Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Oct 2014 17:20

Philip wrote:the UKR td has enough info about the origins of the crisis and the Russian viewpoint about EU /NATO interference, expansion,etc.no need to reinvent the debate here.

The EU and NATO are not terms that can be used interchangeably or in a hyphenated manner. One's a military alliance, the other's a supranational politico-economic organisation. An association agreement with the EU does not equal NATO membership.

In aspiring to EU membership, the Ukraine was only striving towards the prosperity achieved by former Warsaw Pact states like Poland, Hungary and (former) Czechoslovakia.

let's stick to the MMRCA debate here.What is new?

To be fair, I believe you brought up the Ukrainian issue and US policy in the matter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Oct 2014 07:38

AVM Arjun Subramaniam has this hard hitting piece on the need for the MMRCA countering Karnad's antipathy to the Rafale. However,the cost factor has been untouched in his piece,only the necessity and rationale for the choice on which there is general approval.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 494484.ece

MMRCA an Absolute Necessity
By Arjun Subramaniam
Published: 27th October 2014

Bharat Karnad’s article, “Impending MMRCA Waste”, published in The New Indian Express on October 3 is a clear attempt to keep the MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) pot boiling—it warrants a response only to sensitise the environment of the truth, just as the learned professor tries to undermine it with his needless ranting on the MMRCA. There seems to be a desperation that merits serious scrutiny—who or what is the guiding beacon behind his sustained attempt to force policy makers to take a re-look at an acquisition, the need for which was felt as far back as 2001? Is he batting for an outsider who is looking for a “window of opportunity” as the new government settles down, or is he pitching for an ill-informed brigade that seems to think that a “whatever there is to offer” approach, which will cause the IAF to dangerously slip into the “operational red” in a hostile environment is okay just because it gives a fillip to indigenisation.

The IAF has been trying to plug operational gaps over the past few years despite assiduous attempts by the likes of Karnad to throw in a spanner at regular intervals. In November last year, a few months after the new Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA) was acquired by the IAF, the Pilatus PC-7 commenced operations at the Air Force Academy in Dundigal after years of attempting to set the HPT-32 right. Along comes an article from Karnad questioning the Pilatus deal. Worse still, despite numerous crashes on the HPT-32 and a gaping hole in our training preparedness, he wanted the IAF to buy a platform which he called the HJT-44 (actually the HTT-44) whose prototype had yet to be proven. One year down the line, cadets at the Air Force Academy are raving about the Pilatus PC-7, instructors no longer have to worry about extricating themselves from too many life-threatening emergencies and technical glitches, and more importantly, its operational impact will soon be seen when pilots trained in it make the transition to more sophisticated aircraft like the Hawk, Mirage-2000 and SU-30 with ease. Apart from its operational impact, the Chief of Air Staff (CAS) also wants to see less worry in the eyes of parents who send their young adult-kids into the tough world of military aviation—I wonder Mr Karnad if you have ever served as a pall-bearer and heard the last post sounded after a fatal crash involving a cadet under training and/or his instructor.

The CAS did some plain talking at his traditional pre-Air Force Day press conference and clearly highlighted the operational gaps that existed with the IAF’s current force and capability levels, particularly in the offensive domain. The main punch of the IAF revolves around the swing role capability of the SU-30 MKI which is experiencing some maintenance problems that are under resolution. The Mirage-2000 and MiG-29 are in the midst of major upgrades which have long implementation periods to fructify into contemporary capability. Our western adversary has acquired aerial weapons systems that allow it to punch above its weight, and the only way that the IAF can retain its decade-old aerial edge and counter it is by swamping it with a combination of SU-30 and an equally good or better platform. The Rafale emerged as a clear winner along with other ingredients (combination of pricing, life-cycle costs, technology transfer, etc.) that gave it a clear competitive edge over other contenders for the 126 aircraft MMRCA deal in what was an impeccably transparent evaluation process.

Prof Karnad’s contention that the procurement of 12 upgraded Qatari Mirage-2000s in the early part of the last decade was shelved to pave the way for a global tender for an MMRCA that would last well beyond the middle of the century; of course it was and why not if the IAF was getting a significantly superior platform? Karnad would like the public to believe that the purchase decision of the Qatari Mirages was scuttled by the then CAS. Technically, the CAS is not part of the procurement process which has embedded checks and balances at every level. He is not an “approving authority” in any procurement process and to attribute such influence to him is amazing, particularly when it comes from someone like Prof Karnad, who not so very long ago was part of government advisory bodies like the National Security Advisory Board and numerous other quasi-official committees. The accusation, unless proven, could rightfully be tantamount to mud-slinging.

Prof Karnad also attempts to frighten the daylight out of us by predicting a grounding of fleets and closure of manufacturing lines of aircraft like the Eurofighter (EF). How does the Eurofighter suddenly emerge in your target zone, prof? I thought you were targeting the Rafale! Inclusion of Eurofighter in this debate is a canard by Karnad. He rambles along disjointedly in his article about Raytheon, a US company being the manufacturer of the Eurofighter’s data fusion system and the probability of the US pulling the plug whenever they want and grounding the fleet. I think we have come a long way in our relationship with the US.

Air power in modern warfare is not just physical destruction of targets; it is more about affecting the mind of your adversary with coercive capability. A combination of the SU-30, MMRCA (Rafale) and upgraded M-2000 and MiG-29s as your frontline offensive punch is an intimidating mix by any standards. The flexibility that it will afford to mix and match between offensive and defensive missions will offer great security, particularly to the Indian Army as it increasingly looks to the IAF to clear the skies and cause significant attrition to the enemy’s combat potential before it comes into contact with own forces in the Tactical Battle Area (TBA). Smaller and legacy platforms like the LCA, Jaguar, Hawk and the remaining MiG variants will then contribute significantly to the joint battle as they put pressure on the enemy and cause destruction in and around the TBA. That, Mr Karnad, is how a battlefield is shaped if you have the necessary wherewithal—you cannot do it if you remain with 34 squadrons or less for much longer, or opt for platforms that do not meet the requirements of operational commanders. The IAF has always welcomed constructive criticism, but when Karnad dishes out such disruptive writing, he needs to be suitably countered!

The author is a serving Air Vice Marshal in the IAF. Email: arjun31@gmail.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 27 Oct 2014 09:20

Yes but what does the IAF's "Really" need?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Oct 2014 10:11

ravi_g wrote:Yes but what does the IAF's "Really" need?

What it really needs is to start factoring in finances in its wishlists. If that's the MoD's job, then perhaps the MoD needs to start ignoring the IAF as and when applicable.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Oct 2014 14:06

No softlanding in sight for $20-bn Rafale deal
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/no ... /1302175/0

The wait for the $20-billion 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force is going to get longer due to budgetary constraints and the delay in concluding the negotiations with the French company Dassault.

Though the talks with Dassault have been going on for two years now, IAF chief Arup Raha has admitted that it would take another three to four years before the first squadron of Rafale aircraft could be raised. This effectively means a timeframe of 2015-16 if there is no further delay in signing the agreement.

Speaking to FE on conditions of anonymity, an officer who has been part of the negotiating team, said, “While the negotiations with the French company are on track, there are several other agencies involved in this project and it will be another few months before the negotiations are complete. Which means this deal will not be done this fiscal ended March 2015.”

Also, sources have indicated that there could be budgetary issues too as the Modi government is more focused on social programmes. Hence paying the first instalment of the deal could be a problem too. When the approval for procuring the 126 aircraft was given by the previous NDA regime in 2000, the cost pegged was at around $10 billion, since then the prices have gone up.
This fiscal’s R2.24-lakh-crore interim defence budget, especially the R89,588-crore capital expenditure for new assets, has not factored in the 15% down payment that needs to be immediately made if the MMRCA deal is inked.

‘’After one-and-a-half decade of that approval, the cost of the combat machines has gone up, including inflation and the rupee-euro conversion rates. While the government has benchmarked the likely price of the machines and the cost increase factored in, the necessary approvals for budgetary provisions for the planes would need a fresh sanction,” explained a senior IAF officer.
It is uncertain if the contract would be signed within the current fiscal even if negotiations were completed by late next month and all issues relating to technology transfer from Dassault were taken care off and papers readied by December.

It has been more than two years, since Rafale beat its closest competitor Eurofighter Typhoon from the consortium — then called EADS Cassidian. When French foreign minister Laurent Fabius was in Delhi recently, the Indian response to his efforts to push the deal through was lukewarm, say officials.

One of the major reasons why the new government is very cautious about the Dassault aircraft is perhaps its life-cycle cost, which is the expenditure which would be incurred by India on operations and maintenance of the plane for 40 years after induction, along with the price of the planes.

Under the tender provisions, Dassault Aviation will manufacture the first 18 of the Rafale for the IAF while Hindustan Aeronautics will build the remaining 108 in India. The talks on life-cycle costs have taken so long as this is the first-ever Indian defence deal in which these costs are being worked out. It is now mandatory to calculate this expenditure before the deal is signed.

Step by step
* The Contract Negotiation Committee will prepare the report of the negotiations with Dassault
* Since the value is high, the matter will be brought before the Cabinet Committee on Security
* This will require inter-ministerial consultations, in this case it is the finance ministry
* The ministry could raise questions that need to be answered
* The CCS will then send the Cabinet note to the PMO and as per the procedure, there will be a 15-day wait for response

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 27 Oct 2014 14:07

Meanwhile ...

Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG

Defence and security company Saab has signed a contract with the Brazilian Federal Government (Ministry of Defense through the Aeronautics Command, COMAER) covering the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion. Saab and COMAER have also signed an Industrial Co-operation contract to deliver substantial technology transfer from Saab to Brazilian industry.
On 18 December 2013 Brazil selected the Gripen NG to be its next-generation fighter aircraft, through the F-X2 evaluation programme. Since then all parties have negotiated to finalise a contract. Today’s announcement marks the successful conclusion of that process.
Saab and COMAER have signed a contract for the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft, plus related systems and equipment. The programme comprises 28 single-seat and eight two-seat Gripen NG. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion.
Saab and COMAER have also signed a contract for industrial co-operation projects, including technology transfer to Brazilian industry, to be performed over approximately ten years.
“We are proud to stand side-by-side with Brazil in this important programme. There is already a long and successful history of industrial co-operation between our two countries, and this historic agreement takes that partnership to a new level”, says Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of Saab’s Board of Directors.
The contract with COMAER for Gripen NG and the associated Industrial Co-operation contract will come into effect once certain conditions have been fulfilled. These include, among others, the necessary export control-related authorisations. All of these conditions are expected to be fulfilled during the first half of 2015. Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024.
“The contract with Brazil validates Gripen as the most capable and modern fighter system on the market. It solidifies Saab’s position as a world-leading fighter aircraft producer and strengthens our platform for growth,” says Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.
The contract with Brazil strengthens the ties between Saab and Brazilian industry. Embraer will have a leading role as the strategic partner in the F-X2 programme. As part of the technology transfer plan, Brazilian industry will have an important role in the development of, and be responsible for, the production of the two-seat Gripen NG variant for the Brazilian Air Force.
Brazil joins Sweden in becoming the launch customer for the next-generation Gripen, which shares the same smart design and innovative technology as today’s Gripen versions. Gripen aircraft are currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS).
The next-generation Gripen meets the market’s demand for a sophisticated and flexible combat aircraft with sustainable costs. The aircraft provides more thrust, extended range and endurance, expanded weapons capacity, new sensors including an advanced AESA radar, highly effective electronic warfare systems and multi-function communications.
The Gripen NG for Brazil and Gripen E for Sweden share all the attributes of the next-generation Gripen design, but are also tailored to each country’s specific national requirements. The commitments by Sweden and Brazil secure Gripen’s industrial and operational future into the 2050 timeframe.

Will · Post by **Will** » 27 Oct 2014 14:48

Not complaining, but with the govt approving projects left right and centre(ofcourse not all deals have been actually signed), the question arises where is the money going to come from. There is definitely a need to increase the % of the defence budget against GDP.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 27 Oct 2014 14:56

Vishnu wrote:Meanwhile ...

Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG

Defence and security company Saab has signed a contract with the Brazilian Federal Government (Ministry of Defense through the Aeronautics Command, COMAER) covering the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion. Saab and COMAER have also signed an Industrial Co-operation contract to deliver substantial technology transfer from Saab to Brazilian industry.
On 18 December 2013 Brazil selected the Gripen NG to be its next-generation fighter aircraft, through the F-X2 evaluation programme. Since then all parties have negotiated to finalise a contract. Today’s announcement marks the successful conclusion of that process.
Saab and COMAER have signed a contract for the development and production of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft, plus related systems and equipment. The programme comprises 28 single-seat and eight two-seat Gripen NG. The total order value is approximately SEK 39.3 billion.
Saab and COMAER have also signed a contract for industrial co-operation projects, including technology transfer to Brazilian industry, to be performed over approximately ten years.
“We are proud to stand side-by-side with Brazil in this important programme. There is already a long and successful history of industrial co-operation between our two countries, and this historic agreement takes that partnership to a new level”, says Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of Saab’s Board of Directors.
The contract with COMAER for Gripen NG and the associated Industrial Co-operation contract will come into effect once certain conditions have been fulfilled. These include, among others, the necessary export control-related authorisations. All of these conditions are expected to be fulfilled during the first half of 2015. Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024.
“The contract with Brazil validates Gripen as the most capable and modern fighter system on the market. It solidifies Saab’s position as a world-leading fighter aircraft producer and strengthens our platform for growth,” says Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.
The contract with Brazil strengthens the ties between Saab and Brazilian industry. Embraer will have a leading role as the strategic partner in the F-X2 programme. As part of the technology transfer plan, Brazilian industry will have an important role in the development of, and be responsible for, the production of the two-seat Gripen NG variant for the Brazilian Air Force.
Brazil joins Sweden in becoming the launch customer for the next-generation Gripen, which shares the same smart design and innovative technology as today’s Gripen versions. Gripen aircraft are currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS).
The next-generation Gripen meets the market’s demand for a sophisticated and flexible combat aircraft with sustainable costs. The aircraft provides more thrust, extended range and endurance, expanded weapons capacity, new sensors including an advanced AESA radar, highly effective electronic warfare systems and multi-function communications.
The Gripen NG for Brazil and Gripen E for Sweden share all the attributes of the next-generation Gripen design, but are also tailored to each country’s specific national requirements. The commitments by Sweden and Brazil secure Gripen’s industrial and operational future into the 2050 timeframe.

Hmmm...the amount of deal is $5.4 billion for 36 aircraft.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Oct 2014 20:58

Philip wrote:AVM Arjun Subramaniam has this hard hitting piece on the need for the MMRCA countering Karnad's antipathy to the Rafale. However,the cost factor has been untouched in his piece,only the necessity and rationale for the choice on which there is general approval.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 494484.ece

I have been a strong supporter of the MMRCA through and through, but I am disappointed by this rebuttal.

I was really expecting something which I could cite whenever I wanted to justify the need for MMRCA. What is the plan for building up squadrons with the Rafale? How is it going to be faster? What is the flexibility that the Rafale accords that LCAs Mk1 cannot and how does this dent the morale of the opposition more?

Instead the article seems like an all out effort to belittle Dr. Karnad using the same rhetoric "You have never been in this situation as we have, so stop advising us". I don't agree with Dr. Karnad at all, but this is not impressive. I get the feeling the likes of Karnad, Shukla and Jha are getting into the heads of the current pro-desi govt. and this worries IAF (which does not trust the PSUs to be able to deliver them wares which can keep them fighting fit).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2014 21:01

He completely skips the issue of existing serviceability numbers and how for a far less amount than a Rafale acquisition, they could be raised higher and get IAF more numbers in service faster. Also, the article has far too many jibes at Karnad - he could have made his case much more strongly relying on facts. I am no fan of Karnads airy fairy handwaves either (dismantle strike corps, make friends with TSP) but the above article is not really full of facts either. Hope the good AVM has more details in his next article.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Oct 2014 21:02

Vishnu wrote:Meanwhile ...

Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG

Thanks but no thanks, we have the LCA MK2 for that requirement of Gripen class aircraft.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Oct 2014 22:01

MANNY K wrote:Hmmm...the amount of deal is $5.4 billion for 36 aircraft.

I couldn't believe it, so re-checked and confirmed it ... I know there are flyaway costs, lifetime costs and missile costs, making apples to apples comparison quite tricky, but $150M per plane ? That too for Gripen ?

I wonder what the unit price for Rafale would be, in comparison ...

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 27 Oct 2014 22:03

ravi_g wrote:Yes but what does the IAF's "Really" need?

Good question. As per AVM's own words, a kadak tfta phyter. Must be some kind of modern chanakyan strategy to indimidate pakis and chinese from future misadventures. I am sorry to say this but IAF must preserve its dignity by not writing rebuttals.

Air power in modern warfare is not just physical destruction of targets; it is more about affecting the mind of your adversary with coercive capability. A combination of the SU-30, MMRCA (Rafale) and upgraded M-2000 and MiG-29s as your frontline offensive punch is an intimidating mix by any standards.

As a country we need the required endurance to fight an additional day. This endurance can only be achieved by our own strong MIC. Preparedness is only the beginning of a fight. But only endurance can win it for you.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Oct 2014 22:40

If you go through the videos of the Stratpost Roundtable, "what does IAF need" becomes a very interesting question.

At the most basic level, it needs more squadrons of very good and effective multirole combat fighters.

And now, we add qualifiers.

It doesn't want a Russian airplane. Maybe it is pi$$ed off due to being shafted for spares, or MTBO times. That rules out getting more Sukhois.
It doesn't trust HAL/DRDO. Perhaps being bitten by repeated delays. That rules out large number of LCA.
So it invented a requirement for a medium weight class, which rules out both additional Sukhois and LCAs.

I'm basing my analysis on the following facts:
a) I don't know of any country trying to procure multirole aircraft for three weight classes.
b) They didn't have a ready answer to the availability rate expected. They thought 44% was good enough. From Ajay Shukla's articles, that is comparable to the Sukhois with all its problems, so doesn't offer an expectation of improvement.
c) They admitted that the lifecycle costing is something new - which means they can come up with different costing based on what utilization models they use.

Things were on track, but two things they didn't foresee happened:
a) The Saint became the RM, and anyone could derail the procurement of anything by sending an anonymous note to MoD. So, that ruled out any quick procurement process
b) The Indian economy nosedived because of the limitless wastage/theft of public money by the Govt. So, the Eurocanards became almost unaffordable.

The current Govt seems to be okay with expensive procurement as long as they are made in India. So, there is hope for Rafale still ...

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 27 Oct 2014 23:30

Bhailog it is a pretty stupid question actually in the same vein as 'walks like a duck talks like a duck.....'. I just asked that question in jest only because it reminded me of something said by someone sometime back and then just a few days later he said something exactly to the contrary. And the question was merely done in the light of the write up by a Serving Air Vice Marshal - IAF. Chalta hai. At least in my world it does chalta hai.

If IAF says they need Rafale then I am sure they have applied their brains to it and they feel confident going to war with. And provided there is money in the coffers which I believe would be there in future there is every case for ordering Rafale. Though being SDRE I never was convinced about 126 much less the add on offer.

If however there is no money as a lot of people apparently believe then the IAF should be told to prepare itself to fight with whatever it would be given.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 28 Oct 2014 03:11

Karan M wrote:
Vishnu wrote:Meanwhile ...

Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG
Thanks but no thanks, we have the LCA MK2 for that requirement of Gripen class aircraft.

Really? You do? I´ve been waiting over 30 years for the LCA and have still not seen one operational in any air force.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Oct 2014 03:20

srin wrote:If you go through the videos of the Stratpost Roundtable, "what does IAF need" becomes a very interesting question.

What the IAF needed was 126 M2k-5s ten years ago.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Oct 2014 03:21

srin wrote:
MANNY K wrote:Hmmm...the amount of deal is $5.4 billion for 36 aircraft.
I couldn't believe it, so re-checked and confirmed it ... I know there are flyaway costs, lifetime costs and missile costs, making apples to apples comparison quite tricky, but $150M per plane ? That too for Gripen ?

I wonder what the unit price for Rafale would be, in comparison ...

2X the cost of a JSF. 5X the cost of a LCA MK2. 2.5X cost of SH etc.

We have to pay for the French lifestyle.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Oct 2014 03:22

nachiket wrote:
srin wrote:If you go through the videos of the Stratpost Roundtable, "what does IAF need" becomes a very interesting question.
What the IAF needed was 126 M2k-5s ten years ago.

And we had the chance in 1980s to build the line in India. Except the GoI got strong armed into the MiG 29 by our friends the Russians.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Oct 2014 03:27

Viv S wrote: What it really needs is to start factoring in finances in its wishlists. If that's the MoD's job, then perhaps the MoD needs to start ignoring the IAF as and when applicable.

This current process of not opening the financial bids at all when the tech evals are done boggles the mind. What is the point of evaluating an aircraft you may not be able to afford? Or the does the MoD and IAF think that we can afford everything? The IAF first tied their own hands by shortlistingthe two most expensive aircraft and then the fin-eval process shut the door on one of them completely. Now they have no room to manouver and no cards to play while negotiating. So either we pay whatever the Frenchies demand or the IAF gets nothing. There is no third option. There is no ability to trade performance for cost.

I'm sorry, this tendering process may be industry standard or whatever and be used by the GOI to award infrastructure contracts and the like, but it is just not working for the MoD. Between the MRCA, the light helo tender and the artillery procurement fiasco, there is enough evidence for this.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2014 03:56

Wickberg wrote:
Thanks but no thanks, we have the LCA MK2 for that requirement of Gripen class aircraft.
Really? You do? I´ve been waiting over 30 years for the LCA and have still not seen one operational in any air force.

One should not confuse topics. The "no thanks" is *not* about an operational plane, but because of the confidence in a maturing indigenous effort.

Even if one were to accept the wrong time of 30 years, please come back in 10 and let us talk.

HKumar · Post by **HKumar** » 28 Oct 2014 04:03

I have always wondered about the expensive MMRCA deal and while reading an article about the history/culture of IAF, It struck me. The article uses the term "aircraft-centric" in describing IAF culture historically. The term refers to how IAF enforces its power - through the might of the aircraft only . Hence the need for role specific fighter families. Contrast to the USAF that is "force-centric" and uses older aircraft as workhorses but with bleeding edge weapons systems and in conjunction with other force multipliers to get better results.

In my mind, this answers the need of MMRCA for IAF.

As you see this is my first post .. and this is an opinion

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Oct 2014 04:07

HKumar wrote:I have always wondered about the expensive MMRCA deal and while reading an article about the history/culture of IAF, It struck me. The article uses the term "aircraft-centric" in describing IAF culture historically. The term refers to how IAF enforces its power - through the might of the aircraft only . Hence the need for role specific fighter families. Contrast to the USAF that is "force-centric" and uses older aircraft as workhorses but with bleeding edge weapons systems and in conjunction with other force multipliers to get better results.

The IAF's workhorse was the Mig-21 till recently. Even now there might be more Mig-21s flying than Su-30's. Doesn't get older than that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2014 04:17

I would advise the GOI/MOD to look at the experience of the MIG-29K with the IN,purely from the numbers point of view,expanding the number of sqds.,and as replacements for the MIG-21s,with engines being manufactured here already.It is the most cost-effective multi-role aircraft around.The Gripen ruled out if the LCA Mk-2 arrives on time.Since there is going to be much re-designing of the LCA MK-1 to accommodate the new engine,a definite timeframe has to be met otherwise the entire LCA programme will end up in obsolescence and as a massive tech demo experiment.Here HAL could enlist the help of SAAB if need be as it is the only manufacturer with a similar product.The Pakis are rapidly increasing their numbers by local manufacture of JF-17s,a modest but very useful addition which is affordable.They're "cutting their kurta according to their cloth".The IAF on the other hand wants the world's best fighters ,but to pay fir them with anything but the world's best economy,the legacy of the neo-Roman empire! In the era of PGMs (which the Pakis desperately want in v.large number),as the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert said,why buy expensive sports cars when "bomb trucks" can do the job equally well.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Oct 2014 06:42

^ +1. Only I don't consider the 29k a bomb truck, and also, ain't happening - see Srai's analysis.

Srai saheb, good analysis - far better than what Karnad or countering AVM have come up with.

There is however, a distinct no-nonsense kind of feel about the current GOI; IOWs, we might see some immediate MKI buys (as Saurav Jha was pointing out) along with greater emphasis on Tejas. Bye bye Rafale; you are beautiful but alas your b.u.tt is unaffordable for mango SDREs. We will take mini rafale in the form of Tejas wonlee, and Rambha when we need someone not so demure.

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Oct 2014 12:20

Philip wrote:I would advise the GOI/MOD to look at the experience of the MIG-29K with the IN,purely from the numbers point of view,expanding the number of sqds.,and as replacements for the MIG-21s,with engines being manufactured here already.It is the most cost-effective multi-role aircraft around.The Gripen ruled out if the LCA Mk-2 arrives on time.Since there is going to be much re-designing of the LCA MK-1 to accommodate the new engine,a definite timeframe has to be met otherwise the entire LCA programme will end up in obsolescence and as a massive tech demo experiment.Here HAL could enlist the help of SAAB if need be as it is the only manufacturer with a similar product.The Pakis are rapidly increasing their numbers by local manufacture of JF-17s,a modest but very useful addition which is affordable.They're "cutting their kurta according to their cloth".The IAF on the other hand wants the world's best fighters ,but to pay fir them with anything but the world's best economy,the legacy of the neo-Roman empire! In the era of PGMs (which the Pakis desperately want in v.large number),as the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert said,why buy expensive sports cars when "bomb trucks" can do the job equally well.

Surprisingly, I tend to agree with you ...

That brings me to the part-2 of the analysis - on the solutions.

IAF wants good aircraft now. That is the most important objective.

As someone pointed out above, 126 Mirages would have been ideal. Especially an MKI'ized variant. Didn't happen.

There is one thing that you need to consider: how long would the aircraft be relevant. Given that most countries (strategically relevant ones that is) are developing and are expected to field VLO aircrafts by 2030, would the aircraft be obsolescent in next 20 years ? And if the lifetime of the aircraft is really 20-25 years, would you still pay for the Rafale ?

And that is where I feel buying a cheap aircraft like Mig-29K/OVT would have been beneficial. You aim for next 20 years.

That leaves it with:
a) Go ahead with Rafale. But squeeze the French out to get full technologies at as low a price as possible. It is probably what they are trying now.
b) Order more MKIs and more LCA Mk1. If the Rafale negotiation drags on till the LCA FOC, then this becomes a serious alternative. You always prefer the bird in hand against the two in bush, and FOC would seriously tilt the scales.
c) More practically, but least probably - squeeze Putin (when he visits next month) to make an immediate decision to manufacture Migs in India at a very cheap cost with full access to test data, AESA codes, engine manufacture and MRO. And decide within 1 month. Invest the saved money on AMCA and have it ready by 2030. But IAF doesn't want to put all eggs in the Russian basket, so the most practical approach is out.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2014 12:39

Unless the deal is part of a massive package that includes N-plants,energy supplies,rupee-rouble trade,etc.
Look at how Brazil is leveraging its Gripen buy with even the Argies interested in buying aircraft/components made in Brazil. If I was Putin,I would offer the manufacturing rights for MIG-29/35s to India for the entire Afro-Asian region. The upgraded aircraft is a cost-effective fighter for medium sized nations that do not have a large bank balance.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ionstories

Brazil Signs Deal With Saab To Buy 36 Gripens
Oct. 27, 2014 - 04:26PM | By ANDREW CHUTER |

Embraer and a number of other Brazilian companies will supply systems and components for the program as part of a wide-ranging technology transfer plan aimed at improving local capabilities to design and build supersonic fighters.

Saab and COMAER, the Brazilian Aeronautics Command, have signed a contract for industrial cooperation projects, including technology transfer, to be performed over roughly 10 years.

The contract will come into effect once certain conditions are meet, including the necessary export control-related authorizations, Saab said in a statement.

The Swedish executive declined to comment on reports that other nations, including Argentina, have expressed an interest in purchasing Brazilian-assembled machines. Brazil becomes Gripen’s sixth Air Force customer. Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African and Thai air forces have already purchased or leased the single-engine jet. The aircraft is also operated by the UK Empire Test Pilots’ School.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 28 Oct 2014 13:05

Philip wrote:Unless the deal is part of a massive package that includes N-plants,energy supplies,rupee-rouble trade,etc.
Look at how Brazil is leveraging its Gripen buy with even the Argies interested in buying aircraft/components made in Brazil. If I was Putin,I would offer the manufacturing rights for MIG-29/35s to India for the entire Afro-Asian region. The upgraded aircraft is a cost-effective fighter for medium sized nations that do not have a large bank balance.

Putin has not offered manufacturing rights for Mig 29/35s for the entire Afro -Asian region and the IAF did not want Mig 35. Its not adequate enough to win the MMRCA.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 28 Oct 2014 14:07

Wickberg wrote:
Karan M wrote: Really? You do? I´ve been waiting over 30 years for the LCA and have still not seen one operational in any air force.
First of all, thank you for one liner.

Secondary to LCA, what is USA offering exactly? Is it just the plane or the entire star wars idea - the whole kingdom of whyte-Jesus' father at NY/DC experience, including and not limited to - star wars battles real time, litigations in New York (which our diplomats and politicians including current PM is aware of), long term loans (WW2 loans to poodle Brits), 'international' participation (UN and NGOs), and so on and so forth?

The thing is, fighter jets have evolved since MMRCA competition - including Mig35. If it offers more than Mirages, it would be a very good option as it is.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 28 Oct 2014 14:14

I'm a diligent reader of this topic and rarely interfere. About draginess of MMRCA contract. Do you realize there are 500 suppliers for Rafale in France? How long it was to identify indian counterparts, estimate how long ToT would take? Define ramping up of indigenous parts in the whole program? Build up every separate contract? Build two supply chains so as to assure everything will go smoothly?
Because in the end that is the point. After a certain delay, indian Rafales are to be 100% indian made (as far as India wish them to be).
Do not forget that for Dassault, India is second best customer after France. They'd prefer to stall the deal instead of doing a proper one (private talk with a vice president)

Cheers

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 28 Oct 2014 14:25

Agreed. That's why I will prefer to have it cancelled rather than going forward with it.

Would like the monies to build up the LCA and AMCAs, with their associated supplier complex, inside India. The Rafale is too expensive for BOTH France AND India.

And BTW, if you are a Frenchman, it would be good to work more than 35 hours a week . This makes your exports cheaper and these decisions easier to make.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Oct 2014 14:42

ravi_g wrote:If IAF says they need Rafale then I am sure they have applied their brains to it and they feel confident going to war with. And provided there is money in the coffers which I believe would be there in future there is every case for ordering Rafale. Though being SDRE I never was convinced about 126 much less the add on offer.

The issue is not so much what they feel confident going to war in, but rather what is the best use of the country's finite financial resources. 'What-it-costs vs what-it-delivers' doesn't factor into the IAF's planning because the budgets are left to the govt to sort out.

The IAF may have the edge against the PLAAF when it comes to doctrine and training, but when it comes to planning the Chinese are beating us soundly. That they have larger budgets is to be expected but that they get a better return per dollar/yuan spent, is a damning indictment of the MoD and the IAF.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 28 Oct 2014 14:54

The negotiations are still ongoing, better to hold your horses, sirs!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Oct 2014 14:58

Philip wrote:I would advise the GOI/MOD to look at the experience of the MIG-29K with the IN,purely from the numbers point of view,expanding the number of sqds.,and as replacements for the MIG-21s,with engines being manufactured here already.It is the most cost-effective multi-role aircraft around.

The principle of looking for cost effectiveness is sound. Your prescription on the other hand isn't.

The most cost-effective multi-role aircraft around is the Tejas Mk1.

The MiG-29K was priced at over $50 million in 2010 ($1.5bn for 29 units). A conservative 4% inflation rate would put the same figure at $60M+ in 2015. The Tejas Mk1 would come in for under $30M.

Bottom-line is you can get at least two Tejas for the cost of a single MiG-29K. And that's money invested in the domestic economy rather than Russian pockets. And it will go towards reducing the Tejas' unit cost by achieving greater economies in production.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 29 Oct 2014 02:19

Agreed. That's why I will prefer to have it cancelled rather than going forward with it.

Would like the monies to build up the LCA and AMCAs, with their associated supplier complex, inside India. The Rafale is too expensive for BOTH France AND India.

And BTW, if you are a Frenchman, it would be good to work more than 35 hours a week . This makes your exports cheaper and these decisions easier to make.

Well about the 35 hours, they only apply to workers. If you look at stats, we work smthing like 41 hours per week (and with one the best productivity worldwide). Anw i'm not concerned, as professor i have yearly duty...
One thing you should grasp is ToT will be to a never seen extent.

Just my opinion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2014 02:53

The cost of the Tejas is between $25-30M from last accounts.The IN purchased its MIG-29Ks for $32m and Russia is acquiring a new sqd.+ of MIG-29s at below $30M.A MIG-35 may cost around $35-40M.At the very least,Tejas costs would be around 75% of the cost of a MIG-29 which is a far more capable multi-role aircraft than the MK-1.With no disrespect to the Mk-1s,until the IAF have the first sqd. in hand (when is it arriving?) and put it through its paces,we will not know whether the MK-1 is adequate as a MIG-21 replacement and numbers can be increased.MK-2 will never arrive in sqd. service before 2020.Therefore,what are the cost-effective choices for the IAF? Acquiring extra MKIs to me isn't the answer as each aircraft requires 2 pilots and the cost of that extending down to the responsibility of an extra family to support ,infrastructure for the extra pilot,etc, increases cost considerably.The IAF is also supposed to be short of 600 pilots! The key point here is that the Tejas is the replacement for the MIG-21 ( no issue here at all) and cannot fit the MMRCA role where range,endurance,payload,etc. are superior in a twin-engine larger aircraft.The IAF needs both MIG replacements and the MMRCA,as the 100+ M-2000 and MIG-29 upgrades aren't sufficient enough in number to deal with both the Chinese and Pakis.

As the above post said,"negotiations are still on".To save the day and prevent the deal from entering into a "spin", looking for alternatives,the IAF might accept reduced numbers.That still doesn't meet the requirement for 40+ sqds.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Oct 2014 12:28

The cost of the MiG-29K is in the $40-45 million range, not $30-32 million range.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Oct 2014 13:34

^^^^^

One or two on BR get deep discounts and have promised to pass those savings.

Kidding aside, MiGs cannot be a solution for the distant future. To discard them after 10 years or so is fine. Provides breathing space. But outside of air shows they will not provide much substance.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 29 Oct 2014 14:27

Distant future is basically the one big commie nation forming one bloc and an axis of evil including TSP and NoKo.

The rest of the world will be aligned against it.

Russia will form the NAM .

'Tis better to hitch our wagon to the USA's supply chain - this will cause the cheenis much less comfort.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2014 10:11

The era of blocs is passe.The Turks are viewed as outsiders in Europe and aren't playing ball with the rest.There are deep divisions even in NATO.The US is in retreat after wasting trillions of $$$ only to have spawned ISIS and other ungodlies and left the ME in a right mess. Looking at the US's wares objectively,all their legacy wares,F-16s,F-18s,F-15s are at the end of the development cycle with the JSF the jack-of-all trades,simply just too expensive eevn if all the problems are sorted out and full series production around 2020 for allies.The USN will get their first only in 2019.

Russian MIG-29s on order are less than $30M.Pl. check. Anyway,from latest media reports today,the Rafale deal has been sorted out and in the final stages of negotiations and the next deal to be signed.The contours might be adjusted,but the importance of the deal and requirement ,"bird in the hand worth two in the bush",in the current context of PRC aggro cannot be ignored.We may get a couple of ready-made sqds. on an urgent basis to plug gaps with retiring aircraft.So unless there is a real goof-up by the French,the Moulin Rouge damsel will be wiggling her delicious derriere in Indian skies in the future!

Just for the record,I was delving through some old issues of various def. mags and came upon some intersting articles.In 2009,the most urgent crisis in the IAF "thanks to shortsighted decisions made in the '80s" and the need for the MMRCA was the issue at hand.The MIG-27 upgrades (second batch of 40) to Darin-3 std.,similar planned for the LCA and Jaguar was approved with better engines (same as the Sukhoi and better avionics,etc.) ,with the Jaguar UG just around the corner with the assitance of Honywell of RR for the engine. The delays in the LCA neccessitated the MMRCA and the first batch of MMRCAs was expected by 2012 (!).
This was required as both MIG-29s and M-2000s would be in stages removed from service for their upgrades and several sqds. of MIG-21Bis and M versions would be retired.

5 years on,where are we? The MIGs have been nursed into another decade of service with scotch tape and glue,Bisons to serve until 2025,and until they all drop out of the sky due to old age will soldier on! The LCA first sqd. Mk-1 hasn't arrived as yet.Sulur is still "waiting for Godot",a better name than Tejas. The interim solution solution at that time was to order 90 Su-30MKIs all built in Russia for the role of "deep penetration" apart from air dominance. That seems to have been thre great strategy."Short of aircraft? Just buy more Sukhois".While one lauds the great aircraft that the MKI is,in my opinion,dealing with the Paki fleet,the MIG-29K/UG/35 would be a far more cost-effective option,with only a single pilot too.The money saved to be put into the LCA MK-2 accelerated development so that the 42 sqds. goal could be achieved.An MKI or Rafale cannot be ob both the western and eastern fronts at the same time! Numbers do matter.

Anyway,now that the die appears to have been cast in favour of completing the deal for the Raffy,all our alternatives are academic.If the govt. has found the money,let's hope that the decision has been well thought out and that further French cost escalations will be contractually outlawed by a most carefully drawn up contract unlike that of the Scorpenes and M-2000 upgrades.