Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 31 Oct 2014 16:35

[/quote]
Just a simple question for you, Vishnu - why did Rajat not ask or get the byline on this one?[/quote]

Honestly, no idea. Would you like me to find out ? Is it that important ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Oct 2014 17:27

How many export deals have the expensive 4th gen fighters like the Rafale and EF In the last five years? Only the F-35 and the cheaper gripen seem to be notching up sales. The South Korea decision to go for F-35 over the F-15 was probably the turning point. Any one who has the money and the access to buy 5th gen fighter will do so. It will be stupid to buy Rafales now.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2014 17:57

Vishnu wrote:
If that is what you understand of a planted piece then it is obvious your understanding is inadequate.

...

Ravi ... I assure you my understanding of the media is quite excellent. I wouldn't have survived 19 + years in this profession had that not been the case.

The desperate urge to troll and malign the media, myself included, is a tragic past time for many here. It amazes me that everyone here relies on media for news and yet will slam the messenger for no reason at all. But lets not waste time here dissecting the media ...

I can vouch for the fact that the reporter had no ulterior motive. While Rajat got the exclusive print interview ... there were several reporters, myself included, who discussed what may be worth asking and we all felt that it may be worth asking on Typhoon not because we are illiterate about the MMRCA deal but because it would have been interesting to get the Ministers views on the matter. What if he said, for whatever the reason may be, that "India was making a mistake with the Rafale" or for that matter was critical of the selection of the jet. He didn't and thats fine but please understand that it is a reporters job is to ask. Irrespective of whether you or anyone likes it or not.

The media has not exactly covered itself with glory. Rajat Pandits shoddy reportage in the past apart, in which I have no interest to bandy words about but you can google and discern his track record by yourself if you so wish., he has done enough trolling of his own on various topics...it's not merely this forum as you allege but people like the former navy chief who took square aim at the media for their behaviour.

The media no longer behaves merely as a messenger but seeks to be an influencer, and has been repeatedly in the news for political bias to whit. Senior journalists engaging in fisticuffs to whit. . In such a case, pot, kettle etc apply. BTW where is the evidence that the French have refused to take responsibility for the assembly in any manner as the report alleges. No evidence provided.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2014 18:01

Vishnu wrote: Just a simple question for you, Vishnu - why did Rajat not ask or get the byline on this one?
....
Honestly, no idea. Would you like me to find out ? Is it that important ?

Of course it's germane. The IAF has taken square aim at motivated folk who seek to derail the MMRCA by repeatedly attempting to insert other aircraft back into the process and giving fuel to their unsolicited offers. Pandits article does the same thing. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 31 Oct 2014 18:25

Karan M wrote:
Vishnu wrote:
If that is what you understand of a planted piece then it is obvious your understanding is inadequate.

...

Ravi ... I assure you my understanding of the media is quite excellent. I wouldn't have survived 19 + years in this profession had that not been the case.

The desperate urge to troll and malign the media, myself included, is a tragic past time for many here. It amazes me that everyone here relies on media for news and yet will slam the messenger for no reason at all. But lets not waste time here dissecting the media ...

I can vouch for the fact that the reporter had no ulterior motive. While Rajat got the exclusive print interview ... there were several reporters, myself included, who discussed what may be worth asking and we all felt that it may be worth asking on Typhoon not because we are illiterate about the MMRCA deal but because it would have been interesting to get the Ministers views on the matter. What if he said, for whatever the reason may be, that "India was making a mistake with the Rafale" or for that matter was critical of the selection of the jet. He didn't and thats fine but please understand that it is a reporters job is to ask. Irrespective of whether you or anyone likes it or not.
The media has not exactly covered itself with glory. Rajat Pandits shoddy reportage in the past apart, in which I have no interest to bandy words about but you can google and discern his track record by yourself if you so wish., he has done enough trolling of his own on various topics...it's not merely this forum as you allege but people like the former navy chief who took square aim at the media for their behaviour.

The media no longer behaves merely as a messenger but seeks to be an influencer, and has been repeatedly in the news for political bias to whit. Senior journalists engaging in fisticuffs to whit. . In such a case, pot, kettle etc apply. BTW where is the evidence that the French have refused to take responsibility for the assembly in any manner as the report alleges. No evidence provided.

Karan .. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with his article - I personally found nothing objectionable at all. I just feel the broad sweep that several BRFites use in dissing the media, lock, stock and barrel is just crazy. As for the Rajdeep incident and and further media critique, I invite all of you to engage with me at vishnu@ndtv.com. Lets stick to the topic at hand or we will all get into trouble with the Mods.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 31 Oct 2014 18:27

Karan M wrote:
Vishnu wrote: Just a simple question for you, Vishnu - why did Rajat not ask or get the byline on this one?
....
Honestly, no idea. Would you like me to find out ? Is it that important ?
Of course it's germane. The IAF has taken square aim at motivated folk who seek to derail the MMRCA by repeatedly attempting to insert other aircraft back into the process and giving fuel to their unsolicited offers. Pandits article does the same thing. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

The IAF can take aim at whoever they want - in fact, its news to me that they have ! In any case, the matter has been clarified by their Defence Minister. Please let journalists ask what they want. We are a democracy at the end of the day.

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Oct 2014 18:55

quite probably the Rafales will be obsolete as a generation by the time they enter IAF service with India .. it would take at least 7-8 years maybe a decade . Spend money on production tech , factories to be built in India ..then probably we would have a go at the numbers needed and keep going at it !..

maks · Post by **maks** » 31 Oct 2014 19:48

Kit, by suggesting the Rafale will be obsolete by the time it enters service you imply that all other aircraft in the IAF's inventory will be obsolete as well since they are of comparable generation (< Gen 5) and obsolete in what way? I believe Pakistan will not have an effective counter and neither will China even if we look at a protracted procurement - deployment process as you suggest. Very little is known about the J-20 and the prototype is unproven though has obvious forward stealth features and it too is probably not going to be available in vast numbers over the same time frame - that discussion is best saved for another thread. Most 4.5 Gen aircraft do also incorporate stealth features including radar absorbing paint, radar-jamming technology like the Thales Spectra on the Rafale and lower radar cross sections...etc.

Also, I would believe with the Bison and 27 phased out and even potentially the Jag, the maintenance establishment will be retooled for the MMRCA and Tejas. Would that take money....absolutely. Would we need more factories etc...probably. But none of that is as impossible to do in a short enough time if the GOI is committed to investment as you would suggest. However, since we are in the realm of so much speculation about what ifs.....everything is plausible and all arguments become self defeating since no one knows what the GOI will do and you can plausibly take any stance.

Having said that and knowing what we do, I do not believe that a statement on Rafale or any aircraft in that gen 4.5 class being in danger of becoming as obsolete as you suggest and in such a short span of time is defensible.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 31 Oct 2014 20:08

^IMHO, after the Israeli success in 1967 and after, which the IAF claims to have studied the "finer points" of, they (IAF) should have concentrated on maintenance and turn-around time. Instead, they blindly focused on building numbers.
Also, their past decisions like inducting 100 Ouragans and phasing them out after a decade, operating 2 imported CAS types like Jaguar and Mig 27 at same time (100 each) and defending this by saying "different roles" from parent country,etc. points to them making mistakes.
In Kargil, their ground attack fighters like Jaguar and Mig 27 were not ready, and M-2000 was modified overnight. (Even US and UK rig stuff overnight, but they would have done on their CAS craft, and not brought in the multi-role)
Also, they operate huge number of different types in their inventory. At one time in the 90s, they had more types of aircraft than the US Air Force. All this sustained with imported spares in a 3rd World economy (let's be honest).

So, when ACM Raha and Subramanian Saab say we dont have a plan B, and lets induct another multi-role type , rather than more Su-30, Mig-29, M-2000 or Tejas, should we blindly believe them?
I have already posted in the Nehru thread wat our air force imports were after the 1962 war. If we order Rafale today, in 2015, we will get the first new plane only in 2019, after 4 years, and we maintain our status quo as a banana beggar republic. If we order tejas now, we get our domestic MIC and supply chain, and taste our first whiff of freedom (make no mistake, this is a second struggle for independence). The IAF numbers can please be looked into with existing multi-role types, for which we have already built up our base repair depots- our friend Philip talks abt 1000+ Mig 29 in the former SU. We dont need numbers for next 20 years, we need for next 4 only, till Tejas deliveries are stabilised. Every country deserves their own light fighter, which makes the back bone of the air force, like France (800+ various Mirages built) and US (4000+ F-16s for US AF). The expensive multi-roles have limited sales (only 100 Rafales, 600 F-15s, etc). We also deserve our Tejas. Rafale can be capped at 50-60, like the original M-2000 deal, with no ToT and full maintenance.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2014 20:13

Vishnu, if the media had any modicum of self restraint, it would not attract the kind of criticism it invites on this forum. Thanks for the offer to engage in a discussion offline, and I hope to take it up later, to but since I can't access my mail at this time, let me share my thoughts publicly.

Yes, we are a democracy, which is why the common citizen now has recourse to tell the media exactly what he thinks of their reportage, integrity, political bias and how they spin things to suit their world view. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As mentioned, we have everyone from service heads, the scientific community, to prominent politicians critique the media and it's behaviour. Our PM referred to sections of the media as news traders. These sobriquets reflect the common disenchantment many informed folks have with the media. The Rajdeep incident is merely a reflection of the state of affairs. You are free to disagree, but I dare say some amount of introspection is in order on your fraternity's side or it will slowly be consigned to irrelevance as versus the widespread disenchantment and even contempt that is increasingly common vis a vis the media.

At any rate people on this forum come from a wide variety of backgrounds and haven't made their opinions overnight. Since this discussion started with Mr Pandit, I for one find his reportage execrable on many occasions. The whys and wherefores are catalogued in several threads, and nor am I the only one who thinks so. In this case, what was the intent or the rationality in asking the Euro official something obvious? Plus, other reports state that the Rafale deal has progressed. Where are the caveats mentioning the same?

As regards the IAF and what they think of the attempts to change the outcome of the MMRCA - let's see what a trade journal says

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... choice.htm

Some sceptics have gone to the extent of questioning whether it would ever be signed. Then, there are vested interests which are working hard behind the scenes to change the outcome of the selection process and, if that was not possible, to get the deal scrapped altogether.

Your peer writes from an earlier time..
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/gover ... ugh-353301

The press statement issued earlier this month, sources say, was triggered by concerns in the Defence Ministry and the Air Force that rumours were being spread by those with 'vested' interests or rival manufacturers to prevent the deal with Dassault Aviation from being signed.

..
Yes, journalists can and should ask questions. But in a democratic state, it is equally our prerogative to see why certain questions are being asked and by whom, and what our views on the matter are. If journalists truly believe in free speech, then they should be well aware that they too are subject to the same scrutiny they subject everyone else to

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 31 Oct 2014 21:09

Vishnu, Karan M,

...just to add to the discussion...

a journalist should have the freedom to go with his nose and investigate storylines that may have masala/dirt. But, what bothers me is the lack of balance. If the story concerns an acquisition, depending upon the item, all stories that come out are systematically slating services, drdo, etc and their professional ability.

Regarding the MMRCA competition, I'm yet to see an article by a defense journalist (not bloggers or IAF officers) that appreciates the process that's been followed, commends IAF's ability to make the correct choice, and trusts the due course of negotiations being conducted.

Any suggestion that we're not qualified enough to be critical of this kind of journalism only confirms that journalists believe that their Ability to influence opinions is Right to influence decisions. Journalistic opinion should be just such.

The presence of persistent agenda/slant is being questioned here. Whether Rajat or yourself or anyone else is guilty of that, then it is our duty to question you. Unlike yesteryears, social media has lent every individual a voice and we're inclined to question a journalist's qualifications and track record before we can be serious about his opinions.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 31 Oct 2014 22:25

dinesh_kumar wrote: Also, they operate huge number of different types in their inventory. At one time in the 90s, they had more types of aircraft than the US Air Force. All this sustained with imported spares in a 3rd World economy (let's be honest).

So, when ACM Raha and Subramanian Saab say we dont have a plan B, and lets induct another multi-role type , rather than more Su-30, Mig-29, M-2000 or Tejas, s....

OMG I forgot.

How many fighters and fighter bombers do we fly today?

Mig 21, 29, 27/23.
Mirage 2000
Sukhoi 30
Jaguar

The FGFA is a given, for the future.
The LCA is coming in.

We dont bl**dy need another aircraft type here!

The govt. is right in shutting up the IAF with more Su 30 orders. Now it should go full speed ahead on the LCA orders.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 31 Oct 2014 23:48

Viv S wrote:We don't have the luxury of dedicating specific aircraft to either front. In wartime, you'll find the bulk of the fleet being employed against whichever adversary we're at war with.

Yes, but you plan deployments against adversaries on basis of their tech, which is my point. 6/13 MKI squadrons (curr and futr) are 100% PLAAF centric, 2 more are 50% PLAAF centric and 2 more are in South. Only 3 are in 100% Pak centric. All Mig29/Mir are 100% Pak centric. We have been deploying our best vs PLAAF and second best vs PAF since turn of century. It will continue.

The Rafale is NOT available at a low cost to any nation. Its available at a high cost to France and higher cost to India.
What difference does it make what the Tejas would cost to Vietnam? (And it'll be much lower than $50M, just for the record.) We're not comparing the aircraft from Vietnam's point of view or of some other third party. If the Tejas is cheap for us, regardless of the reasons behind it, that's where our bulk of our funding should be focused.

I think we will have sufficient funding for Tejas post FOC.
The point was comparing from end user's pov, but you seem to be completely missing that. Also I don't think we will sell a plan which will cost us around $30m at much lower than $50m.
Also we can't scrap MMRCA for Tejas as we are left with only MKI with the legs to reach Tibet airbases. Not a scenario anyone should be comfortable with.

We ARE getting the Tejas for a very cheap price.

We are to Tejas what Sweden is to Gripen or France is to Rafale. Of course we will get it for cheap.

The problem with going in mass for LCA is lack of trust in IAF brass with anything developed by ADA/HAL.
IAF gave MMRCA requirement same year as Tejas' first flight.

1. The air force will most certainly be involved in CAS. Neither the Prahaar nor the BrahMos (which isn't for CAS ops at all) is cost effective enough for employment in the quantities that a full scale war will require.
2. The Nirbhay can be tracked and intercepted by PLAAF assets as well as short range SAMs/AAA. Useful as it is, its no more a silver bullet solution than the Babur is for our other neighbor.

Brahmos is being inducted into IA's artillery divisions. We can also build 4 Brahmos regiments (16-24 batteries) at the cost of an unarmed Tejas squadron
We can build 18 Nirbhay for every single unarmed Tejas. Its not a silver bullet for us.
Are you seriously saying that IAF will do CAS in a Himalayan war!!
Helicopters, cruise missiles, drones are the future focus for our CAS not manned planes.

3. The PLAAF is about 2:1 in 4G fighters against India, and you'll find that ratio increasing to 3:1 by the end of the decade.

560+ confirmed to our 300, so still 2 squadrons short. Assuming we go for Rafale and Tejas we should have 500 4G (300Su+60Mig29+40Mi2000+60Rafale+40TejasMk1) by end of decade and we just have to add the Rafale as the remaining are already on track for being in place. We may see higher numbers for Rafale since we will get some flyaway ones initially.
I don't they will be able to add a 900 more to their current number in 6 years by any stretch of imagination.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 01 Nov 2014 12:41

Karan M wrote:Vishnu, if the media had any modicum of self restraint, it would not attract the kind of criticism it invites on this forum. Thanks for the offer to engage in a discussion offline, and I hope to take it up later, to but since I can't access my mail at this time, let me share my thoughts publicly.

Hi Karan ... thanks for your post. Let me clarify. I think its wrong to trash the reputations and credibility of all mainstream media in one sweeping brush-stroke. Its actually quite easy to do that but is entirely unfair. There are plenty of defence correspondents who do show that self-restraint. I won't bore you with several examples. On instances, you may disagree with what is written or broadcast but that doesn't necessarily imply a lack of self restraint by the journalist. It indicates a difference of opinion between you and the writer.

For several posters here, there is a simple view, `my way, or the highway.' In other words, if you are critical of the forces you are anti-national, pro-Pakistani, on the take, dumb, sickular or pro-Congress. I hate all these labels. Just as I hate the labels `fringe' or `Modi-Bhakt.' These are broad, sweeping generalisations that should not have space in civilised discourse. But thats my view and anyone can disagree.

Karan M wrote: Yes, we are a democracy, which is why the common citizen now has recourse to tell the media exactly what he thinks of their reportage, integrity, political bias and how they spin things to suit their world view. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As mentioned, we have everyone from service heads, the scientific community, to prominent politicians critique the media and it's behaviour. Our PM referred to sections of the media as news traders. These sobriquets reflect the common disenchantment many informed folks have with the media. The Rajdeep incident is merely a reflection of the state of affairs. You are free to disagree, but I dare say some amount of introspection is in order on your fraternity's side or it will slowly be consigned to irrelevance as versus the widespread disenchantment and even contempt that is increasingly common vis a vis the media.

Spin is the bread and butter of quality reportage. Spin does not imply bias. It means highlighting a point that is both interesting and important. Without this, journalism would be relegated to publishing press releases. You may disagree with the spin given in an article - absolutely - but casting aspersions on the journalist or the agency without a shred of evidence is defamatory but worries of defamation hardly ever seem to worry posters, either here on on twitter. You may highlight the Prime Minister's `news traders' remark - I disagree with what he said. (To be sure, my disagreeing with the views of the PM doesn't make me anti-national.)

As for the Rajdeep incident ... while nothing can justify physical confrontation ... nothing can justify full-on abuse and name-calling either. Ultimately, people snap. Reporters are human just like anyone else. Would you have been able to tolerate name-calling and heckling and take it lying down? I wouldn't have.

As for criticism of the media - absolutely - but for all the criticism you speak of, there are far more people who believe media needs its space. All those you say slam us - politicians, service chiefs etc ... ALL of them speak to us on or off-record everyday. There is a love-hate relationship between the media and others. Thats always been the case. Don't change that with a blinkered vision. Hate us and love us in equal measure.

Karan M wrote:At any rate people on this forum come from a wide variety of backgrounds and haven't made their opinions overnight. Since this discussion started with Mr Pandit, I for one find his reportage execrable on many occasions. The whys and wherefores are catalogued in several threads, and nor am I the only one who thinks so. In this case, what was the intent or the rationality in asking the Euro official something obvious? Plus, other reports state that the Rafale deal has progressed. Where are the caveats mentioning the same?

Karan, the might is right, `others hate Pandit and therefore I am not incorrect' logic is questionable. Has it struck you that there are others who may actually find his work informative? And that there is a world beyond BR and its posters ? And that the large majority of readers of his newspaper would not have MMRCA details on the back of their hand ?

Please understand, and I say this with authority because I was sitting 6 feet away from him at the time of his interview, there was NO ulterior motive. The Europeans have spoken of being ready with the Typhoon. He wanted to know if they were still ready or whether the British Defence Minister would trash the MMRCA deal or whatever. And thats all there was to it. An independent journalist has the right to ask questions - Surely our Air Force or government isn't so fragile that an entire bilateral deal process will just collapse because of the words of one reporter ? Was there anything so profound that Michael Fallon said ? No, nothing at all. All he said was that the UK stands ready if the Rafale deal fails. Its his right to state that. And all that the reporter did was to repeat what he was told.

Karan M wrote: As regards the IAF and what they think of the attempts to change the outcome of the MMRCA - let's see what a trade journal says ...

The press statement issued earlier this month, sources say, was triggered by concerns in the Defence Ministry and the Air Force that rumours were being spread by those with 'vested' interests or rival manufacturers to prevent the deal with Dassault Aviation from being signed.

Hats off the Air Force to tell `vested interests' to scoot. Their media interface is mired in internal babudom. Glad they found their voice. Am sure they would have progressed just fine with the deal without have to look over their shoulder !

..

Karan M wrote: Yes, journalists can and should ask questions. But in a democratic state, it is equally our prerogative to see why certain questions are being asked and by whom, and what our views on the matter are. If journalists truly believe in free speech, then they should be well aware that they too are subject to the same scrutiny they subject everyone else to

Don't think any journalist thought they would be free from criticism. What is completely unacceptable is the abuse, name calling and blatant labelling. Since everyone is evidently a journalist now a days, please understand that reporters don't abuse or cuss in their articles. And if they defame, they get in legal trouble.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 01 Nov 2014 12:46

JTull wrote:Vishnu, Karan M,

...just to add to the discussion...

a journalist should have the freedom to go with his nose and investigate storylines that may have masala/dirt. But, what bothers me is the lack of balance. If the story concerns an acquisition, depending upon the item, all stories that come out are systematically slating services, drdo, etc and their professional ability.

Hi JTull ... thanks for your post ... I have replied extensively to Karan. Think that answers some of your points. Cheers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Nov 2014 13:35

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:Yes, but you plan deployments against adversaries on basis of their tech, which is my point. 6/13 MKI squadrons (curr and futr) are 100% PLAAF centric, 2 more are 50% PLAAF centric and 2 more are in South. Only 3 are in 100% Pak centric. All Mig29/Mir are 100% Pak centric. We have been deploying our best vs PLAAF and second best vs PAF since turn of century. It will continue.

We are not going to go to war against China with only 'PLAAF-centric' equipment. The Mirages and MiG-29s will most certainly see action as well.

I think we will have sufficient funding for Tejas post FOC.

There's no such thing as sufficient funding. Not for a AF as outgunned as the IAF will be against the PLAAF by the end of the decade.

The point was comparing from end user's pov, but you seem to be completely missing that. Also I don't think we will sell a plan which will cost us around $30m at much lower than $50m.

The point was to look at it from India's PoV not from a generic customer's. The reasons why the Rafale is expensive to us are irrelevant, only thing that matters is that its expensive. Also, a 66% markup on an aircraft is excessive. The object of exports in the Tejas' case will be to achieve greater economies of scale rather than serve as a source of foreign exchange.

Also we can't scrap MMRCA for Tejas as we are left with only MKI with the legs to reach Tibet airbases. Not a scenario anyone should be comfortable with.

They have the legs to reach it but neither has the capability. If you want to breach defences as formidable as the PLAAF's are gearing up to be, nothing but a VLO striker will do.

We ARE getting the Tejas for a very cheap price.
We are to Tejas what Sweden is to Gripen or France is to Rafale. Of course we will get it for cheap.

The Tejas is more cost effective product than both of the above.

The problem with going in mass for LCA is lack of trust in IAF brass with anything developed by ADA/HAL.
IAF gave MMRCA requirement same year as Tejas' first flight.

The cheques are signed by the MoD. The MoD can and should simply and bluntly overrule the IAF.

Brahmos is being inducted into IA's artillery divisions. We can also build 4 Brahmos regiments (16-24 batteries) at the cost of an unarmed Tejas squadron
We can build 18 Nirbhay for every single unarmed Tejas. Its not a silver bullet for us.

The BrahMos' deployment is irrelevant because its not going to be used for CAS in either case. In one day, the Tejas can deliver as much ordinance as three Nirbhays and then do it again the next day. And no its not a silver bullet solution either.

Are you seriously saying that IAF will do CAS in a Himalayan war!!
Helicopters, cruise missiles, drones are the future focus for our CAS not manned planes.

1. The LAC is not entirely mountainous (there's a reason we're deploying tanks there).
2. The IAF can carry out CAS in mountainous terrain as well, thanks to wider spread PGM employment.
3. Helicopters are vulnerable to MANPADS/SHORADs. Drones have a poor response time to CAS requests. Cruise missile are too expensive to be employed for CAS.

560+ confirmed to our 300, so still 2 squadrons short. Assuming we go for Rafale and Tejas we should have 500 4G (300Su+60Mig29+40Mi2000+60Rafale+40TejasMk1) by end of decade and we just have to add the Rafale as the remaining are already on track for being in place. We may see higher numbers for Rafale since we will get some flyaway ones initially.
I don't they will be able to add a 900 more to their current number in 6 years by any stretch of imagination.

- Don't go by out-of-date Wikipedia numbers. They're comfortably 600+ for 4th gen fighters.
- We're adding 15 Su-30MKI/yr upto 2018. We'll be replacing that with 15 Rafales/yr (on average) between 2019 and 2026. Plus 8 Tejas Mk1s/yr to 2020.
- They're adding over 50 J-10/J-16s annually and that number will spike to 70+ by 2016 (ref:Jane's report posted earlier on the thread).

_____________

The problem with the Rafale, as has been said before, is that its a 4.5 gen aircraft at a 5th gen cost. It doesn't matter how you employ them or against whom, it'll still remain an inefficient use of our limited resources. Against a behemoth like China, its all about economics. And this is while ignoring the godawful spectre of a two-front war.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Nov 2014 23:05

Viv S wrote:The Tejas is more cost effective product than both of the above.

Well said sir. India should be selling LCA Mk-1 to France, Sweden, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Russia and not debating uselessly about Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter, F-16/18/35, MiG-29, etc.

rude sarcastic and out place comments will not be tolerated . so take it as a warning

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 00:55

Vishnu wrote:
P Chitkara wrote:Another planted article?
How is this a planted article ?

Sir, I understand Michael Fallon was smoking this, which is a planted article. I hope this clarifies.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2014 00:58

eklavya wrote:Well said sir. India should be selling LCA Mk-1 to France, Sweden, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Russia and not debating uselessly about Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter, F-16/18/35, MiG-29, etc.

Are you suggesting we should be fielding a fleet similar to France? Total size - 220 odd fighters, a force structure oriented at expeditionary operations. Is that the optimum solution to take on the PLAAF?

The EF, Rafale, SH, F-16 and MiG-29 are all on their last legs. MiG might get bailed out by the Russian govt, and India may through a lifeline to the Rafale, but interest from everybody else is fast fading. The only aircraft that is assured of continued production in Europe post 2020 is the Gripen. Same design philosophy as the Tejas.

And yes, the Tejas has huge export potential ranging from Vietnam, to Switzerland (where the Gripen E fell through for being too expensive), to even the US (T-X program; 350 aircraft). What's needed is for the MoD to get its act in order.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 02 Nov 2014 01:08

Viv S wrote:And yes, the Tejas has huge export potential ranging from Vietnam, to Switzerland (where the Gripen E fell through for being too expensive), to even the US (T-X program; 350 aircraft). What's needed is for the MoD to get its act in order.

Sir, I also want to see the LCA in Vietnam, Swiss and US Air Force colours. MoD needs to get its act in order.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Nov 2014 01:24

eklavya wrote:Sir, I also want to see the LCA in Vietnam, Swiss and US Air Force colours. MoD needs to get its act in order.

Right...

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 02:49

Viv S wrote:We are not going to go to war against China with only 'PLAAF-centric' equipment. The Mirages and MiG-29s will most certainly see action as well.

Yes. But there is a reason why the deployment has a pattern too.
Short legged birds like the Migs, Mirages(comparitively) and LCA will be pretty less effective than the likes of the MKI and Rafale on the eastern theaters.

The problem with the Rafale, as has been said before, is that its a 4.5 gen aircraft at a 5th gen cost. It doesn't matter how you employ them or against whom, it'll still remain an inefficient use of our limited resources. Against a behemoth like China, its all about economics. And this is while ignoring the godawful spectre of a two-front war.

The argument is very logical yet not complete IMO. The biggest limiting factor of LCA will be its range; both for offensive and defensive operations. Even Assuming a double/triple the numbers vis-a-vis Rafale, I am not convinced Tejas will be able to better defend the area in a limited conflict and fare worse then Rafale in offensive operations despite numbers. And I don't see this as a black or white acquisition. The additional amount being spread out over a decade should not be too much to swallow and should not affect the LCA acquisition plans.
The structure drawn by IAF sees the presence of MMRCA, for over a decade simultaneously with the LCA being present in deemed numbers.

The only aircraft that is assured of continued production in Europe post 2020 is the Gripen. Same design philosophy as the Tejas.

With Indian orders, the Rafale will be in the run for several years after 2020. That apart, the French pretty heavily rely on the Rafale. This should be reason enough to believe Rafale will get timely capability improvements albeit the French costs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 04:31

That apart, the French pretty heavily rely on the Rafale. This should be reason enough to believe Rafale will get timely capability improvements albeit the French costs.

*That* is a problem.

1) Much of what the Rafale is *today* is because the techs were funded to make the plane exportable, not because the French *really* needed them

2) India will have a need for the latest and greatest techs. India will have an urgency, France will have a much lesser urgency or none at all

3) So, fully expect India to fund these "upgrades" and the French to utilize them in their planes (not the other way around)

4) The Rafale is needed to maintain the squadron strengths - that is a reality, but it will be a black hole for funds - a reality too. BUT the RoI will be low, therefore not worth it - not that the plane is bad, the investment in the plane (at $20 billion) is horrible

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Nov 2014 04:47

NRao wrote:
That apart, the French pretty heavily rely on the Rafale. This should be reason enough to believe Rafale will get timely capability improvements albeit the French costs.
*That* is a problem.

1) Much of what the Rafale is *today* is because the techs were funded to make the plane exportable, not because the French *really* needed them

2) India will have a need for the latest and greatest techs. India will have an urgency, France will have a much lesser urgency or none at all

3) So, fully expect India to fund these "upgrades" and the French to utilize them in their planes (not the other way around)

4) The Rafale is needed to maintain the squadron strengths - that is a reality, but it will be a black hole for funds - a reality too. BUT the RoI will be low, therefore not worth it - not that the plane is bad, the investment in the plane (at $20 billion) is horrible

+ 1

The cost will kill the overall capability of the Indian military.

If I were Chinese, I'd be hoping India would blow the money Rafale vs. LCA and MCA

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Nov 2014 05:19

^^^^+1!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Nov 2014 05:20

Imagine what will be charged to mate Indian tyres to the aircraft by the French!!

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:08

Cosmo_R wrote: The cost will kill the overall capability of the Indian military.

If I were Chinese, I'd be hoping India would blow the money Rafale vs. LCA and MCA

Consider this saab.
Would IAF be hoping PLAAF blow its money on Rafale instead of making J-10/J-11s? I doubt it.
The previous governments have constantly asked IAF to go for the best without considering the cost of the platform. This underlines the universally agreed upon requirement for a modern western medium multirole platform. The inflation and slightly altered economic situation does not change this basic requirement.
There is no new tendancy that is altering the numbers of Tejas that IAF envisioned. I am more than happy if Tejas is ordered in numbers, but that need not be at the expense of the Rafale.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:14

NRao wrote: 2) India will have a need for the latest and greatest techs. India will have an urgency, France will have a much lesser urgency or none at all

3) So, fully expect India to fund these "upgrades" and the French to utilize them in their planes (not the other way around)

I do not think so. Its more of a case for the Gripen and EF. France is pretty independent(well relatively) in its foreign policy and is also pretty active to participate in direct action to preserve its interests. Unlike most countries that operate EF which are likely to move to JSF, France is not. And hence every case for Rafale's evolution.

The Rafale is needed to maintain the squadron strengths - that is a reality, but it will be a black hole for funds - a reality too. BUT the RoI will be low, therefore not worth it - not that the plane is bad, the investment in the plane (at $20 billion) is horrible

This logic can be applied to C-17 vs IL-76/476.
The IAF was and is pleased with the Mirage. Rafale is in all ways better then Mirage. MMRCA can be the doorway to IAFs access to modern western technologies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 06:21

The previous governments have constantly asked IAF to go for the best without considering the cost of the platform. This underlines the universally agreed upon requirement for a modern western medium multirole platform. The inflation and slightly altered economic situation does not change this basic requirement

Self destruct button ----> Here.

at times IlLogic = logic.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:29

^What about it?

Since the Indian economy was booming, the political bosses had told the IAF top brass to “go for the best and not to worry about the cost”.

Link

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 06:34

koti wrote: I do not think so. Its more of a case for the Gripen and EF. France is pretty independent(well relatively) in its foreign policy and is also pretty active to participate in direct action to preserve its interests. Unlike most countries that operate EF which are likely to move to JSF, France is not. And hence every case for Rafale's evolution.

Very true France is independent in FP. France is costly too. As we are seeing with the Rafale for MMRCA.

This logic can be applied to C-17 vs IL-76/476.
The IAF was and is pleased with the Mirage. Rafale is in all ways better then Mirage. MMRCA can be the doorway to IAFs access to modern western technologies.

Oh no!!!

ToT: Gnat, Jag, Hawk, MiG, Su-30 MKI. OK, Rafale. FGFA by 2020.

In 2035, India will be back for more ToT. May be from china this time. : )

IAF has become an addict for ToT. Cannot stop that. They will offer every arg out there to get their plane.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:35

NRao wrote:
The previous governments have constantly asked IAF to go for the best without considering the cost of the platform. This underlines the universally agreed upon requirement for a modern western medium multirole platform. The inflation and slightly altered economic situation does not change this basic requirement
Self destruct button ----> Here.

at times IlLogic = logic.

without considering the cost

Since the Indian economy was booming, the political bosses had told the IAF top brass to “go for the best and not to worry about the cost”.

Link
universally agreed upon The MoD/MoF were insysc with the requirement
slightly altered economic situation What is the contension here? 'Slightly'?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Nov 2014 06:37

koti wrote:^What about it?

Since the Indian economy was booming, the political bosses had told the IAF top brass to “go for the best and not to worry about the cost”.
Link

Even with a booming economy the Rafale at $20 billion is not worth it.

When they made that decision the MMRCA was about $10 billion and had started at $7 billion.

without considering the cost
universally agreed upon The MoD/MoF were insysc with the requirement
slightly altered economic situation What is the contension here? 'Slightly'?

Again, for the nth time, the rafale at $20 billion is not worth it. Simple as that. Does not matter what was said years ago.

All I can agree with is that the IAF needs planes. That is about it.

DOes not even matter what was agreed upon.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:38

NRao wrote: Oh no!!!
ToT: Gnat, Jag, Hawk, MiG, Su-30 MKI. OK, Rafale. FGFA by 2020.

In 2035, India will be back for more ToT. May be from china this time. : )

IAF has become an addict for ToT. Cannot stop that. They will offer every arg out there to get their plane.

Unfortunately true.
But that does not justify denying the capability to IAF.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Nov 2014 06:43

NRao wrote: Again, for the nth time, the rafale at $20 billion is not worth it. Simple as that. Does not matter what was said years ago.

All I can agree with is that the IAF needs planes. That is about it.

Does not even matter what was agreed upon.

I was for this reason batting for the Mig-35 before it was eliminated. But given the pace of Fighter inductions in India's neighborhood, is it an avoidable cost?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Nov 2014 07:22

It is not IAF that is addicted to ToT but the PSUs who need ToT and also ToT on how to use ToT. What is IAF going to do with ToT? It just ~~wants~~ needs its planes, period. It understands that it cannot keep up with China on numbers and is trying to bridge the gap qualitatively. Something like the Rafale will give it that edge. IMO, enough already of this silly see-saw with Dassault/HAL. Just buy the damned things off the shelf and get them cheaper and quicker. I still say get F/A-18s. The PSUs can continue with FGFA/AMCA/LCA whatever in the meantime.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 02 Nov 2014 12:45

Again, for the nth time, the rafale at $20 billion is not worth it. Simple as that. Does not matter what was said years ago.

All I can agree with is that the IAF needs planes. That is about it.

DOes not even matter what was agreed upon.

If 20 billions is too expensive for India which aircraft could afford India within MMRCA requirements (ToT, indigenous building, high performance requirement) ?

Do you realize that even the Gripen was sold in Brazil at 150M$ a piece !!!! (5.4 Billion dollar for just 36 copy). That would be close to 20 billions dollar for 126 airframe for a much lighter aircraft than the rafale. To go further, the Brazilian deal is less complex as much less things will be built indigenously.

And some need to realize that comparing flyaway costs with costs of an entire deal is just stupid...When I read prices of Mig etc...I just had a smile on the naive comparison.

20 billions for 126 aircarfts is nothing shocking and even surprisingly cheap compared to the last Gripen deal in Brazil considering rafale capability and the fact that India gets decades of R&D and the tooling to build the aircraft.

If it is still too expensive for India then just buy rafales of the shelf and cut the price by more than 50%.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 02 Nov 2014 13:35

Some points:

- It might be 50% cheaper during initial buy but during the lifecycle costs will be 3x times expensive.
- We will get the tooling to build and maintain the planes and I am damn sure we will get no R&D knowledge.
- Getting source code, does not mean transfer of R&D knowledge but ToT. We will know how it work but not why it only works like this (R&D).
- Brazil's Gripen will be developed further and it will involve more knowledge sharing (R&D) & setting up local assembly line/tooling. There is nothing that sort of planned for Rafale for good reasons. Otherwise Su-35 was the easiest way out for us.

People complaining about falling numbers, what is stopping IAF ordering more MK1?

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 02 Nov 2014 14:16

RKumar wrote:Some points:

- It might be 50% cheaper during initial buy but during the lifecycle costs will be 3x times expensive.
- We will get the tooling to build and maintain the planes and I am damn sure we will get no R&D knowledge.
- Getting source code, does not mean transfer of R&D knowledge but ToT. We will know how it work but not why it only works like this (R&D).
- Brazil's Gripen will be developed further and it will involve more knowledge sharing (R&D) & setting up local assembly line/tooling. There is nothing that sort of planned for Rafale for good reasons. Otherwise Su-35 was the easiest way out for us.

People complaining about falling numbers, what is stopping IAF ordering more MK1?

-Gripen integrates critical components fromvarious countries which will not be transferred to brazil (AESA, FSO, MAWS, engines etc...) while for instance India will manufacture&assemble close to 100% of the rafale locally, including critical elements like AESA radar.
-Brazil will build only some parts of the gripen like the wings, the rest will be manufactured by SAAB. India is supposed to manufacture almost everything France does for the rafale.
-Most of Gripen E development is done with prototypes under construction due to fly in 2015, cooperation with AKAER or Embraer is thus quite limited now.
-India beneficiates from decades of rafale program R&D and will be free to add new capabilities on its own without France permission which is unlikely with the Gripen due to complex international layout with US/UK/Italian and Israeli components.

150M$ a Gripen for Brazil makes the MMRCA deal look cheap especially considering :

-The rafale is a bigger aircraft with more reach and more punch than the Gripen.
-The scope of the MMRCA deal goes far beyond the Brazilian deal with full manufacturing&assembly of rafale aircrafts with associated intellectual property vs limited development remaining, limited manufacturing for Brazil gripens as well as open questions regarding ToT of critical elements of the Gripen.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2014 16:02

It's why a holistic approach should be made to ascertaining the future force proj. of the IAF. 42 swds. is the gosl.The right mix identified of stealth,heavy, med. and light aircraft.The heavy and light easily identified.MKIs and LCAs.The stealth will be the FGFA heavy cat and AMCA med. ca t in the future.The current med. req. is the problem from the cost angle.The MOD should look at getting more bang and nubers for their billions of bucks given our two front challenge and 42 swd. need.$20B for just 120 Rafales seems exessive.It will beggar the IAF and cripple thr def. budget.

Key more urgent or equal priorities. Arty for the IA.Subs for the IN.Strat.missiles and delivery systems (triad), heaps of
helos esp ASW helos.Tankers, AEW aircraft, UCAV/drones, LRMP/MRP aircfrat, basic and IJT trainers. ....the list can go on. .The kurta must be cut according to the cloth.