Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 02:44

There seems to be an agrument that the current gov of India (dispensation?) is very confident of growing the economy back to the 8-10% growth rate and based on that they feel (assumption here) that the $20 billion for the Rafale is affordable.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jun 2014 04:56

NRao wrote:^^^^^

I agree, dumb question.

Thanks.

Great inside the box thinking.

Real question to others is 60 F-35s vs 126 Rafales.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 29 Jun 2014 09:33

Let me ask a dumb question + wrong thread also

F35C for (4 LHD + new vikrant class + INS vishal) mix of fighters off course

4X 12 + 12 + 20= 80 F35 for IN

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 09:57

LHDs + Vikrant will be F-35B.

The Visual can accept both the B. & the C.

And, why such small numbers for the Visual?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2014 10:37

Senior retd. AMs spoken to feel that the LCA cannot replace the MMRCA Rafale,whatever.They feel that it is an ideal replacement for the MIG-21s in large number provided,that's the rider ,that HAL can deliver the goods esp. on the MK-2.HAL and the IAF have little love between each other for a variety of reasons too well known to repeat.leaving the MMRCA req.,the sheer numbers of MIG-21s to be replaced,and that will also by 2020+ include the Bisons,120 in number,to be added to the order.I agree that a second prod. line must come about,but this requires the highest priority to push the LCA programme forward on very tight timeframes.The IAF cannot wait forever for fighters .Which is why the French have their foot in the door. expensive even if it may be.The MOD however must formulate a plan B in case the Raffy is just too expensive for th3e GOI at this moment in time.If the IAF insists on no other then numbers have to be cut.Cut one';s coat according to the cloth.Right now the expectations from the country on the economy is so immense that if belts have to be tightened further,they may slit hungry bellies into two.Secondly,there will definitely be within the GOI dissenting voices within the establishment if such a massive amt. is spent on just one acquisition,when all 3 services require imported drip" at the moment.

As for naval aircraft,I don't think that we will be able to likewise afford the JSF-B.The MIG-29Ks are very economical to acquire and advanced ones with AESA radars,TVC,MIG-35 std.,will suffice .What would be interesting is for the IN to join in the FGFA programme.The Chinese use hundreds of Flankers of the PLAN ground based.The US has its F-22s at Guam too.FGFAs based at the A&N islands will be a huge +ve factor,allowing the IAF to concentrate more of its assets in the Himalayan frontiers.If a naval variant of the FGFA arrives,it could be considered for larger IN carriers.If the NLCA also arrives,it will lend extra support to the smaller carriers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 10:42

As suspected, the new gov does not consider the Rafale to be expensive. Report suggests gov willing to pay. Article on br front page.

Mr Jaitley had only one query: what is the cost of the contract?

The IAF's answer -- Rs. 100,000 crore spread over 10 years -- immediately evoked a positive reaction from Mr Jaitley, sources in the Ministry of Defence told NDTV.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jun 2014 10:47

For Rafale fans [and anti Rafale group

]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... eststories

Mr Jaitley had only one query: what is the cost of the contract?

The IAF's answer -- Rs. 100,000 crore spread over 10 years -- immediately evoked a positive reaction from Mr Jaitley, sources in the Ministry of Defence told NDTV

Meanwhile, many of Rafale's competitors are lobbying hard against the contract and running down the fighter aircraft over various counts, including 'prohibitive' costs.

But the IAF top brass is clear that the process to buy the MMRCA is irreversible, notwithstanding a view that the IAF must induct the HAL-made Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas instead of buying the expensive Rafale.

Not a mention of F 35 even as an option . The IAF seems to be knowing something more about the Rafale deal which makes it a favourite compared to F 35

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 10:50

Not a mention of F 35 even as an option . The IAF seems to be knowing something more about the Rafale deal which makes it a favourite compared to F 35

The F-35 was never in consideration. So why this canard?

If at all the fgfa may be impacted.

Also, from the same article:

The question now is whether prime minister Narendra Modi and defence minister Arun Jaitley will also treat the deal as a matter of top priority.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Jun 2014 10:57

Cosmo_R wrote: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?

Some time back the South Koreans held a fighter tender which was won by the F-15, but they chose to junk it in favour of the F-35 as it became available. I think the IAF would also take a similar decision if it thinks it can get the F-35 in the same time frame.

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.

The best way to destroy an enemy fighter is on the ground and the F-35 is primarily a strike fighter(discounting all the other PR fluff). Instead of getting into turn rates, supercruising, T/W ratio debates, one should think of the massive capability leap if say we replace the Jaguars and Mig-27 in the IAF fleet with F-35s.
PS: I do not endorse buying either the F-35 nor the Rafale.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Jun 2014 11:02

I support Rafale acquisition for the simple reason that the tremendous Khujli it causes to Paki H & D. SU 30 is seen in Paki circles as an extension of the crude but reliable F-7/MIG 21 series comeing from the USSR stable but the Rafale comes from the Mirage III/V series which in their zehen occupied pride of place in the 60s and 70s.

They also remember the beating they got from the Mirage 2000 in Kargil.

A simplistic analysis of the Paki piskology.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jun 2014 11:04

The F-35 was never in consideration. So why this canard?

Definitely not an attempt for a canard. It was more to do with the curiosity that as discussed in this forum that F 35 by 2020 will be cheaper with cutting edge tech and that Rafale more expensive and 4.5 gen fighter then what has led IAF to still stick with Rafale.
Only additional renegotiation time (of may be 4-5 years if things are quick) or that IAF is very confident of using Rafale along with FGFA against 5th gen adversaries in the future. Since Rafale will be in service for next 30-40 years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2014 11:19

The F-35 was not a contender for the MRCA and the IAF has not evaluated it. Any discussion vis-a-vis the MRCA and/or the rafale cannot bring the F-35 into the picture (from the IAF and MOD's perspective), the program was an evaluation for 4.5 generation aircraft.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Jun 2014 11:30

dhiraj wrote:
Mr Jaitley had only one query: what is the cost of the contract?

The IAF's answer -- Rs. 100,000 crore spread over 10 years -- immediately evoked a positive reaction from Mr Jaitley, sources in the Ministry of Defence told NDTV

With all the Lifafas I'd these stories with a pinch of salt.
BTW it says that it will take another 6 months, so the contract will be signed(if ever) only in 2015. We should be having a new RM by that time.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jun 2014 11:50

The F-35 was not a contender for the MRCA and the IAF has not evaluated it.

Sir all these details are fine , but you are not getting my point . MMRCA requirement was set in early 2000 and the Rafale will be coming by 2017 and in sizeable numbers by around 2020. It will then serve upto 2050.
Things have changed a lot from early 2000 to 2014 with F - 35 joining the airforce of 11 countries by 2020 but IAF is still happy with Rafale . WHY?
Since there is always accusation of services shifting goal posts then why in case of Rafale it is happy with a 4.5 gen fighter when with the same money and probably the same timeline it could get F 35. [South Korea decided on the purchase of F 35 only in 2014 and is getting first aircraft by 2018]
So based on the above , I am more curious to understand as to how IAF has thought of scenarios of a Rafale coming up against F 35 or a comparable 5th gen fighter ,since it has always been mentioned that F 35 is way way ahead in capability vis-a-vis Rafale.
Rafale dependent on PAK FA for such a scenario or confidence that Rafale will be able to handle 5th gen adversaries?
[please don't mention that Chinese 5th gen will be inferior and all those stuffs , let it be comparable to F-35 ]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2014 11:58

Things have changed a lot from early 2000 to 2014 with F - 35 joining the airforce of 11 countries by 2020 but IAF is still happy with Rafale . WHY?

Because the original requirement was to replace the M2000's and the rafale is more then capable of doing that and then some. In fact the Gripen would have been fine as well, the raffle's just better.

Since there is always accusation of services shifting goal posts then why in case of Rafale it is happy with a 4.5 gen fighter when with the same money and probably the same timeline it could get F 35.

There has been a lot of delay in getting the MRCA. It was supposed to be an urgent need to fill squadrons so as to mitigate the squadron strength issue. The delays in signing the deal has meant that critical capability will be firmed up much later then expected. The F-35 is not even under evaluation, start the entire process all over again and add 5-10 years to the entire acquisition timeline.

South Korea decided on the purchase of F 35 only in 2014 and is getting first aircraft by 2018

We are not south korea, and they did decide in 2013 but the process was on for a long time before that. Its the process that takes time, the decision is communicated to the OEM quite fast

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Jun 2014 12:00

Typhoon, Gripen back in fray, Rafale deal split wide open

Kinda matches with Ajai Shukla rooting for Gripen. I think the americans are pushing the Gripen to derail the deal. This reminds me of the Fracas during the AJT deal when the Russians used the italian trainer to derail the purchase.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Jun 2014 12:03

@dhiraj-ji
The answer is simple, for IAF the Rafale is a bird in hand (or something close) to the F-35 which is a better bird in the bush. The point is that even after the whole MRCA process the deal is still iffy. If they ditch the Rafale now for the F-35 we staring at another 4-5 years of trials and contract negotiations (at least) with no guarantee that we will actually end up buying the fighters.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 29 Jun 2014 14:23

Rafale deal will go through. Negotiations are almost concluded except for finetuning . May be some political price will also be extracted. And it is not linked to development of LCA or MMRCA or FGFA etc. Opening up of MIC is also to take advantage of offset clauses in big ticket deal. Once that is clear deal will go through.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2014 14:51

Vishal Thapar disowns the Sunday Guardian report, curious and curiouser.

https://twitter.com/thaparvishal/status ... 1568222208

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Jun 2014 15:00

Shows that the article is a plant. Also Reliance which has same owner as Sunday Guardian is rooting for Rafale.

As an aside, also debunks Ajai Shukla's credibility as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2014 15:27

Cosmo_R wrote:
NRao wrote:^^^^^

I agree, dumb question.
Thanks.

Great inside the box thinking.

Real question to others is 60 F-35s vs 126 Rafales.

As one IAF gent once told me when I was asking about force multipliers and how one Su-30=6 MiG-21s in warload etc. That one Sukhoi can only be in one place at any given time.

Basically with a 32 Squadron force, and our opponents at much more than that number, every aircraft counts.What you are doing is looking at the conflict as a pure A2A one - vs Flankers. While the JSF should indeed be more successful than the Rafale there, the latter is more versatile in A2G as of now, and has a superb combination of payload vs range which makes it very attractive. Combined with the tech transfer for local sustainment (which is the real purpose of most of the TOT stuff), it becomes a better deal than 60 F-35s by a significant margin.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 29 Jun 2014 15:28

NRao wrote:LHDs + Vikrant will be F-35B.

The Visual can accept both the B. & the C.

And, why such small numbers for the Visual?

Want to leave some spots for N-AMCA & N-FGFA

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 16:54

Vishal Thapar disowns the Sunday Guardian report, curious and curiouser.

https://twitter.com/thaparvishal/status ... 1568222208

"Sorry, that page doesn't exist"!!!!

Plot thickens.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 17:00

Very slow day (and the WC games are a few hours away):

Want to leave some spots for N-AMCA & N-FGFA

Then why even F-35?

Especially on that small a real estate?

Even on land such a combo (F-35 + AMCA + FGFA) could be rightly questioned.

(Just curious).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jun 2014 17:05

Hmm, all these media noises are indicative that things are starting to move towards a rafale deal. Iirc, similar articles bashing raffles had popped up around trials time as well, all to no effect , BR fave and iaf choice will make it - fali homi's statement that iaf has developed a new pov in favor of larger fighters is strongly indicative of this. More expensive requirement to be sure, but then IAF mandate and responsibility over the last 15 years has certainly increased.

French ambassador's hasty trip might simply be to finalize deal signing that's all, the budget will be quite indicative of what may happen. Security is namo's major priority and so is economic growth.

The Gripen is a sweet bird, and has plenty of reach, but far less punch than a rafale. Plus, it might mean the end for Tejas mk2, which unfortunately, is certainly taking its sweet time. Perhaps iaf should just order 200 mk1s and let th focus move to AMCA. The big issue wrt Gripen and Tejas is of course the engines, time to move on and work towards an m88 and kaveri based AMCA

chandanus · Post by **chandanus** » 29 Jun 2014 17:36

For 20 Billion $$ ..I think its high time to pump some real money into long range AD ...S-400 with further Saving in operating costs !!!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 17:41

Cosmo_R wrote: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.

The F-35 is superior at every single role. And then its far superior at certain specific roles.

dhiraj wrote:So based on the above , I am more curious to understand as to how IAF has thought of scenarios of a Rafale coming up against F 35 or a comparable 5th gen fighter ,since it has always been mentioned that F 35 is way way ahead in capability vis-a-vis Rafale.

It will be severely disadvantaged against a fifth generation fighter, and any expectation that it might hold its own is just wishful thinking.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Jun 2014 17:51

NRao wrote:
Vishal Thapar disowns the Sunday Guardian report, curious and curiouser.

https://twitter.com/thaparvishal/status ... 1568222208
"Sorry, that page doesn't exist"!!!!

Plot thickens.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/06/ ... ditch.html

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 17:53

Philip wrote:Senior retd. AMs spoken to feel that the LCA cannot replace the MMRCA Rafale,whatever.They feel that it is an ideal replacement for the MIG-21s in large number provided,that's the rider ,that HAL can deliver the goods esp. on the MK-2.

India doesn't operate an MMRCA that needs replacement. And if the Tejas can replace the MiG-21, well that is the aircraft that needs replacing.

As for naval aircraft,I don't think that we will be able to likewise afford the JSF-B.The MIG-29Ks are very economical to acquire and advanced ones with AESA radars,TVC,MIG-35 std.,will suffice .

They will suffice for now because we don't currently face any surface threats in the IOR. A decade from now the MiG-29K will be in an obsolescent state, while the PLAN that's already fielding AEGIS-type destroyers will have also have naval J-31s operating off its carriers.

If a naval variant of the FGFA arrives,it could be considered for larger IN carriers.If the NLCA also arrives,it will lend extra support to the smaller carriers.

The FGFA might be able operate off the IAC-2 (might!). The other two carriers will have no option but to fight handicapped.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 29 Jun 2014 18:16

Karan M wrote: looking at the conflict as a pure A2A one - vs Flankers. While the JSF should indeed be more successful than the Rafale there, the latter is more versatile in A2G as of now, and has a superb combination of payload vs range which makes it very attractive. Combined with the tech transfer for local sustainment (which is the real purpose of most of the TOT stuff), it becomes a better deal than 60 F-35s by a significant margin.

This pissing contest presumes that the French would remain at this level for all times to come. Its crazy to compare a future JSF with a current Rafale. What if the french begin to field equally ridiculous purpose-leaked claims about some future project. This nonsense has no end.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 19:01

Bottom-line.

Today, a war with China will end in stalemate if its short term. If it drags out we lose (though it'll likely be a Pyrrhic victory for the other side).

In 2025, all evidence suggests that whether the war is long or short, we'll lose it either way. With 126 Rafales. The IAF will go down fighting but it will go down. Better training only goes so far, especially when the other side recognizes its weaknesses and is actively working to rectify them.

After a point its simply mathematics. They'll manufacture and deliver the J-10C for half the cost of a Rafale (probably less), and then buy four times as many. They'll also start inducting J-20s and J-31s years before we can induct the PAK FA, and at a delivery rate that's three times higher.

Defeatist talk? Not really. War is a very expensive proposition for both sides, really an option of last resort. The prospect of paying a heavy price, in terms of money, material and life, acts as a strong deterrent to war. The heavier the price, the stronger the deterrent.

But as unlikely as the prospect of war is - hope for the best, plan for the worst. And that means making sure what we do spend, counts. Unfortunately, our budgeting takes place in a peace-meal fashion with each acquisition being independently assessed. The MoD may or may not be in a giving mood in the future, so if the IAF can an authorization for $20 billion sanctioned, may as well get it while the getting is good. In future, if a new aircraft has to acquired well the 'urgency' argument can be trotted out then as well. And its not like the services have ever given two hoots about standardization.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2014 19:11

Far too many assumptions in your post about the IAF going down merely because it has Rafales as versus JSFs. I'd submit the IAF knows far more about what it needs to do and has analyzed the topic and made its choice, with both FGFA & programs like AWACS-I intended to manage LO/VLO platforms.
Accept their choice for what it is & lets not even get into the Chinese will mass manufacture J-10/J-20 and we are doomed talk. Thats just plain wrong.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Jun 2014 19:13

ravi_g wrote:
Karan M wrote: looking at the conflict as a pure A2A one - vs Flankers. While the JSF should indeed be more successful than the Rafale there, the latter is more versatile in A2G as of now, and has a superb combination of payload vs range which makes it very attractive. Combined with the tech transfer for local sustainment (which is the real purpose of most of the TOT stuff), it becomes a better deal than 60 F-35s by a significant margin.
This pissing contest presumes that the French would remain at this level for all times to come. Its crazy to compare a future JSF with a current Rafale. What if the french begin to field equally ridiculous purpose-leaked claims about some future project. This nonsense has no end.

Exactly, good points.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 29 Jun 2014 19:24

1st . considering F35 is the only fighter with capability to launch from LHD type ships with no alternative.

2nd two AC can't hold more than 80+ F35 so if any i have overestimated .

3rd i don't know the progress of FGFA (don't think Naval version work has started or even proposed) , AMCA in its basic form is still in drawing boards , if IN wants a 5th Gen fighter in next few years F35 is the only option.

Sorry to post in wrong thread , Nrao let us discuss further in JSF thread only

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 19:52

ravi_g wrote:This pissing contest presumes that the French would remain at this level for all times to come. Its crazy to compare a future JSF with a current Rafale.

The F-35 will have IOCed by the time French deliveries of the Rafale start and FOCed by the time HAL deliveries begin. The Israeli squadrons will start forming up in 2016. The MMRCA has been delayed so long that the 'future' is now the 'present'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 20:22

Not that I am proposing the JSF for India, but ..................

The Israeli squadrons will start forming up in 2016

These planes will be "MKI"zed, with the I = Israeli. These will be designated F-35I.

And, it cost less than a $0.5 billion to modify the code, not sure about the time.

Point being that an Indian JSF can be tailored for the IAF, if need be.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 20:51

Karan M wrote:Far too many assumptions in your post about the IAF going down merely because it has Rafales as versus JSFs.

Not because of inducting the Rafales, but because it'll be hugely outnumbered. The Tejas or F-35 won't swing the result the other way, but they'll certainly go lot further in evening the odds.

I'd submit the IAF knows far more about what it needs to do and has analyzed the topic and made its choice, with both FGFA & programs like AWACS-I intended to manage LO/VLO platforms.

Question is, did the financial aspect come into the picture in the IAF's internal analysis? Did they foresee the rupee's fall, economy's slowdown and the cost of the deal more than doubling in less than five years?

I'd venture this deal is being driven by a different set of factors. The MMRCA has been delayed, the Mirage upgrade was delayed, the Jaguar upgrade has been delayed, the Tejas induction has been delayed, the Su-30 upgrade has been delayed. Quite simply, the IAF doesn't want to risk anymore delays on the MoD's part and that something is better than nothing.

However this is a very different govt, a different MoD and it can deliver on the alternatives without the delays and red tape. (Of course any change in ship's course, will need to be driven by the MoD and that's looking increasingly unlikely.)

Accept their choice for what it is & lets not even get into the Chinese will mass manufacture J-10/J-20 and we are doomed talk. Thats just plain wrong.

It'll overtake the US as the largest economy before the end of the year in PPP terms and before the end of the decade in nominal terms. The implications vis a vis its defence expenditure cannot be overemphasized.

As for whether they can emulate the US and pull off a large scale manufacturing, China is a manufacturing powerhouse, the world's workshop, with a govt famous for its get-it-done approach. They got their fourth gen designs operational and fielded fifth gen prototypes, long before they were projected to do so.

The J-10 production already stands at about 30 aircraft per year. Between that, the J-11 family and the J-20/J-31, we're looking at easily over 600 very modern aircraft added over the next ten years. And a correspondingly high number of force multipliers. Their achilles' heel is undeveloped/in-progress domestic propulsion technology and we can be sure the Russians will come through for them (with off-the-shelf deliveries) if they run into significant roadblocks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2014 23:03

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... herstories

The IAF's answer -- Rs 100,000 crore spread over 10 years

How much is that money in USD today ?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 29 Jun 2014 23:12

The IAF's answer -- Rs 100,000 crore spread over 10 years

How much is that money in USD today ?

Beleive me it is a small change. Not a big amount .

BTW based on today's exchange rate $16.64 billion

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Jun 2014 23:32

Austin wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... herstories

The IAF's answer -- Rs 100,000 crore spread over 10 years

How much is that money in USD today ?

The IAF is mistaken. That's the aircraft's base cost. Production of 126 Rafales will cost about €11.5 billion or $16 billion to the French MoD delivered from the Merignac line. Slightly more for a F3R standard aircraft.

[Refer here. 126 x (€101.1M - 20% VAT + 1.5% inflation)]

The cost of whole package (incl ToT, licensing, training, infrastructure) can only be revealed by the MoD's CNC. Very likely in excess of $20 billion.