Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[Rakesh]

[srin]

Although you are on the right track but you need to add a few things into your analysis:

- Actual Sukhoi operating cost. I think it should be closer to the F-15E given its size therefore closed to 30K then to 20K.
- Mission availability Rates: How much availability you have - fleet wide, ultimately determines your fleet size requirement. A 60% availability fighter would have to be procured in greater numbers than an 80% availability fighter etc Rafale should have a MA rate in the EF, Gripen and advanced F-16 category which is 80+% or near about in peacetime while closer to 90+% in wartime. I did the workup on F-15E and F-16 Mission availability rates a few months ago on one of the threads here (in addition to that of the C-17 and C-130) so i'll try to dig some info. Rafale should be slightly ahead given its a younger project with more technology.
- Engines. I think in case of the rafale, your two engines are good enough for the fleet life of 6000 hours. Do the MKI's need an engine change or serious work (down time) before its airframe life expires
- Logistical footprint: Generally your NATO birds are designed around strict logistical requirements given the expeditionary warfare, so you have to figure out how any Man hours does it take to do your basic tech work etc Ultimately, how much do you have to spend per hour outside of the fighter to generate a fixed number of training sorties per year.

Now to the 6000 hour comparison (to bring them at par i suppose): Its a big assumption in favor of the Sukhoi. The Rafale lasts you 2000 hours more, that translates to roughly a decade based on a 200 hr usage. Thats quite a significant advantage given that you'd need to account for that with a larger sukhoi fleet to make up for the last 10 years. Given how long replacement cycles can take to clear the government red tape an added "decade" of prep time definitely helps. Heck SOKO went in and bought the F-15K with a 16,000 hour airframe

Sorry sir - i don't have any other numbers than what i quoted. Just back of numbers calculation based on what I got from a bit of Googling. I skipped MLU costs because I had no clue how much that would be. You're welcome to add new numbers to it.

As for the hours - if you look at the Ajai Shukla article on Sukhoi overhaul, it appears that the Sukhois haven't even flown 1000 hours in 10 years. That is 100 hours per year - I don't know if it is too much or too less.

Secondly and the most important, is that to compute the lifecycle cost, you need to know the lifetime. I think for a 4th gen aircraft to survive in 5th-gen aircraft world that would in 2030+ would be very difficult. So - I'd say that the active lifetime would be 20 years.

Those who say that Rafale is for PAF and not PLAAF miss an important consideration: We don't know or have control over what PRC will supply to TSP ten-fifteen years from now. To expect that the PAF will keep flying JF-17 or F-16 Blk52 for next 20 years without acquiring new aircraft and using that assumption in a fluid geopolitical scene to buy a white elephant appears imprudent.

[brar_w]

Lifetime cost is calculated by multiplying the expected airframe life (in hours, usually 8000 hours for most western fighters barring the Beagle which doubles it) with the estimated cost of flying hour. This is a notional amount as it varies by what air-forces include in this. Some will derive to a ridiculously low number that is almost 90% fuel cost, yet others (US CAPE) will include things like weapon firings, logistical systems and what not to derive a more comprehensive costing. Anyways, usually to this cost is added an expected cost of SLEP and to that you add the increased cost of running the fighter post the 8000 hours (after SLEP).

If you take a fighter that has a designed airframe life of 6000 and compare it to another that has an airframe life of 8000, you have to factor in the fact that you would need a larger number to last you the same amount of time. Mission availability also plays an important role here. If you can generate high MA rates, you do not need such a large fleet to make up for what you need. Conversely if your fighter fleet is only available 50-60% of the time, you would need a larger fleet to conduct your business.

[member_20292]

Should the IAF help the mil.Ind complex of India ramp up and develop capabilities by putting demands and standards on them ...?

or do they get to say that the supply chain sucks so we will not buy much from them.

because the supply chain will only be setup for orders and payment. no company will ramp up for Low volume orders.

The iaf better behind the LCA, like yesterday and place a 100 plus order. they were ready to do that 30 years ago for the mirage 2000.....in France.

they have to encourage the indian setup.

no other country imports complete systems like we do.....we better move forward to indigenous production.... and the orders HAVE to be there.

even the arjun tank ....same thing.

marut ...same. fix the configuration and build 100. dont shift the goal post .

[srin]

IAF needs more planes to conduct combat operations, and they need it cheap. Nothing to do with building mil-ind complex (in short term). In long term that would definitely help - because it will give IAF more options.

So - my prescription:
a) Cancel MMRCA and order more Sukhois (super sukhoi's if necessary). Increase HAL rate of production and directly off Irkutsk. You'll make up the squadron numbers by 2020.
There is no more ToT to be done anyway. We've extracted all we could. So HAL manufacturing it is just an employment guarantee scheme of sorts.
I don't see a huge benefit of going for a medium-class aircraft - neither does IAF - otherwise, Gripen and Typhoon both wouldn't be in it.
You'll be set for 2020.
b) Instead of investing in entire plane, invest in specific technologies that we lack: AESA, engines, IRST. This is long-term and this is where pvt industry can contribute.

c) Start incorporating all of these into LCA MK-x and AMCA.

d) Do the same thing with PAK-FA. Get some off the shelf, gradually MKI'ize them and call it PMF, FGFA or whatever. And get a couple of hundred. You'll be set for 2030.

[Cain Marko]

Ib) Instead of investing in entire plane, invest in specific technologies that we lack: AESA, engines, IRST. This is long-term and this is where pvt industry can contribute.

c) Start incorporating all of these into LCA MK-x and AMCA.

d) Do the same thing with PAK-FA. Get some off the shelf, gradually MKI'ize them and call it PMF, FGFA or whatever. And get a couple of hundred. You'll be set for 2030.

But sir, what if difference bet entire plane and specific technologies is only marginal? Can't see why oems would agree to share their crown jewels without extracting pound of flesh

[Cain Marko]

Not so easy to forget the past - people, it seems have been truly traumatized. But one hopes that the newer gen of AF rank are more pro-desi. More importantly, can HAL/ADA guarantee any timelines? They have hardly met, even remotely, a single waypoint timewise, and that is after their announcement in 2010 iirc that they were going on a "warfooting" for the LCA. This tareekh pe tareekh attitude will rightfully give IAF planners nightmares.

108 out of 126 Rafales are to be built at and delivered by HAL.

I don't think they are happy to extend the Mig-21's, but see very little choice in that it will probably take HAL et al., another 5 years to deliver a single sqd of mk1s. IOWs, mk1s are not going to come fast enough for the IAF to let go of the 21s. Expect the first 40 Mk1s to come in by 2020++. So what choice do they have other than extend the Mig-21's service? It is not like HAL is just waiting in the aisles to mass produce LCAs. Nor is the MRCA any where close.

The first Rafale squadron will be delivered only by 2019. The next HAL delivered squadron will be up only after 2020. How can delays in spooling up the Tejas' production make the former a more expedient option?

Orders for the Tejas Mk1 total 40 units with the Tejas Mk2 scheduled to enter production no earlier than 2020. With only 40 units why should HAL be aiming for an average production rate exceeding 8 units per year? Peaking at perhaps 12/yr. The order is small, so you build them slower. Makes perfect sense. Its also why Dassault's Merignac line delivers only 11 Rafales annually.

There's certainly a learning curve, but I doubt even a pessimist would say that delivering 12 per year is unachievable. And if we accept that, then there is no argument I've ever heard credibly explaining how a company can set up one line to build a product but cannot set up a second line (assuming the ready availability of capital).

Can the IAF be assured that if they place an order for another 126mk1s, these will be delivered post-haste?

How long is 'post-haste'? I'd like to know what is a 'realistic figure' for the Tejas' delivery rate in 2018? 4/yr? 5/yr? Why not more? Why not less? What's the bottleneck? Because everyone seems confident that HAL can create a brand new production line for the Rafale by that date.

So perhaps it is not such a bad idea to stick with 40 mk1s and refocus on the mk2, which hopefully they can start producing by circa 2020-22..

40 Mk1s to 2022 equates to an average production rate of 5 Mk1s annually. How is that figure ideal? And what if there are delays in the Mk2's development?

In the meanwhile, some MRCA type will be necessary because HAL is going to struggle to deliver even 40 LCA mk1 by 2020

Is it prudent to purchase the Rafale at a time when everyone else is going in for 5th gen fighters? And that too in an arrangement where its to be license built by a 'struggling' HAL?

I think it is too early and possibly a bit pessimistic to compare IA's Arjun saga with the LCA for the very fact that the Arjun mk2 came about years after the mk1 was being produced en masse. The tejas mk2 otoh, has been on the cards well before mk1's development is completed. Let us hope IAF doesn't play such games. I think having Modi at the helm might help here.

Its more than just Mk2 development. The entire Arjun assembly line in Avadi, is gathering dust today, with zero orders to service. The line workers are just sitting and twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Mk2 to complete field trials.

You'll find the same thing happening with the Tejas Mk1. The production will hit 12/yr by 2018. Deliveries will conclude in 2019. And then they'll sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting for the Mk2 to complete field trials. And in 2020, BRFites will complain about how HAL can deliver no more than 12 Mk2s annually and the many years it will take to push that figure up.

And if, HAL/ADA move a little quicker on achieving FOC and SP deliveries, perhaps more Mk1s can also be ordered. But at the current rate, it is doubtful that FOC for the mk1 will be any time before mid 2015, which means HAL will have about 36 birds to deliver - will be interesting to see how long it takes to do the same. IOWs, the longer it takes to get going, the smaller is the window of opportunity for the mk1, esp. because the mk2 is supposed to be ready by 2020. Of course, if for whatever reasons, there are delays in the mk2 development, additional mk1s are likely.

There's a two to three year lead time for aircraft production, so it doesn't matter if HAL moves faster. If and when they wake up in 2019 and decide to order additional Mk1s, the delay in delivery will result in the prudent course being adopted i.e. mothball the line and wait for the Mk2.[/quot

Viv, please loom up Rohits posts in the lca thread, I think he pretty much addresses the issues, something I have clearly not been able to do.

In any case this whole argument for lca in lieu of Rafal is a non starter at this stage because quite frankly, both bird , an mrca (whatever it is, moo or whatever) and the llca are now reqd to address numbers in the short and long-term.

[srin]

Ib) Instead of investing in entire plane, invest in specific technologies that we lack: AESA, engines, IRST. This is long-term and this is where pvt industry can contribute.

c) Start incorporating all of these into LCA MK-x and AMCA.

d) Do the same thing with PAK-FA. Get some off the shelf, gradually MKI'ize them and call it PMF, FGFA or whatever. And get a couple of hundred. You'll be set for 2030.

But sir, what if difference bet entire plane and specific technologies is only marginal? Can't see why oems would agree to share their crown jewels without extracting pound of flesh

At the end, HAL needs to be a system integrator and a builder of platforms. LCA is a good example. We may have our own AESA in the works, but some radar tech is from Israel. The cannon is (I think) the russian Gsh23. The engine is American. Similar to the targetting pod and HMS and missiles. We may absorb the tech and gradually replace some of them (like Astra which still contains Russian seeker).


As a buyer, you don't have to buy the entire Rafale if you only need an AESA or IRST. You will have to pay a huge premium undoubtedly, but you won't have to spend $20b on it.

[vinod]

They can. There is a procedure for that. Just like Saab sells Gripen

Its a big maybe ... but we are anyway at least a decade away from starting to utilize export potential of LCA even without Kaveri

Why is that? If we have a production line, and are able to gather the numbers required for sale, we can produce and sell them. I have seen worse things marketed for sale. Unless, they start marketing this for sale now, they won't be able to sell in numbers in a decade.

The incentives which comes from a successful foreign sale and pressures from providing a good customer service is different from any thing that govt or IAF can provide.

[GeorgeWelch]

For all the Rafale naysayers...you do realize that the aircraft in the MMRCA competition all went through stringent testing to ensure they met the IAF's requirements.

Those were not 'requirements', they were 'wishlists'.

Sometimes situations change and IAF can't get everything it wishes for.

[Victor]

The French are hanging on to the MMRCA deal by the skin of their teeth. IIRC they were already embroiled in some corruption controversy during AI and all it may take is for a paki to call in an "allegation" anonymously and the deal is over. The only party left standing would then be the Shornet because the US doesn't use middlemen and forbids "baksheesh" in arms deals as a matter of policy. We may end up with all-American systems in Army and Navy as well. Look at Sikorsky taking over the Navy order now.

[Singha]

the future of the rbe2aa is in some doubt as gripen has its own aesa and eurofighter the captor-e. how many the french can afford for their own rafales is the total market.

it could be available for same off the shelf if we wanted it for tejas at any stage. also I think they stopped updating their OSF IRST a long time ago for lack of funding and its deleted in most rafales. the pirate irst on ef has also died a quiet death i believe. only the JSF is pushing it fwd in the usaf and no plans for raptor MLU with irst.

the already yawning gap between the american aerospace and european aerospace is being a sea now. in sensors and munitions it is absolutely a no contest. america is already into 3rd or 4th gen aesa radars and 2nd gen of UAV and is testing multiple UCAVs for serious work. euros are playing with 'ideas' and protos while trying to preserve their lavish benefits and low defence spending.

our grown up kids will probaby see EU importing the J31 from china , with the JF17-MKI also as a gap filler , armed with CM400 to save on cost of american imports.

the only two surging defind complexes seem to be amrika and china. we could selectively produce good kit if we got our thumbs out of our behinds and ended the OFB monopoly on a vast range of things and doubled down on the performing institutions.

[VijayN]

I have been reading the MMRCA saga for a long long time, and continue to do so. Most of the arguments of who are against (and to some extend who are for) is generally on the premise that the French bird is way too expensive, or saying 126 Rafale = 300 LCA, etc or take the billions and put it other uses, etc. Nothing wrong!!

However, my question and contention is - I am sure that MoD and all other stakeholders know number crunching too just like us here. So, what is REALLY driving this decision to buy them (low # of squadrons apart), I would love to hear if there are other angles to this, nuke co-operation, other cutting edge technology sharing from French, strategic relationship, etc. Perhaps these elements are missing in the overall discussion, maybe because not many open sources available. But again, when you don't have a 360 deg view of things a narrow analysis may not help.

Just my 2 cents.

[Viv S]

del

[Viv S]

What do you mean by funding problem? The aircraft's already developed. Its gotten its IOC and will receive its FOC next year.

Funding for production, Mk2 etc ...

Funding for a production line has already been sanctioned (and is adequate for producing 40 Mk1s). As has funding for the Mk2. That doesn't change the fact that its receiving a raw deal vis a vis the Rafale, despite being far more cost effective.

More important question is, what is the objective of the LCA program. Many folks see it merely a prestige program - fly it on Republic Day and display it as a 'symbol' of 'development'. That the IAF operates a certain number is 'good enough'.

Yes, this will make LCA another Marut, definately should not end this way

Unfortunately, the IAF wouldn't be especially concerned if that were to come to pass.

Agree on IAF bit but frankly till we master Kaveri we won't be able to utilize export potential of LCA

The Gripen is doing splendidly despite having an imported powerplant. Unless we want to sell to the North Koreans or Iranians, the absence of the Kaveri makes no difference. And keep in the mind, the hardest competition may well come from the KAI FA-50, which is again powered by the GE F404 engine.

Yes, but since its almost impossible to penetrate them with an aircraft, since even 5th gen will have its limitations, missiles are a good way to go about it. With PLAAF we need deterrence, if we park 1000 canisterized Nirbhays along our N-NE front, it gives us a good deterrence.

It is very much possible to penetrate them with an aircraft. Its the reason why the Chinese and the Russians (and everyone else) is investing in 5th generation aircraft. You pack X no. of LACMs along the border, and the Chinese will pack Y no. of AAA/QR-SAMs and Z no. of aerostats/AEW&C units along theirs.

2. If indeed we intend to use LACMs for deep strike, that still leaves the Rafale without a distinctive role in the IAF's inventory.

Air superiority? Anti-AWACS? Escorting Sukhois?

How's that a distinctive role?

Air Superiority. We've got the Super Sukhoi. Reinforced by the Mirage, MiG and Tejas.
Anti-AWACS. The Rafale doesn't have the VLO capability to get within missile range of the aircraft, before the latter tracks it and sics its escorts on it.
Escorting Sukhois. Huh? Escorting where? Its the Su-30MKI with its huge radar can will be assigned most escort missions.

You're basically undoing the raison d'etre for multi-role/strike fighters. Targeting problems aside, its simply not affordable to employ an LACM for CAS. Even the US with all its information dominance and massive CM inventory has never used it for CAS.

Actually I am simply stating that IAF does not have any CAS capable aircraft in its future acquisition and I think that role is being shifted to home-grown missiles.

All fighter aircraft in the IAF's inventory are CAS capable. And while there's case for shifting the role to drones, no country in the world is employing LACMs for the task.

A two front war needs 50+ squadrons with IAF, the only way that is possible is if we crank up MMRCA to 200 (whichever bird we go for) and LCA FOC version (lets call it Mk1.5) up to 200.

The Rafale costs four times as much as the Tejas. And we certainly can't afford 200 of them. Not that another 76 would make an appreciable difference when the enemy can induct as many J-20s & J-31s in a year (the latter will have made it way to the PAF by 2025 as well).

Between the Super Sukhoi, Tejas Mk1, Tejas Mk2, and an FGFA, there's no role left for which the Rafale is uniqely suited. Even for a stop gap requirement there are plenty of options ranging from used Mirages and EF T1s, to leased Gripens.

The later 2 are on paper and won't be in squadron numbers before 2020. They will most likely serve as replacements for Jaguars with Rafale replacing Mig21/27.

1. The IAF will have only one Rafale squadron before 2020.
2. I said 'an FGFA' not 'the FGFA'. Both the American F-35 and the Russian PAK FA could do the job, and do it better.

[Viv S]

So if money and time are the main drivers, that leaves us with only 1 option- buy Shornet off the shelf and get two squadrons tomorrow with the rest following much faster than we can make them.

Unfortunately, the SH's day is past. It lost in Brazil and it'll likely lose in Canada and Denmark. Its simply not competitive against the new-kid-on-the-block, which does everything the SH does, and far more, for a cost that's only somewhat higher.

[Viv S]

For all the Rafale naysayers...you do realize that the aircraft in the MMRCA competition all went through stringent testing to ensure they met the IAF's requirements. The technical aspects were evaluated by thorough professionals who know a lot more about what the IAF wants than any of us here. If the aircraft in the competition were narrowed down to the Eurofighter and the Rafale from a technical standpoint, then so be it. Cost is a different matter altogether and is the purview of the GOI, not the IAF. But the IAF feels confident in the capabilities of the Rafale (L1) and the Eurofighter (L2).

Yes the Rafale met the IAF's criteria and had it met the MoD's budget ($10-12bn), they'd be relatively few naysayers. As things stand, its the Rafale's cost vs capability that's the primary point of objection for most folks.

[Cosmo_R]

For all the Rafale naysayers...you do realize that the aircraft in the MMRCA competition all went through stringent testing to ensure they met the IAF's requirements. The technical aspects were evaluated by thorough professionals who know a lot more about what the IAF wants than any of us here. If the aircraft in the competition were narrowed down to the Eurofighter and the Rafale from a technical standpoint, then so be it. Cost is a different matter altogether and is the purview of the GOI, not the IAF. But the IAF feels confident in the capabilities of the Rafale (L1) and the Eurofighter (L2).

Yes the Rafale met the IAF's criteria and had it met the MoD's budget ($10-12bn), they'd be relatively few naysayers. As things stand, its the Rafale's cost vs capability that's the primary point of objection for most folks.

+1.

At $20bn plus, it sucks the life out of our overall capability and reduces our security. To repeat: Rafale won't deter China and we don't need them against Pakistan.

As a result, they become number and gap fillers instead of adding to deterrence.

At $12bn, a deal. At $20bn plus, they kill us.

[Cosmo_R]

It's a little OT but I'd like to suggest that 5G a/c such as the F35 and PAKFA perhaps play a critical role in hacking enemy AD.

I can visualize the Israeli version of the F35 injecting stuxnet into enemy ADS to pave the pay for the bomb trucks.

[brar_w]

It's a little OT but I'd like to suggest that 5G a/c such as the F35 and PAKFA perhaps play a critical role in hacking enemy AD.

I can visualize the Israeli version of the F35 injecting stuxnet into enemy ADS to pave the pay for the bomb trucks.

Just not for the IDF, Cyber is a category even General Hostage and others interviewed by Colin Clark mentioned is a domain of the F-35 and future fighters. Its also incidentally a fundamental point in the ASBC. We are beyond the point of using tac platforms for cyber, and those concerned are now talking about how to measure the results as in a real-time BDA based on cyber warfare and armed escort of cyber.

[Sumeet]

It's a little OT but I'd like to suggest that 5G a/c such as the F35 and PAKFA perhaps play a critical role in hacking enemy AD.

I can visualize the Israeli version of the F35 injecting stuxnet into enemy ADS to pave the pay for the bomb trucks.

IAF/IN shouldn't get into supporting 3 different 5th Generation type fighters -- F-35IN, PAK-FA MKI, AMCA. No force with a sane mind would do that.

Lacking commonality (engine, weapons, avionics etc), training of manpower (Force support staff, MRO staff, Manufacturing staff, AF Pilots), supporting sortie costs and maintaining high serviceability rates will put a big price tag on our budget.

We should get into standardizing our AF assets that are built around NCW & Force multiplier platforms/infrastructure.

[Victor]

Yes, this will make LCA another Marut, definately should not end this way

Unfortunately, the IAF wouldn't be especially concerned if that were to come to pass.

That appears to be wrong from everything I have read over a decade. It is the IAF that dreamed up the LCA and it is DRDO (and GoI to some extent) that has run it into the ground. DRDO/HAL have been very adept in using the media to malign the IAF for their delays and failures which got IAF p!ssed off enough to publicly hammer them out of sheer disgust.

Everything I read tells me the IAF would be more than happy to induct the LCA in the hundreds if it proved itself ready. In today's fighter aircraft environment, there is no "almost ready" or "good enough" unless we as a nation are shamelessly callous about pilot's lives, which sometimes I think we are. There are some universally well-understood and well-accepted hoops for the LCA to jump thru before it is considered ready. The LCA is certainly not "almost ready" with just a "few certifications to be thrown in". Time will tell us the truth about that, won't it? December is almost here. And when it is ready, shouldn't it be the MoD's duty to fund the snot out of it come what may? Does IAF hold the purse strings or MoD?

Further, DRDO and HAL know very well that there is no friggin way they can make enough LCAs even if a bucketful of orders were thrown on their heads since, by their own admission, they hadn't thought about production lines while developing it, and now they are sloughing off the blame to IAF's "unpatriotic" love of phoren maal. Makes me want to puke.

Its simply not competitive against the new-kid-on-the-block, which does everything the SH does, and far more, for a cost that's only somewhat higher.

Of course. I'm assuming the F-35 is out of the question right now. I was among the first to say that the MMRCA was a waste of time and money and we should have signed up with F-35 right away.

[brar_w]

The proper way after hearing all these arguments (for me of course) is still to purchase the rafale through the "lowest cost model", work out TOT and other tech insertion into home_grown programs as an offset and then double down the efforts on the LCA MKII and AMCA. Its too late in the day to go for a TOT arrangement on the Rafale where you end up absorbing the technology at huge cost and at a time when something better is already available in the market. The F-35 is also pretty much out for the exact opposite reason, Its too early in the day for that program to offer you an TOT and tech insertion deal that is optimal (absolutely no incentive for LMA at this moment in time to sell all that IP at anything but SKY high prices - that will most certainly make the rafale TOT deal look like a steal).

[brar_w]

Duplicate

[member_24684]

.

PARIS Dassault Aviation, the French maker of fighter jets, expects to conclude a deal to supply Rafale planes to India by March, Chief Executive Eric Trappier said on Wednesday.

The final phase of exclusive negotiations on the contract, estimated at $15 billion, should conclude within India's current budget year ending in March 2015, Trappier told reporters in Paris.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/dassa ... 46886.html

[Philip]

From $10B to $20B to $15B.Smart salesmanship from the French! A huge 50% escalation.Imagine how $15B could be spent judiciously for the IAF.

[Philip]

From $10B to $20B to $15B.Smart salesmanship from the French! A huge 50% escalation.Imagine how $15B could be spent judiciously for the IAF.

Ps.Media reports that the FGFa will arrive only by 2025.I cannot fathom why the IAF is hell bent upon wanting aless stealthy more expensive twin seater.We should first pick up 2 swds.of the basic version asap and then teeak the design just as we did with the first SU-30s whch Russia were to take back.

[brar_w]

It cannot be escalation when you are negotiating. Ask the french for 120 fighters delivered and they will most likely offer you a fixed price that is pretty much what one expects for a 4.5 generation fighter. However, when you enter the world of TOT and start negotiating the details each side is going to put a price on the IP. The seller will try to maximize its profits while the buyer would try to go for a deal. Its never straight forward when you are looking to craft a 'custom' hybrid deal that requires a very detailed level of tech transfer. Its not exclusive to the french. Do this with BAE, Lockheed, Boeing and all such deals would be equally complicated.

[NRao]

No clue what, other than squad strength, are they getting with the Rafale.

2025 for the FGFA? Got to mean 2030. Where does that stand? $35 billion? That price is not worth it.

[srai]

From $10B to $20B to $15B.Smart salesmanship from the French! A huge 50% escalation.Imagine how $15B could be spent judiciously for the IAF.

Like other contracts deal signings, expect a partial deal ($12 billion) to be signed with bunch of stuff left for another day. Then over the next 10/15 years additional smaller deals worth few billions each will be signed for the supply of various items excluded in the original deal signing.

[srin]

.

PARIS Dassault Aviation, the French maker of fighter jets, expects to conclude a deal to supply Rafale planes to India by March, Chief Executive Eric Trappier said on Wednesday.

The final phase of exclusive negotiations on the contract, estimated at $15 billion, should conclude within India's current budget year ending in March 2015, Trappier told reporters in Paris.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/dassa ... 46886.html

It is worth $15B to Dassault probably and doesn't include the weaponry to go with it, the value of offsets and all that. The net *cost* to GoI would probably be little over $20B, approaching $200M per plane.

[srin]

Yes the Rafale met the IAF's criteria and had it met the MoD's budget ($10-12bn), they'd be relatively few naysayers. As things stand, its the Rafale's cost vs capability that's the primary point of objection for most folks.

+1.

At $20bn plus, it sucks the life out of our overall capability and reduces our security. To repeat: Rafale won't deter China and we don't need them against Pakistan.

As a result, they become number and gap fillers instead of adding to deterrence.

At $12bn, a deal. At $20bn plus, they kill us.

That's a very good and succinct way of putting it.

[srin]

It's a little OT but I'd like to suggest that 5G a/c such as the F35 and PAKFA perhaps play a critical role in hacking enemy AD.

I can visualize the Israeli version of the F35 injecting stuxnet into enemy ADS to pave the pay for the bomb trucks.

I read that an AESA radar has this electronic attack ability. So it isn't a feature of an airplane, rather a capability provided by the ECM or the radar. And those can be developed or purchased independently of the aircraft. Though it does appear so cutting edge that I'm not sure if someone would sell it to us at any amount of money.

[brar_w]

It's a little OT but I'd like to suggest that 5G a/c such as the F35 and PAKFA perhaps play a critical role in hacking enemy AD.

I can visualize the Israeli version of the F35 injecting stuxnet into enemy ADS to pave the pay for the bomb trucks.

I read that an AESA radar has this electronic attack ability. So it isn't a feature of an airplane, rather a capability provided by the ECM or the radar. And those can be developed or purchased independently of the aircraft. Though it does appear so cutting edge that I'm not sure if someone would sell it to us at any amount of money.

Its not just the ability of the Apg-81, but the collective capability of it, the AN/ASQ-239 and the CNI suite through which these sensors can pair up. The enabler is neither of these but the fusion engine, and the software that enables it. Without it these would just be stand alone systems.

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... on-engine/

In the end, what marks the F-35 as a dominant weapon is its combination of stealth, computing power, built-in targeting and databases, sensors that we hear can reach out more than 1,200 miles in some scenarios, with all of that fed to the pilot in his cockpit with automatically-generated target, weapons and route choices though his helmet.

“And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him, with an extremely high degree of confidence, what that adversary is and what they’re doing and what all your wingmen are doing,” Hostage explains. “It’s a stunning amount of information.”

So I asked Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command here, about the F-35′s cyber capabilities, mentioning comments by former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz several years ago about the F-35 having the “nascent capability” to attack Integrated Air Defense Systems (known to you and me as surface to air missiles) with cyber weapons.

Hostage deftly shifts the conversation each time I press for insights on the F-35′s cyber and EW. He doesn’t refuse to talk, as that would be impolite and, well, too obvious.....

Allies are a key part of the Red Flag exercises, especially as the F-35 becomes the plane flown by most of our closest allies, from Britain to Israel to Australia and beyond. But the toughest, most realistic exercises at Red Flag occur when it’s only American pilots flying against each other.

During those Red Flag-3 exercises they integrate space and cyber weapons into the fight, including those the F-35 possesses. Those capabilities make are “so effective that we have to be very careful that in a real world scenario we don’t hurt ourselves allowing them to play.”

Then he gets back to the point at hand. “So, to answer your question, it has tremendous capability. We’re in the early stages of exploring how to get the most effectiveness out of cyber and space, but we’re integrating it into the Air Operations Center; we’re integrating it into the combat plan; and it is absolutely the way of the future. And you’re right, the AESA radar has tremendous capacity to play in that game.”

...


But neither Hostage nor many others I spoke with were willing to be specific on the record about how effective the AESA radar, working with the aircraft’s sensors like the Distributed Aperture System and its data fusion system, will be. So the following is information culled from conversations over the last three months with a wide range of knowledgeable people inside government and the defense industry, as well as retired military and intelligence officers.

One of the keys to spoofing is, I’ve heard from several operators, being careful to avoid overwhelming the enemy with high-power jamming. That’s another problem with the Growler approach.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,’” Hostage says.

Much of this electronic warfare, as well as the F-35′s intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) capabilities, are made possible by a core processor that can perform more than one trillion operations per second. This allows the highly classified electronic warfare suite made by BAE Systems to identify enemy radar and electronic warfare emissions and, as happens with the EOTS, recommend to the pilot which target to attack and whether he should use either kinetic or electronic means to destroy it.

In our interview, Gen. Hostage points to the plane’s ability to gather enormous amounts of data, comb through it and very rapidly and simply present the pilot with clear choices as a key to its success....

everal sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations — from government and industry — tell me that each country went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.

[member_20292]

^^^

I want the IAF some of those as well. Do they ?

The Rafale deal is also hiding some ideas similar to what is described above.

[khan]

^^^

I want the IAF some of those as well. Do they ?

The Rafale deal is also hiding some ideas similar to what is described above.

The Rafale equivalent is called SPECTRA. Dunno how it compares to American kit though.

[brar_w]

Spectra is the EW package, similar to the AN/ASQ-239 on the F-35. On the F-35 both active and passive EW is handled by multiple sensors and the cyber is most likely also handled by multiple sensors as well. The Apg-81 has been designed from the start to act as a full fledged Electronic warfare system including passive mode where it essentially becomes one giant extension of the -239 and CNI

Take the AESA radar as an example. We commonly refer to it as an MFA, a multi-function array. It has, of course, many air-to-air modes, and many air-to-ground modes. But it also offers capabilities as a fully capable EW aperture. For EW, I mean electronic protection, electronic attack, and electronic support, the latter of which involves sensing or passive ops.

More:
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... ic-Warfare

This 5th Generation multi-role all solid state Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) provides the main air-air and air-ground sensor and weapon engagement capability of the F-35. It is a frequency agile, scanning radar that provides an exceptional range of capabilities including Air-Air multiple target detection and fire control (cloned from the F-22 APG -77 radar ), air-to- ground modes, including and ground tracking (SAR and ISAR) high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track.
On 22 June 2010 the Project Office said: “The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 (Development) aircraft”
The radar also provides electronic warfare functions (RWR and RF Jammer) and the RF elements of the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) - that is an ultra high bandwidth data link. This provides communications between own force assets to allow development and sharing of situational awareness data and networked force operations.
The radar is a successor to the F-22's AN/APG-77 and includes selected features of it. Conversely, the APG-77v1, the current radar for the F-22A, uses APG-81 hardware and software features for its advanced air-to-ground capabilities that were a more recent addition to that aircraft.
From the EW perspective the APG-81 provides the following capabilities:
• A steerable, precisely focussed, jamming signal that can be transmitted to any point in space within the radar’s field of regard (FOR). The duration of the jamming signal is selectable and it is frequency agile.
• Detecting and locating in-band RF radiations from a remote source that is contained within the radar’s FOR to provide an EW RWR capability.
Similarly, AESA radars are inherently jam resistant as these types are able to change operating frequency with every pulse, and spread the frequencies across a wide band even in a single pulse. Although jammers are available that generate broadband white noise covering the entire operating frequency of a radar, AESAs can be selected to operate on a receive-only basis to locate the jamming transmission.

The importance of having the dual approach is obviously power management. Having a large (1600+ element) EW aperture in addition to your stand alone EW package opens up a lot of exciting things that a stand alone EW sensor such as the Barracuda would never be able to do because of its size, the requirement to actively participate among a huge set of bandwidth with a limited power supply and sensor size, footprint etc. To achieve this without an integrated approach would require one to have to have an EW package as powerful or as large as a radar which would be quite unusual and for good reason. Doing such a thing (the integrated approach to EW) opens up possibilities that would only be limited by your A) Computing power of the fusion engine and The ability to write complex software code to enable rapid exchange of information between the various sensors. Thats a start they will build upon block by block, hence the projected need to upgrade the ICP every other block and add software every block. Like the previous link mentioned, the F-35 focuses on narrow Jamming, spoofing and cyber stuff..its not the "brute" herculean approach of the Growler which essentially has a brute EW package that consumes most of the internal power and still requires external power generation.

More Here: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-a-“f ... ”-warfare/

A point of importance here is that the USAF, and the JPO are very tight lipped about de-classifying the capability of the AN/ASQ-239, despite of routine pot shots from the Growler advocacy groups etc. They refuse to even share the general filtered information on this system that exists on all other electronic systems onboard the F-35. The most they say to those that advocate the growler is that "we do not want it" and its not the right "platform", or "right type of jamming" for our needs and projected threats. This is pretty much in line with what they disclosed on the same system aboard the F-22 that still continues to be one of the most closely guarded capabilities on that jet. The USAF also has absolutely no interest in the NGJ which is the largest Gallium Nitride based Wideband, Brute Jamming project in the world.

[member_28722]

Funding for a production line has already been sanctioned (and is adequate for producing 40 Mk1s). As has funding for the Mk2. That doesn't change the fact that its receiving a raw deal vis a vis the Rafale, despite being far more cost effective.

To get the numbers we all think LCA should have we probably need 2 production lines churning out 16-20 per year without impacting Su30/Jag/FGFA. I think the current line can produce max 8?

The Gripen is doing splendidly despite having an imported powerplant. Unless we want to sell to the North Koreans or Iranians, the absence of the Kaveri makes no difference. And keep in the mind, the hardest competition may well come from the KAI FA-50, which is again powered by the GE F404 engine.

The first Gripen was delivered to Swedish airforce in 92/93 and the first confirmed foreign orders came in 1999 and this was after the Swedes placed orders for over 100 aircraft.
One thing is that Govt can ask IAF to modify the order for Mk1 from 40 with option of additional 60 or so after the FOC.

Yes, but since its almost impossible to penetrate them with an aircraft, since even 5th gen will have its limitations, missiles are a good way to go about it. With PLAAF we need deterrence, if we park 1000 canisterized Nirbhays along our N-NE front, it gives us a good deterrence.

I was referring to 4th gen aircraft. Yes, I agree 5th gen can penetrate, but since we are a decade away from FGFA in good numbers and even further away for AMCA, this could be useful till then (and later also as more is always merrier)
Question: Assuming we cancel Rafale, how practical is Nirbhay in large numbers for stop gap?

Air Superiority. We've got the Super Sukhoi. Reinforced by the Mirage, MiG and Tejas.
Anti-AWACS. The Rafale doesn't have the VLO capability to get within missile range of the aircraft, before the latter tracks it and sics its escorts on it.
Escorting Sukhois. Huh? Escorting where? Its the Su-30MKI with its huge radar can will be assigned most escort missions.

My apologies, I missed the distinctive word.

All fighter aircraft in the IAF's inventory are CAS capable. And while there's case for shifting the role to drones, no country in the world is employing LACMs for the task.

Today yes .... the future is Su30/LCA/Rafale/FGFA/AMCA .... The CAS specialists of recent history have been A-10/Su25/B1B and none of IAF birds (at least to me) seem to have the abilities to do what the
Also I think we are the only country to have a 300km (short range) supersonic LACM with the army, so I don't think there is a benchmark available.

The Rafale costs four times as much as the Tejas. And we certainly can't afford 200 of them. Not that another 76 would make an appreciable difference when the enemy can induct as many J-20s & J-31s in a year (the latter will have made it way to the PAF by 2025 as well).

200 number was my wishlist for MMRCA numbers, not Rafale.
J-31 to PAf won't happen unless the Chinese decide to give them away for free. Also with all the problems F-35 is facing, I don't think reverse engineering will give China an edge to put a 5th gen in faster numbers than the Americans.

1. The IAF will have only one Rafale squadron before 2020.
2. I said 'an FGFA' not 'the FGFA'. Both the American F-35 and the Russian PAK FA could do the job, and do it better.

Since Su30 deal was finalized in 2000 and the first rolled out of Nasik in 2004. By 2019 the current upgrade programs for Jaguar and Mirage should be complete. If the Bangalore facility is dedicated to Rafale, we can add Rafale's at a squadron per year (in theory), plus we should also get 18 off the shelf. So we may have at least 2 by 2020, maybe more.
F-35 as a replacement for Rafale?

[member_28722]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/dassa ... 46886.html

It is worth $15B to Dassault probably and doesn't include the weaponry to go with it, the value of offsets and all that. The net *cost* to GoI would probably be little over $20B, approaching $200M per plane.[/quote]
I think Offsets are a part of MMRCA deal. Regarding weaponry, the IAF Rafale may be customized to fire Astra, Sudarshan etc...

[member_26622]

It's a slippery slope here - Any changes we want on Rafale - compatibility with other desi,russian missiles means paying in EUROs to OEM. They will obviously do their best to dissuade us from using anything other than thier own Euro built i.e. jack up any change cost to account for lost profits and throw in fixed cost components as well.

Think how much it costs to build custom features in SAP for example and all changes must be done in France (no outsourcing)

20 billion will be 25 billion within 2 years if we even decide to change a bolts spec on this white flying elephant.