by the USN, and they aren't exceptional in scope (AESA solutions have been available for a decade now - at one point there was talk of equipped the Tejas Mk1 with a EL/M-2052 AESA).

[abhik]

...In January 2012 when India chose the Rafale combat plane for exclusive negotiations, the company had quoted its price between USD 60-65 million (Rs 373-Rs 400 crore). Its rival, Eurofighter, had quoted USD 80-85 million (Rs 497-Rs 528 crore). But at present the cost has allegedly escalated by 100 per cent. A Defence Ministry insider tells Bureaucracy Today, “The cost has now escalated by 100 per cent. Now a Rafale fighter jet could cost USD 120 million (Rs 746 crore). It means that the deal would now cost India approximately $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore), making it a suicidal choice now.”

If I understand the above correctly the French quoted a price a certain price(say 65 mil) in their financial bid on the basis of which their bid was L1 and then jacked up the price (allegedly by 100%) once the exclusive negotiations started. How is this possible, is it legally tenable? Surely the expectations with regards to ToT, offsets etc were well laid out in the terms of the tender. If this is accepted then I don't see the point of L1, I mean how do we now know that the EF wouldn't have been cheaper.

However, advocating the IAF’s choice for the Rafale, former Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi tells Bureaucracy Today, ...

So the media/news goes to a guy who is accused in the Augusta scam for soundbites on another massive weapons import deal

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
So 126*120 roughly around $15 billion and in the above quote the deal size is mentioned as $ 28-30 billion (probably including TOT + weapons).
Hmmmmm.
I am a Rafale fan and still is no doubt, but my countries money is more important for me for sure. If the deal size is around $ 30 billion, then I want 100% TOT right up to the engine core and which can be further evolved and upgraded and used in other Indian products.
Take it or leave it.
But IAF too is important , so plan B, 100% off the shelf purchase of 126 F-35 + weapons for around $ 15-20 billion and the remaining $ 10 billion straight away goes into a strict time bound public - pvt joint venture headed by IAF for the development of AMCA.
Though I still would like IAF to have Rafale but at the same time not feel shortchanged by India giving such a big deal to French and they withhold 100% TOT [assumption for the above : not 100% engine TOT ].

[Viv S]

If the deal size is around $ 30 billion, then I want 100% TOT right up to the engine core and which can be further evolved and upgraded and used in other Indian products. Take it or leave it.

Unfortunately, even with 100% ToT we will be nowhere close to assimilating the process that went into its development. We're merely be manufacturing it. A HAL deal entirely, no GTRE involvement. (Keep in mind both India and China have been license building foreign engines since the 70s.)

[Viv S]

If I understand the above correctly the French quoted a price a certain price(say 65 mil) in their financial bid on the basis of which their bid was L1 and then jacked up the price (allegedly by 100%) once the exclusive negotiations started. How is this possible, is it legally tenable? Surely the expectations with regards to ToT, offsets etc were well laid out in the terms of the tender. If this is accepted then I don't see the point of L1, I mean how do we now know that the EF wouldn't have been cheaper.

Their financial bids expired at the end of the FY 2012-13 i.e Mar 2013. Also, I think that was limited to the life-cycle cost. ToT, licensing, offset costs had to be negotiated separately. Between that and the fresh bids, we're heading for financial disaster.

[NRao]

If I understand the above correctly the French quoted a price a certain price(say 65 mil) in their financial bid on the basis of which their bid was L1 and then jacked up the price (allegedly by 100%) once the exclusive negotiations started. How is this possible, is it legally tenable? Surely the expectations with regards to ToT, offsets etc were well laid out in the terms of the tender. If this is accepted then I don't see the point of L1, I mean how do we now know that the EF wouldn't have been cheaper.

Their financial bids expired at the end of the FY 2012-13 i.e Mar 2013. Also, I think that was limited to the life-cycle cost. ToT, licensing, offset costs had to be negotiated separately. Between that and the fresh bids, we're heading for financial disaster.

In addition not all items were included in the original effort - that was under the supposedly L1 framework.

This legally allowed Dassault to do pretty much what they pleased when the time came to include such items.



I think the Rafale is a great plane, but India needs to bite this bullet and just order it straight from France. Enough of this drama.


Also, "MLU". Is there a *need* for a MLU for the MMRCA - no matter which machine is selected? In 15-20 years is this plane expected to stay relevant?

[Philip]

Where is the Mk2 LCA supposedly better than the Raffy? It exists only on on paper
still in the design stage.Not one prototype has been built or flown.Production unlikely before 2020.
This disease of overoptimism must end.
The Raffy is a proven bird.It is the cost factor in
Q.

[brar_w]

@ Phillip, Its the cost that has made other possibilities something worth looking at (if not acting upon). As per the current deal Dassault has 36 months to deliver a squadron post contract signing. Lets say the contract is singled in 2014. We'll get a first squadron by 2017. We can easily look at a Mk2 production line by 2020 thereby reducing the Rafale order and substituting it with Mk2's. If we cannot afford 100+ Rafale's due to the 20 billion price tag lets buy 60 or 80 and regain the strength through Mk2 or Mk1 acquisition. Capability is very much valuable but one must look at this aircraft as a 4.5 gen jet and the current bill that we are going to be getting is at par or higher then what others may pay for 5th gen during the same timeframe.

[Austin]

LCA Mk2 will only come into the picture post 2020 , The Rafale deal is for 126 + 80 option , if MK2 comes up well and production can be ramped up then we can choose not to go for the 80 option.

Although Mk2 is not a medium class fighter and hence not a direct replacement for Rafale.

[brar_w]

By 2020 we'll probable have 2 - 3 squadrons of Rafale so its not that we will field all Rafale's by the time the Mk2 production starts.

[Austin]

Let 2020 come and we will see , Mk2 is yet to take to air and Rafale deal yet to be signed.

[Sumeet]

L&T Technology Services forms a Joint Venture with Thales to strengthen Avionics Business -- Thales Press Release

Chennai, June 26, 2014:

L&T Technology Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T), has purchased 74% of the equity capital of Thales Software India Pvt. Ltd., the Indian subsidiary of Thales, the global technology leader in aerospace, transportation and defence and security markets.

With this transaction, L&T Technology Services will now manage and oversee the management control, operations and delivery of services of the new joint venture.



The joint venture brings together the strategic strengths of both the groups. By retaining 26% equity stake, Thales will help the company develop the latest trends in the avionics industry, one of its core businesses. This collaboration adds to L&T Technology Services’ growing competencies by enhancing its expertise in high-end avionic software.



The joint venture capitalises on the existing strong relationship between the two groups, L&T and Thales, and ensures a long term partnership in the engineering services domain. Furthermore, the transaction should enable Thales to select this new group as its Indian Offset Partner, resulting in inflow of Offset related revenues in the joint venture.



Dr Keshab Panda, Chief Executive, L&T Technology Services, expressed his confidence in this association: “This Joint Venture represents each organisation’s strong commitment to provide customers with a single source of best services in avionics industry,” he said. “We as an organisation are at an interesting phase of our journey where we are streamlining our expertise and strengthening our knowledge. In such a phase joining hands with Thales adds to our proficiency in the market,” he added.



Commenting on the joint venture, Mr Eric Lenseigne, Managing Director of Thales in India said: “This JV is a reflection of our commitment to India and our objective to strengthen our industrial footprint in the country. In addition, this collaboration with L&T Technology Services brings on-board a seamless integration of all elements and assures our customers quality service and the highest level of long-term, local product support. We are sure that together we would build on our expertise and provide our customers with world-class technology and services.”





About Larsen & Toubro

Larsen & Toubro is a USD 14.3 billion technology, engineering, construction, manufacturing and financial services conglomerate, with global operations. Its products and systems are marketed in over 30 countries worldwide. L&T is one of the largest and most respected companies in India’s private sector. A strong, customer–focused approach and the constant quest for top-class quality have enabled L&T to attain and sustain leadership in its major lines of business over seven decades.



About L&T Technology Services:

L&T Technology Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro with focus in the engineering services space, partnering with many of the Fortune 500 companies globally. It offers design and development solutions throughout the entire product development chain across various industries such as Industrial Products, Medical Devices, Transportation, Telecom and Hi-tech and Process Industry. The company also offers solutions in the areas of Mechanical engineering Services, Embedded Systems Services, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Engineering Analytics and Power Electronics and M2M and the Internet of Things (IoT) With a multi-disciplinary and multi-domain presence, we challenge ourselves every day to help clients achieve a sustainable competitive advantage through value-creating products, processes and services. Headquartered in India, with close to 9500 highly skilled staff, 6 delivery centres and operations in more than 30 locations around the world, we constantly find flexible ways of working tailored to our assignments and customer needs.

For additional information about L&T Technology Services, log on to www.LntTechservices.com

[Viv S]

By 2020 we'll probable have 2 - 3 squadrons of Rafale so its not that we will field all Rafale's by the time the Mk2 production starts.

LCA Mk2 will only come into the picture post 2020 , The Rafale deal is for 126 + 80 option , if MK2 comes up well and production can be ramped up then we can choose not to go for the 80 option.

Dassault will provide one squadron in 2017-18. HAL production is to be six units per year starting 2018. So by the end of 2020 the IAF will have two squadrons of Rafales at best. HAL can deliver at least a squadron of Mk2s in the same time-frame. Delays are possible yes, but so are delays in the Rafale deliveries by HAL.

The opportunity here is in utilizing part of the massive capital that's flowing towards France, to scale up the Tejas' production instead. Perhaps also using some of it to pay for foreign consultancy thus speeding up the Mk2's development.

Although Mk2 is not a medium class fighter and hence not a direct replacement for Rafale.

The Tejas Mk2 is about the same weight as the Gripen NG which was very much a contender for the MMRCA competition. Both will have effective payload-range superior to the original MRCA aircraft i.e. Mirage 2000.

[Austin]

Since Mk2 is still not in the air , I will hazard to put any guess work on this test schedule , far less on its production schedule and knowing HAL its as they say in Mumbai "Ram Bharose Hindu Hotel" ......with Rafale there is a good degree of predictability even taking into account some delays.

[Viv S]

Since Mk2 is still not in the air , I will hazard to put any guess work on this test schedule , far less on its production schedule and knowing HAL its as they say in Mumbai "Ram Bharose Hindu Hotel" ......with Rafale there is a good degree of predictability even taking into account some delays.

You get what you pay for. The MoD chooses to invest just $500M in the Tejas Mk2 and blow $20 billion on the Rafale. Change that equation (increase the Mk2's off-the-shelf content), open up the purse strings for consultancy, allow them to splurge a bit (eg. build two test aircraft where one would have sufficed) and the program will deliver on schedule.

One the other hand if we're willing to let the Tejas program slink into the background (aside from hot-air at ribbon cutting ceremonies and the like), then we may as well abandon these AMCA delusions and reconcile ourselves to living on imports. Not to mention the number of other acquisitions that'll be killed by a financial blowout on the Rafale purchase.

[NRao]

That the LCA MK-II is a "paper plane" is very well understood.

What does one think the Rafale is? It too is a "paper plane" - albeit of a different type of a "paper" - the money kind.

At this point in time, *both* are a risk. While the LVA MK-II carries a technological risk, the Rafale carries a financial one. The financial one is better understood and since the technical aspects of the Rafale are well defined, this plane should be better managed (bring that cost down). Else go with the technical risks and pour funds into the MK-II (at the expense of the Rafale).

[Viv S]

Else go with the technical risks and pour funds into the MK-II (at the expense of the Rafale).

Thing is we can hedge against the technical risks of the Mk2 with greater funding (incl. consultancy) and secondary acquisitions (Su-30s, Mirages, Tejas Mk1s etc). The Rafale in contrast has the potential to get yet more expensive with time.

[NRao]

^^^^^

I think the main arguments that the-IAF-needs-planes-now and IAF-needs-MMRCA-now is drowning what has grown to be a larger problem: finances.

There is a cost to delaying decisions!!!!

[Philip]

2 sqds. of Raffys outright purchase ,plus a couple more MIG-29sqds should be affordable for now,allowing for the LCA MK-2 to materialise by 2020,in addition to the 40+ MK1 ordered.if we get the lot within 3-4 years it will allow for half the obsolete MIG-21s to retire gracefully.If the LCA MK-2 is still delayed,simply buy another couple of Raffy sqds.Cancelling wholesale TOT will reduce costs,esp. if the AMCA is seriously on the anvil,with saved money spent on R&D and the FGFA.

[brar_w]

2 sqds. of Raffys outright purchase ,plus a couple more MIG-29sqds should be affordable for now

That would be unwise. Why integrate two new aircraft into the air force (The Mig-35 would be quite new, systems wise) when we can do with just one.

[kmkraoind]

It is said that despite HAL is finding its difficult serial manufacture Tejas. Why cannot we bump up Rafale production to 25-30 (instead of 6) per year and later use same infra to build Tejas-II and AMCA.

One more doubt, can anybody explain what is ToT of building it from raw materials. Is it we are building modules from ore->metal->alloy->module or Dassult will send its alloy blocks to India, where we cut them to size. In case of composites, are we building from raw chemicals or we are just rolling and pressing them to size, while composite raw materials sent by Dassult?

[kmkraoind]

2 sqds. of Raffys outright purchase ,plus a couple more MIG-29sqds should be affordable for now,allowing for the LCA MK-2 to materialise by 2020,in addition to the 40+ MK1 ordered.if we get the lot within 3-4 years it will allow for half the obsolete MIG-21s to retire gracefully.If the LCA MK-2 is still delayed,simply buy another couple of Raffy sqds.Cancelling wholesale TOT will reduce costs,esp. if the AMCA is seriously on the anvil,with saved money spent on R&D and the FGFA.

It is said that France will get rid some of their old Mirage stock from 2015-2016 period. Is it worth buying them 10-15 million a piece without upgrades in a lot of 40-80.

[Austin]

You get what you pay for. The MoD chooses to invest just $500M in the Tejas Mk2 and blow $20 billion on the Rafale. Change that equation (increase the Mk2's off-the-shelf content), open up the purse strings for consultancy, allow them to splurge a bit (eg. build two test aircraft where one would have sufficed) and the program will deliver on schedule.

One the other hand if we're willing to let the Tejas program slink into the background (aside from hot-air at ribbon cutting ceremonies and the like), then we may as well abandon these AMCA delusions and reconcile ourselves to living on imports. Not to mention the number of other acquisitions that'll be killed by a financial blowout on the Rafale purchase.

From all the interviews I have seen of Tejas Project Director money is not a problem , They have got all the money they have asked for and if required more will be given.

Also Tejas program is also using consultancy for High AOA from Western Firm IIRC so that is something they have used if required.

The risk with Tejas Mk2 is how much time it will take to build the first prototype and Final FOC and every thing that comes in between. Its a risk that comes with the program and ADA has in past been very irregular to put it lightly with their schedule.

With Rafale the risk from induction to squadron service is minimum something IAF can rely on being predictable for the program.

In any case Tejas Mk2 is not a substitute for MMRCA program which is a different program to fill different requirement , Much like MMRCA is not a substitute for Tejas which occupies its own space in IAF.

[Viv S]

From all the interviews I have seen of Tejas Project Director money is not a problem , They have got all the money they have asked for and if required more will be given.

Money is always an issue. What they have allotted right now is sufficient to develop the Tejas with their current resource mix. But expansion of infrastructure, manpower and/or engineering resources is a function of funding.

Why is it that HAL isn't setting up a second production lline for the Tejas Mk1? Because it is not financially feasible to do so for a build order of just 40 units. Skim just 5% off that massive $20 billion pile and HAL will be able to deliver an additional 2-3 squadrons to the IAF by decade end and get an early start on a higher production rate for the Mk2.

Also Tejas program is also using consultancy for High AOA from Western Firm IIRC so that is something they have used if required.

Most proposals for foreign consultancy go through multiple layers of bureaucracy with the sanction ultimately coming from the MoD. The ADA doesn't have the discretionary funding available to opt for consultancy to speed things along.

The risk with Tejas Mk2 is how much time it will take to build the first prototype and Final FOC and every thing that comes in between. Its a risk that comes with the program and ADA has in past been very irregular to put it lightly with their schedule.

The time taken for FOC is not important. What does matter is the time taken for full scale production to commence. And the scale of production as I said before is a function of the investment in it.

But what is the risk really? That the IAF will not get its aircraft in time? You can offset that risk with stop-gap orders for Mirages, Sukhois etc.

With Rafale the risk from induction to squadron service is minimum something IAF can rely on being predictable for the program.

The first squadron aside, its the same HAL that'll be delivering the Rafale as well. And $20 billion is not the kind of sum that you spend for mere predictability.

In any case Tejas Mk2 is not a substitute for MMRCA program which is a different program to fill different requirement , Much like MMRCA is not a substitute for Tejas which occupies its own space in IAF.

The original RFI for the MMRCA was sent for the Mirage 2000, F-16, Gripen and MiG-29. The Gripen NG was accepted into the MMRCA competition at the RFP stage. So where is the issue of the Tejas Mk2 not meeting the requirements?

[Manish_Sharma]

1 lakh crore = 20 billion dollars

for what? a capable platform that'll cross border and drop bombs upon precious targets of porkis and lizardland?

The width of whole porkistan is 300 kms, meaning if brahmos is fired from 50 kms inside of our border it'll cover whole of pakhanastan. And definitely Nirbhay fired even 6 - 700 kms inside our borders will cover whole porkiland.

Same way Rafale or F-35 to please some will go at the most 3 to 500 kms inside either chipanda or porkland to attack the targets. Still even one plane is shot down in those hundreds of sorties | OR | crashes on its own will send the price skyhigh for all the missions.

Imagine out of these 1 lakh crore only 50 thousand crore spent on procuring 10 thousand brahmos and 10 thousand Nirbhays, no pilot risk, no plane risk, hardly the maintenance and other headaches plus the fuel costs. and even bigger bang for the buck.

For other things LCA Mk I, Mk II + Rambhas + Mig 29s + Mirages can do the job.

[Viv S]

Imagine out of these 1 lakh crore only 50 thousand crore spent on procuring 10 thousand brahmos and 10 thousand Nirbhays, no pilot risk, no plane risk, hardly the maintenance and other headaches plus the fuel costs. and even bigger bang for the buck.

China, US and Russia all field missiles in that class. Did you ever wonder why they are developing fifth gen aircraft instead of exclusively focusing on yet larger missile arsenals?

Cruise missiles are used to hit static targets. Roads, bridges, buildings and the like. Everything else can be moved (including logistic nodes). The first thing the Chinese will do in wartime is take out every hostile spy satellite in LEO. Then you'll have dummy targets popping up all over the ground by the hundreds. And all those LACMs will be going up against an IADS system that also fields thousands of missiles, hundreds of AAA systems that can easily bring a cruise missile down, not to mention hundreds of air-borne fighters all of which can shoot down a cruise missile. (How do you think we plan to counter all those Baburs and Ra'ads?)

Also, thousands of missiles is actually a lot less imposing than it sounds. In wartime, the IAF will easily fly over 10,000 sorties a week. Not all sorties will be fighter sorties, and not all fighter sorties will be strike missions but it'll still deliver much more payload and far from being expendable the fleet will still be fighting at the end of that period.

If you can focus those LACM strikes, they can potentially of deliver a hard first strike. If not, they're effectively reduced to plain artillery except that the field artillery can deliver hundreds of times more firepower (albeit at shorter ranges). And if that first strike fails, everything else is doubly vulnerable.

The dominant side will ultimately be the one fielding superior ISR capabilities and a C4I system more resilient to shocks. The Rafale has good ESM capabilities but its still handicapped by its non-stealthy nature. And that's where the F-35 comes into play. Not as a dogfighter, not as missile platform but as a superb ISR asset. With its next gen EW suite and VLO airframe, it can loiter radar-silent in hostile airspace 100-150 km ahead of friendly units, watching and tracking everything while handing off targeting data to C4I assets. It can then participate in the follow up action (which may also include strikes with stand-off weaponry) or perhaps provide jamming support or otherwise work as an AEW&C asset.

Same way Rafale or F-35 to please some will go at the most 3 to 500 kms inside either chipanda or porkland to attack the targets.

The F-35 can. The Rafale... not so much.

[Yagnasri]

Has any one seen money around? No? There is almost none. Fancy fighters which cost huge amounts are not going to be purchased.

[Viv S]

Has any one seen money around? No? There is almost none. Fancy fighters which cost huge amounts are not going to be purchased.

Well, we've been contemplating purchasing fancy fighters and paying huge amounts for years now.

(Its ironic that one of the most cost-effective fighters in the world has been developed by HAL. Hmm.. maybe we can export that instead.)

[NRao]

The risk with Tejas Mk2 is how much time it will take to build the first prototype and Final FOC and every thing that comes in between. Its a risk that comes with the program and ADA has in past been very irregular to put it lightly with their schedule.

True.

With Rafale the risk from induction to squadron service is minimum something IAF can rely on being predictable for the program.

Hides the fact that it is a *huge* financial risk, which needs to be included in any discussion on "risks".

[Cosmo_R]

Dumb question but I'll ask it anyway: Is the capability of the F-35 greater than that of the Rafale or merely equal/marginally superior? What I'm trying to get at is whether 1 F-35 (5gen a/c) = 1 Rafale in terms of capability on day one of war against the PRC Flankers.

[NRao]

^^^^^

I agree, dumb question.