Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 17 Sep 2014 01:45

And IAF top brass continues to allow such arm twisting by not going for LCA in mass numbers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Sep 2014 03:26

no mass number game is valid! and it should not be anymore.. have couple of squadrons, and take it from there. that will better establish IAF capability and strengths., this mother of all deals must be scraped, and focus on a 2 year buy cycle based on previous experiences... within that, check out your gains in manufacturing and r&d, and those integration replacements. take it part by part, with divide and conquer strategy.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 17 Sep 2014 06:12

We need plan to have a stable base for future. Doesn't every new jet require a setup line not to mention a production line. Inventory diversification can only be allowed to certain extent.
E.g.
USAF for all its its size employs only 2 distinct types of fighters (F15 & F16)and plus one to that from Navy (F/A-18). If you look at their future profile then they will have just 2 (F22 and F35). All the variants are advancements of the same basic design like the Flanker family of aircraft.

IAF has Mig29, Su30, Mirage, Mig21 and LCA, that's 5 support systems and all are different from each other. Only if we have commonality is a future model feasible. LCA needs to replace all Mig21 in the short term, its good enough to already do that. Future versions need to replace Mirage. IN and IAF both operating Mig29 helps further.

I am not sure how 2 squadron method works.

Adding a 6th type in Rafale / Eurofighter should be thrown out of the window

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Sep 2014 06:27

^^^

You forgot Jaguars and MiG-27s to your list of Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage-2000, MiG-21 and LCA. Rafale would be the 8th type.

Once you get into this kind of mess, it's hard to get out of. The IAF won't be able to rationalise its types until after 2050. Up until 2030s/2040s, Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage-2000, LCA and Rafale would be around along with FGFA, AMCA and AURA.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Sep 2014 06:42

Speaks very bad about the planing etc. Now we are planing to aquire - LCA, AMCA, Rafale, some fancy thing from Russia and if people allowed F35. Navy just started Mig29K. So all future things will be at least 5 types for IAF where as Navy has one. Agreed Navy has little requirement and IAF has varied needs. But 5 types??? What does it says about the planing and estimation requirements projected by IAF? Just have LCA in place of Mig21,27, etc AMCA in place of Mirage, Jag and Russian one if and when last two are developed and delivered.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Sep 2014 06:42

A squadron intake per year strategy capability needs to be established.. we can classify intake into 3 types - LCA, MCA/MMRCA and Sukhois (light, med, heavy category). We could have a squadron per year per category or atleast from one category depending on our capability and maturity setup. We have to kick start on the process of "make in india" mandatory, no matter where we source the parts from or kits from.. heck, at least IAF numbers are not down.

A 2 year requirements review based on previous experience cycle kicks in more agile mode. had we started this 10 years back, we would have got 10 squadron additions.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 17 Sep 2014 06:45

Again, it is not either/or with Rafale and LCA. We need both for different reasons--we need the Rafale to make sure we have a need for the LCA in future. Simple as that.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 17 Sep 2014 08:16

Victor wrote:we need the Rafale to make sure we have a need for the LCA in future. Simple as that.

Sure sure. Rafale is LCAs best friend.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 17 Sep 2014 08:29

From the above mentioned article:

However, what does prompt embarrassing questions for the MoD and the IAF is their failure or worse, possible collusion in categorically evaluating bids, leaving vendors to spring un-anticipated and hugely expensive surprises upon them once it was too late to pull back.

What a bunch of fukin traitors. The whole lot should be dragged on the the streets and shot in public executions. Screw this french white elephant. Get more LCAs and Su-30MKIs. With the amount of money supposed wasted on this, we can make any combination of both work.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Sep 2014 09:45

Our estimated requirement is around 40 Sq AC's. If the life of a AC is taken as 20 years, we need to induct 44 AC's per year. That is not counting losses etc. 50-60 will help to patch up any losses etc. What is the present national production of ACs

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 17 Sep 2014 09:53

There are options:- get f16 (Used) on the cheap, uncle is dumping them by the gross, so will his munnas, Use Israel to upgrade them.
Our boys in blue will have to live with what we can afford. Maybe we will get professional negoaters in the next time we have to sign such deals, not our one cap fits all MOD, Get Relaince or Tatas into draw up the deals ensuring there is no conflict of interest.
Spend some serious cash on the AMCA , get consultants in , get realistic timelines drawn. build up the squadrons with F16's and LCA's.
For the adversarys we will come up against in the next 5-10 years this option will hold. By the time we should be getting our first batch of FGFA's LCA II and Prototype AMCA

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 17 Sep 2014 10:18

Looks like the MoD f'ed up Rafale costing if that article is to be believed.

The level of incompetence is almost unbelievable.

If the price is not right, do not buy it period.

It will be an albatross around the neck of the nation.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 17 Sep 2014 13:36

Eric Leiderman wrote:There are options:- get f16 (Used) on the cheap, uncle is dumping them by the gross, so will his munnas, Use Israel to upgrade them.
Our boys in blue will have to live with what we can afford. Maybe we will get professional negoaters in the next time we have to sign such deals, not our one cap fits all MOD, Get Relaince or Tatas into draw up the deals ensuring there is no conflict of interest.
Spend some serious cash on the AMCA , get consultants in , get realistic timelines drawn. build up the squadrons with F16's and LCA's.
For the adversarys we will come up against in the next 5-10 years this option will hold. By the time we should be getting our first batch of FGFA's LCA II and Prototype AMCA

Used F16's

We have better options than that. Just order more LCA Mk-1 kick the pig to get the production ramped up ASAP and up the SU-30 MKI numbers we don't need to bring another plane type into the jungle. There are other lesser options like Mig29 K if it comes to that. We don't need to buy the same plane that Paki's get it for free and use against us. It will also make pilots/Radar operators job bit more easy in identifying friend or foe.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Sep 2014 15:45

^^^ Used F-16s. We Indians (myself in particular) have an Achilles heel. We always look for bargains and love to convince ourselves that there is remaining value in a product that far exceeds the price demanded. However, people who discard a used object know far better what the residual is and what the upkeep costs are.

We've been around the block since 2000: used Qatari, Taiwanese, Greek Mirages, used MiG-29s from the FSU, TU-22s not to mention Philip's promotion of Beriev sea planes.

We need to look forward not backwards. For the life of me, I can't understand why the LCA with a GE 404 cannot be a more than an adequate replacement for the MiG21/27 as we move to MK2 with the F-414.

If HAL can't produce, let private industry set up the lines for the LCA

Improve serviceability of the MKI and focus on AMCA.

If the flyboyz wants their toyz, lease/buy 60 Rafales/F-35s off the shelf—no 'ToT' /make in India etc.

Cold turkey.

Will · Post by **Will** » 17 Sep 2014 16:39

India should have negotiated for both the Rafale and the Eurofighter. Used one to beat the price on the other down. When will we learn

. Its to late now to start negotiating with Eurofighter. It will take another 2-3 years

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 17 Sep 2014 17:03

Will wrote:India should have negotiated for both the Rafale and the Eurofighter. Used one to beat the price on the other down. When will we learn . Its to late now to start negotiating with Eurofighter. It will take another 2-3 years

Of course with a big 'IF' and a sense of honesty within our Politico's. That said, let all the middle class house wife's belonging to the IAF cadre bargain for Rafale's.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Sep 2014 18:41

I am tired listening to MoD effed up this and that. What in the barnacle world are they living? we have lot more issues with IQ levels in the upper chain then.. and I hope we are not securing the nation with such intelligence.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Sep 2014 18:43

If the Rafale doesn't drastically reduce the price they are finished. Honestly, pouring the money into the LCA program and buying more SU-30 MKI is the best option. Get the private industry involved in manufacturing parts, missiles, guns, for both aircraft including R&D for the engines.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 17 Sep 2014 19:51

If it were a simple matter of giving orders for more LCAs, that would have been done by now. The sad fact is that the LCA has serious issues beyond merely being an acceptable flying machine and needs to be reworked, hence the LCA 2.

If it emerges that the French have systematically taken advantage of our ignorance and lack of negotiating skills, we should immediately dump the Rafale and go for off-the-shelf Super Hornets with contracts like the C-17 andC-130. This has always been the cheapest and quickest option but our misplaced priorities have led to predictable results. Instead of being a temporary place holder, the MMRCA became a route to "full ToT" in order to transform our MIC into a modern, self-sufficient one, which is pathetic pie in the sky and an indicator of our stupidity.

The SH is still the best option and uses the same engine as the LCA2. Why is this such a difficult decision?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Sep 2014 20:00

Giving the US control of a big chunk of your strike aircraft fleet along with the LCA isn't a wise decision especially when you have the Chinese to the North and the Pakistani's to the West.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 17 Sep 2014 20:14

The LCA I has issues of serviceability. This is basically a green field venture, The guys with" panna pakar" were not involved in the design stages, Plus the small size with our airforce asking for everything and the kitchen sink have ensured peice meal development which will be ironed out in LCA II , The F16 is one of the most economical aircraft available out there. Due to the large number of them we will never have issues with sanctions because of the grey market. Use our money to build and design our own craft AMCA LCA II and parts of the FGFA

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 17 Sep 2014 20:35

GE engine is an issue. But world also changed. As a B plan better to develop a Kaveri++ version of LCA at least for CAS, Bombing. E-warfare like things though. Get GE fully made in India also may be even as 100% FDI as a special case. This may solve spare parts problem. GE has a very good record. We have to accept that.

LCA is ment to be a bread and butter AC and it is more than capable to meet bunders etc which are with Pakiland. China also has a lot of D class ACs which can be easily dealth with a reasonable number of LCAs even with Mk1s. We also need numbers also meet the treats
west and north.

As a long term measure create indian capability for making a world class AC engine.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Sep 2014 22:22

^^^"The SH is still the best option and uses the same engine as the LCA2. Why is this such a difficult decision?"

Don't know but would hazard that if we did that now after the selection process tamasha, there would be hell to pay from the Euros and France. Not to mention domestic criticism (and an explosion of rage on BRF:)).

The SH is no longer an option. The only political excuse NaMo could plausibly employ is that we are going for 5Gen and lease 60 off the shelf F-35s whenever they become available which should be around the same time as the first Rafale would have been delivered.

Or for that matter just lease 60 Rafales. It is a place filler.

BTW, I did not know that LCA had serious issues beyond the engine. I thought the IAF just moved the goal posts.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Sep 2014 22:44

Or we can buy brand new Mig 35s with brand new subsystems. It has same engine as Mig 29, plus we can integrate it with weapons already with IAF. We can probably make it fly with our own weapons and assign few jets flying with bunch of Nag as armor busters since Mig 35 has Air to Ground role already as part of specifications.

member_23061 · Post by **member_23061** » 17 Sep 2014 23:16

vishvak wrote:Or we can buy brand new Mig 35s with brand new subsystems. It has same engine as Mig 29, plus we can integrate it with weapons already with IAF. We can probably make it fly with our own weapons and assign few jets flying with bunch of Nag as armor busters since Mig 35 has Air to Ground role already as part of specifications.

Oooo snap @ Engine commonality reasons for Shornet.

But I doubt the late 80's MiG's and the new ones have that much commonalities. [As in, the commonalities justifying the procurement of MiG 35's.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Sep 2014 23:59

Okay! Repeat telecast starts.

member_23061 · Post by **member_23061** » 18 Sep 2014 00:04

indranilroy wrote:Okay! Repeat telecast starts.

Lol, fair enough!

I am curious, since we have not inked the Rafale deal ; will we be penalized if it fails to materialize?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Sep 2014 01:07

Prasobh wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Okay! Repeat telecast starts.
Lol, fair enough!

I am curious, since we have not inked the Rafale deal ; will we be penalized if it fails to materialize?

Who's 'we'? us on BRF?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Sep 2014 01:39

Another consideration is that the MMRCA is most likely (though not overtly) an anti-China program, the reason being that we can probably squash the pakis like bugs with what we already have. That being the case, it should be very important to know who would be be the most dependable supplier in the event of a war with China--the Russians, French, Brit-Germans or Americans?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 18 Sep 2014 02:11

Cosmo_R wrote:there would be hell to pay from the Euros and France.

Those sternly-worded letters are rather frightening.

Cosmo_R wrote:The SH is no longer an option. The only political excuse NaMo could plausibly employ is that we are going for 5Gen and lease 60 off the shelf F-35s whenever they become available which should be around the same time as the first Rafale would have been delivered.

Or cost.

They could simply say the situation has changed and the preferred products are no longer affordable or no longer make sense in the current fiscal environment or whatever euphemism you prefer.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Sep 2014 02:43

Marten, much the same we have seen from these "worthies" in every discussion. Dont expect anything worthwhile from either.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Sep 2014 02:50

Why is this thread still open? The chances of a deal actually being signed look to be practically non-existent at the moment. It's no wonder that the same old arguments are getting rehashed for the umpteenth time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2014 03:05

I don't think that it will be poss. to lease 60 F-35s fast tracked from the US.There are too many difficulties with reg. to tech transfer,etc.,that we were unwilling to sign for even the MMRCA.The F-35 has a huge amt. of heavily classified tech which will come with huge safeguard agreements.Given that the aircraft is also delayed ,and existing clients have to get their birds first,it will be difficult even hypothetically if we wanted the same in the MMRCA timeframe.

IToday had its cover story about the existing defence procurement debacle due to warped priorities and policies that existed under AKA and MMS.It is a scathing indictment of the DM and PM.A must read for every member.The IAF squandered its money upon "high price" transports instead of beefing up its strike capability. As I and many others have said all along for years,the C-17 deal was a decision taken in indecent haste to save Boeing's interests,not that of the IAF.There was no great immediate urgency for acquiring heavy-lift transports,spending $10B+ for the same.That money could've been used to wrap up the Rafale deal when prices were low.Delhi sources as said before also alleged that it was the US that was sabotaging the Rafale deal under AKA,the process being inordinately dragged out.Today, the Rafale price escalation has become simply unaffordable. The problem as the feature says,is that the DRDO and DPSUs have also "dropped the baton".Their performance has been very shoddy,like HAL pursuing the IJT/BTT with more vigour than the LCA,etc. Therefore for many requirements there are simply no desi alternatives.Only Akash and Pinaka ,plus the ALH (engine excepted) are fully indigenous products that can be exported.

The sooner the MOD/Jet Li cracks the whip and demands Plan B./C whatever for the MMRCA requirement,the faster will be induction of urgently required aircraft for the IAF.In fact,the MMRCA requirement has now in truth been overtaken by block obsolescence of the MIG-21/27 and Jaguar types.Hundreds of aircraft are required,not just 120+ MMRCAs.Even with the planned upgrade of Jags ,again running about 4 years late,yet to start,the capability will not be enhanced very much in terms of payload and range,mainly a better self defence SRAAM and better avionics.While this should improve close support capability,it does little for the LR deep strike role which can be augmented by acquiring a few sqds. of SU-34s which will boost our strategic N-strike capability as well.

PS:Nachi,as they say on the football field,it isn't over until the "fat lady" has sung!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2014 03:12

There are various ways to skin the cat. There is nothing wrong in scratch back arrangement with the khaans for real role play in strategic and defense initiatives.. For example it is worth to consider cheap lease to India, while reducing expenses say on deployments for joint ops in the gulf (and an experience for IAF that is priceless). One can't keep saying NFU (go mad!), uni/bilateral, common wealth, etc.. when we have to really engage to what our needs are. I'd say, get all the options on the table now!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 18 Sep 2014 04:00

Philip wrote:That money could've been used to wrap up the Rafale deal when prices were low.

When is this mythical time you speak of that Rafale prices were ever low?

They only won the competition 2.5 years ago and there were still huge issues about tech transfer and workshare to workout. Even if money was no object, it would have taken at least a year to finalize.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Sep 2014 04:29

When they were touted as around $75M+.It now appears that they will come in around $125M.If the EF was even costlier,then what hope is there for it to replace the Raffy,unless the Europeans want to lease us stocks from their existing sqds. for "free"/"friendship" prices until new ones are built.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Sep 2014 04:55

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:there would be hell to pay from the Euros and France.
Those sternly-worded letters are rather frightening.

Cosmo_R wrote:The SH is no longer an option. The only political excuse NaMo could plausibly employ is that we are going for 5Gen and lease 60 off the shelf F-35s whenever they become available which should be around the same time as the first Rafale would have been delivered.
Or cost.

They could simply say the situation has changed and the preferred products are no longer affordable or no longer make sense in the current fiscal environment or whatever euphemism you prefer.

George, we are Indian. We take sternly worded letters from anybody overseas seriously. It's in our DNA.

Simply saying 'situation has changed' will only fuel high pitched screams from our vaunted anchors in the media to the effect that it is an attack on secularism/non-alignment and that Bofors pales in comparison to this turnaround.

If the US really wants to put the SH back in contention, it should offer a FMS lease and lobby the US DoS for no strings attached (No EUMA and legal sh**) to get the LCA MK2 up and running double quick. GE would be the ideal ally given the F-414s.

It's too simple and people won't jump on it. This is Occam's Razor in reverse.

JMT

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 18 Sep 2014 05:12

Philip wrote:When they were touted as around $75M+.It now appears that they will come in around $125M.

They were never $75M, at least not for you.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Sep 2014 05:19

Cosmo_R,

Do not say it that loud. It just may happen.

Perfect storm.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Sep 2014 06:10

Philip wrote:I don't think that it will be poss. to lease 60 F-35s fast tracked from the US.There are too many difficulties with reg. to tech transfer,etc.,that we were unwilling to sign for even the MMRCA.

Licensed building deals with tech transfer. Lease agreements don't.

The F-35 has a huge amt. of heavily classified tech which will come with huge safeguard agreements.

All being covered under the DTTI.

Given that the aircraft is also delayed ,and existing clients have to get their birds first,it will be difficult even hypothetically if we wanted the same in the MMRCA timeframe.

Wrong. The production line is scaled to eventually produce over 200 aircraft annually. There's enough surplus capacity to deliver the full quota of 60 aircraft to the IAF by 2022 if a deal is signed in 2017.

The IAF squandered its money upon "high price" transports instead of beefing up its strike capability. As I and many others have said all along for years,the C-17 deal was a decision taken in indecent haste to save Boeing's interests,not that of the IAF.

The life-cycle cost of the C-17 is competitive if not cheaper than the Il-476 when load capacity is factored in.

Even with the planned upgrade of Jags ,again running about 4 years late,yet to start,the capability will not be enhanced very much in terms of payload and range,mainly a better self defence SRAAM and better avionics.While this should improve close support capability,it does little for the LR deep strike role which can be augmented by acquiring a few sqds. of SU-34s which will boost our strategic N-strike capability as well.

The Su-34's side-by-side seating and on-board toilet do not make it any better suited to penetrating airspace than the Su-30MKI. It'll be nailed by MR/LRSAMs or PLAAF interceptors long before its impressive range can come into play.