Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[member_28722]

Totally agree on cost part, but I believe in 40 year life cycle, its better to have them fire desi weapons even though we have to spend some extra moolah for it ...

[member_28442]

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.

surely our engineers/auditors know a thing or two as well.
and now with a more proactive leadership in India, i am sure the french would be wary of the whole thing being tossed in the bin with the indians going for something like lca+grippen

[srai]

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.

I think Offsets are a part of MMRCA deal. Regarding weaponry, the IAF Rafale may be customized to fire Astra, Sudarshan etc...

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.

Adding new "foreign" weapons to a Rafale is no trivial task. It takes more than 3 years of integration planning, design and testing. That is if the OEM is doing this work. If HAL were to do this, they wouldn't be able to do it until after certain level of TOT absorption--from Su-30MKI deal, that takes around 10 years. So off the bat, there is no way the Rafales will be armed with anything other than those pricy MBDA weapons its integrated with. The initial weapons package deal for the Rafale will in itself run into several billion dollars. If one recalls, 450 Mica AAMs for 51 Mirage-2000UPG deal cost around $1.2 billion.

[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.

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.

I think the main point of it is that you need to get close enough to inject before being discovered. Rafale/MKI are not optimal

Hence 5G stealth.

The Israelis will sell us the tech to do this using APG-81. They've hacked the AESA with a wink and a nod from DoD and DoS.

The f-35 is an integrated system. Its technologies cannot be grafted a la carte onto plane XYZ.

F35 is not a contender for IAF. But if it were, the Israelis are ready and willing to share the value add that's not for export via FMS

[NRao]

Adding new "foreign" weapons to a Rafale is no trivial task. It takes more than 3 years of integration planning, design and testing. That is if the OEM is doing this work. If HAL were to do this, they wouldn't be able to do it until after certain level of TOT absorption--from Su-30MKI deal, that takes around 10 years. So off the bat, there is no way the Rafales will be armed with anything other than those pricy MBDA weapons its integrated with. The initial weapons package deal for the Rafale will in itself run into several billion dollars. If one recalls, 450 Mica AAMs for 51 Mirage-2000UPG deal cost around $1.2 billion.

India is paying for source code so it should not be that bad.

Even with the MKI India has done some great work. The IAF accepted the solution provided by the Indians for the Brahmos.

[member_28722]

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.

Surely if we are going to do a Full ToT, then we can modify the plane as we see fit. Are we not upgrading the Jaguars and Sukhois with non-base-company systems today?
Mirages and Mig29s cannot be a base comparison here as we never took their ToT.

[srai]

Adding new "foreign" weapons to a Rafale is no trivial task. It takes more than 3 years of integration planning, design and testing. That is if the OEM is doing this work. If HAL were to do this, they wouldn't be able to do it until after certain level of TOT absorption--from Su-30MKI deal, that takes around 10 years. So off the bat, there is no way the Rafales will be armed with anything other than those pricy MBDA weapons its integrated with. The initial weapons package deal for the Rafale will in itself run into several billion dollars. If one recalls, 450 Mica AAMs for 51 Mirage-2000UPG deal cost around $1.2 billion.

India is paying for source code so it should not be that bad.

Even with the MKI India has done some great work. The IAF accepted the solution provided by the Indians for the Brahmos.

No one gives full source code. India will have access to "interfaces" to the source code that can be used for some level of customization/integration work.

Coming to the MKI integration with Brahmos, that is my point. How long has HAL been manufacturing MKI and the level of TOT it has absorbed during that time? How long before Brahmos is fully qualified on the MKI? These things take time.

[member_26622]

@ Saurabh

Jaguar upgrades cannot be compared with Rafale. Jaguar was retired by UK-France in 2007, it's a 'mechanical' antique flying machine, reliable as now mature but nowhere near complex as a 4th or 4.5 gen fighter. You can get a Maruti 800 fixed by anyone in India, doesn't mean they can or you will give them to repair a top of line Mercedes S series. It's just harder to do changes with newer gear given the amount of integration.

Any comparison of Russian and French equipment will get us more in red. Kilo subs cost 300 million while Scorpene cost a billion plus. Was shocked that it does not even come with torpedoes as per recent news. This does not mean Russian stuff is inferior - US and Russia were playing to kill each other, France on the other hand is good for make up only when it comes to true war fighting capability.

By buying Rafale we are in effect doing the same - planing to go to war with expensive make-up. Honestly, how many on this forum think that 100 shiny Rafales will even figure in China's plans 5 years from today. China has 3000 jets and the are replacing older 3rd Gen planes with newer 4.5 and 5th Gen planes at a third to half the cost of our shiny 100 RAFALE. The amount of wackiness in Rafale acquisition is that obvious.

[kit]

@ Saurabh

Jaguar upgrades cannot be compared with Rafale. Jaguar was retired by UK-France in 2007, it's a 'mechanical' antique flying machine, reliable as now mature but nowhere near complex as a 4th or 4.5 gen fighter. You can get a Maruti 800 fixed by anyone in India, doesn't mean they can or you will give them to repair a top of line Mercedes S series. It's just harder to do changes with newer gear given the amount of integration.

Any comparison of Russian and French equipment will get us more in red. Kilo subs cost 300 million while Scorpene cost a billion plus. Was shocked that it does not even come with torpedoes as per recent news. This does not mean Russian stuff is inferior - US and Russia were playing to kill each other, France on the other hand is good for make up only when it comes to true war fighting capability.

By buying Rafale we are in effect doing the same - planing to go to war with expensive make-up. Honestly, how many on this forum think that 100 shiny Rafales will even figure in China's plans 5 years from today. China has 3000 jets and the are replacing older 3rd Gen planes with newer 4.5 and 5th Gen planes at a third to half the cost of our shiny 100 RAFALE. The amount of wackiness in Rafale acquisition is that obvious.

+1 To that ., building up an industrial base, infrastructure ,spawning ancilliary industries,creating seed money for startups all can happen with the billions on order .At the end of the day IAF needs good planes up in the air and in numbers and it need not be an uber expensive Rafale., its what that goes into the plane that counts unless its a true blue 5th or 6th generation.Give a mark 2 LCA a good AESA radar and a system similar to DAS and it would probably beat any Rafale out of the sky !

[NRao]

No one gives full source code. India will have access to "interfaces" to the source code that can be used for some level of customization/integration work.

Please check on that. France actually OKed the sale of the code - exception AESA (????). French have made the argument that India can do whatever with the Rafale. (I thing all vendors approved the inclusion of code - with the exception for AESA.)

No matter what India should not have the problems she had with prior efforts.

Coming to the MKI integration with Brahmos, that is my point. How long has HAL been manufacturing MKI and the level of TOT it has absorbed during that time? How long before Brahmos is fully qualified on the MKI? These things take time.

Neither the length nor the ToT absorption is the issue here.

The feather in the cap incidence is that the Russians were also tasked to integrate the Brahmos and the Indians won and the Russians - as the story goes - were curious to find what was the solution.

This effort - as far as I can tell - went beyond the normal expectation of what a ToT absorption effort would solve.

Qualification of B on the MKI: The timeline is out there.

I think India has done very well with that aspect of the MKI + B. Very, very well.

[Ramu]

+1 To that ., building up an industrial base, infrastructure ,spawning ancilliary industries,creating seed money for startups all can happen with the billions on order .At the end of the day IAF needs good planes up in the air and in numbers and it need not be an uber expensive Rafale., its what that goes into the plane that counts unless its a true blue 5th or 6th generation.Give a mark 2 LCA a good AESA radar and a system similar to DAS and it would probably beat any Rafale out of the sky !

Let me give a perspective to this thought.
When i graduated, the choices for jobs were non existent.
When my wife graduated, she had a choice of booming it industry.
when my cousins, nieces and nephews graduated few years ago, they had a choice of it, bpo, call centres. Most of them were not good career choices.
In 10 - 20 years time, when my kids graduate, i want them to be able to choose from aero industries and their niche sub component industries.
In short we should be able to outsource our call centres to other countries and taunt them for their weird accent in 20 years while we enjoy the benefits of working in a high value industry.

The only thing that is standing between us and this dream becoming reality is our armed forces not ordering products that are either ready or nearly ready in numbers. Nitpicking for 26 instead of 28 AOA or tanks overweight by few tons or refusing to address production issues with Insas makes armed forces look really silly in my eyes. There are greater goals that we all need to work on for our own kids' benefits with no exception.

Funny thing is the jobs/economy part is only a side effect of a vibrant military industial complex. Main and direct benefits are even bigger. When you start making all your weapon platforms, you wìll get a personalised invite to join UNSC.

[member_26622]

^ Let's not single out the armed forces only for importing, but feels the core 'legacy' issue was 'Family business'.

1. If you elect a Bush in to Power, expect a war or equivalent to make oil prices hit the roof
2. If you elect a Gandhi in to Power, expect massive price inflation and imports for arms ...

The people of India elected Gandhi clan who from my readings are in the business of brokering arms (Rajiv and Sanjay started this). Why blame Armed forces who just followed marching orders.

My peeve is that the head (leadership) has changed direction but the body (Armed services) is resisting. Inertia or deep cleansing to get rid of bad apples or some other medicine is needed - not an expert of Delhism to comment further.

[Viv S]

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.

There's a case for the IAF/IN rationalizing the fleet around a limited number of fighter types, but operating three different 5th gen aircraft is not that different from operating two 5th gen aircraft and one 4.5 gen aircraft (bought at 5th gen prices).

[NRao]

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.

I can see the IAF operating the FGFA + AMCA, but not the F-35.

I can see the IN operating the F-35B/C, but not the other two (neither of which have a naval variant to speak of).


Secondly, there are other reasons that these planes would be pursued.

The AMCA obviously is an Indian effort. Cannot kill that (but strange things happen in India).

The FGFA, is both to get a 5th Gen for the AF and also to introduce 5th Gen design/manufacturing/etc to India. IF India was good at a 5th Gen, then the FGFA would not be there.

The F-35B/C for the IN would be because there is no better alternative.

[Viv S]

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 current line is 'rated' for 12 aircraft per year IIRC. It can probably be increased further if the backing for the same were to come from the MoD and IAF.

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.

The issue was the necessity of the Kaveri for exports. Whenever the Gripen may have flown/enter service, fact remains its always been marketed with a US engine and has done fairly well considering. Same applies to the TA/FA-50 and the same will apply to the Tejas. We're free to export it to any country that's not allied with China, which means even Vietnam is feasible for Tejas exports.

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)

The AMCA's induction should coincide with the start of Su-30MKI retirements, long way off. As for our current requirements, both the PAK FA and F-35 are available off-the-shelf in the same timeframe as we're receiving the Rafale.

Question: Assuming we cancel Rafale, how practical is Nirbhay in large numbers for stop gap?

It'll take time for the Nirbhay to start being delivered as well (2017 IIRC). Plus it still has all the limitations of a LACM (can't be used against mobile targets or for SEAD/DEAD).

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

They've been many discussion on the forum on the utility of a gun-equipped CAS aircraft on the modern battlefield. The general consensus is that the A-10/Su-25 type aircraft are simply not survivable in an environment where the other side is fielding a profusion of MANPADS and SHORADS. Its the same reason why you'll never see a AC-130 employed outside of a COIN situation.

CAS for the future will consist of PGM employment from medium-to-high altitudes targeted by high resolution high fidelity EO systems. A mission profile in which, the Tejas+Litening G4+Paveway II/Sudarshan is just as capable as the Mirage 2000, and more so than the Jaguar and MiG-27.

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.

That's true for the Army because we so far have only one LACM in service with the military and it has limitations in terms in air employment. Plenty of other countries have air launched CMs with ranges upto and beyond 300km. However, most of them are still employed against static targets.

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.

- The PLAAF will be inducting hundreds of 5th gen fighters regardless. Whatever the China's limitations may be, manufacturing at a large scale is not one of them.
- J-31 might be out-of-budget for the Pakistanis for the moment, but a decade from the same may not apply. If nothing else, they'll be able to get it on credit from the Chinese, who'll be doubly eager to see India off-balance.

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.

The Rafale's delivery schedule has already been laid out in the MMRCA contract. One squadron delivered off-the-shelf starting 36 months from contract signing and ending 48 months after. So the first squadron will be up by 2019. Production at HAL is to span eight years IIRC. So domestically assembled Rafales will be delivered between 2019-2026, starting probably at less than 8 aircraft per year, increasing to perhaps 16 annually (by 2023 or so).

F-35 as a replacement for Rafale?

Not as direct replacement no. But its worth examining as a limited acquisition (40-60 units) for high end tasks (SEAD, anti-AWACS, EW, ISR) that the existing fleet is poorly suited for. You can use the Rafale for that, but it has the basic 'non-fixable' limitation of a non-VLO airframe. Same off-the-shelf acquisition cost for both BTW.

Alternatively, the IAF could manage with an early off-the-shelf order for Russian built PAK FAs. Nowhere as reliable as Western platforms, but at least the basic design delivers far more capability than the Rafale.

[Viv S]

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.

I can see the IAF operating the FGFA + AMCA, but not the F-35.

I can see the IN operating the F-35B/C, but not the other two (neither of which have a naval variant to speak of).

May be not even the 'Charlie'.

The US has 10 carrier groups built around a supercarrier and 9 amphibious groups built around helicopter carriers that can operate as small carriers. They're each, if not identical, then at least quite similar. Even with a certain number of them in refit, the remainder can comfortably pull their weight.

The UK will have two near identical carriers. If the RN has to go war with one in refit, the air group can simply operate from the other carrier. So they will always have at least one carrier ready for combat at all times. Worst case scenario, they can still use the HMS Ocean, an LHD, as a makeshift carrier.

France in contrast, has only one carrier (the Charles de Gaulle). Until 2000, the French also operated at least two carriers as well (Foch + Clemenceau) so as to have at least one available at all times. The PA2 project was supposed to deliver a second carrier to the MN, but was cancelled in 2013, as a result of which the French naval strike capability is completely dependent on the CdG's availability.

In India, in theory we have or rather will have two carriers by 2025 and three by 2030. However, unlike the USN or RN which have similar types in operation, we're in a pickle because two of our carriers are already STOBAR. The most efficient configuration for the IAC-2 will be CATOBAR, which will allow it to operate the N-PAK FA, F-35C, N-AMCA (or even the Rafale). The downside is that the air group cannot cross-deck off the IAC's sister ships.

In effect, the IN will have one very well equipped carrier and two far less equipped carriers. When the IAC-2 is available, well and good. When its not all we will be forced to rely on MiG-29Ks and N-Tejas, possibly against PLAN J-31s. With the PAK FA and AMCA presumably heavy supercruise optimized designs (unlike the Su-27 & MiG-29), its unlikely you could push them off a STOBAR carrier either. The only solution I can see is the F-35B; can operate from all three ships as well as any LHDs we can spare. Doesn't have the endurance of the F-35C or the PAK FA, but we'll probably not be using our carrier groups for long range strike in the South/East China Sea like the USN either.

[GeorgeWelch]

SH can work in STOBAR configuration

Rafale probably could too, but that hasn't been confirmed and the naval variant isn't what you're getting and the naval variant is single-seater only

[Viv S]

SH can work in STOBAR configuration

Rafale probably could too, but that hasn't been confirmed and the naval variant isn't what you're getting and the naval variant is single-seater only

All IAF aircraft will remain land based. The IN might still be able to spare some fighters to reinforce the IAF, if the naval threat is minimal but not the other way round. Nor will the IAF retain any significant strength of pilots with currency in carrier operations.

The alternative is for the IN to order SHs or Rafale Ms, which effectively pours cold water over any ambitions it might have of operating 5th generation aircraft. They're both decent aircraft, but neither matches upto the PAK FA or F-35 (or naval-AMCA if that pans out), and they're not what you want comprising the higher end of your fleet in 2030.

[Philip]

True.From 2020 onwards the 5th gen threat from China arrives.Their S-bird is being unveiled at the Zuhai air show the result of systematic espionage, allegedly swiping huge amts. of JSF secrets.

[brar_w]

SH can work in STOBAR configuration

Rafale probably could too, but that hasn't been confirmed and the naval variant isn't what you're getting and the naval variant is single-seater only

SH is pretty much done as a program. It aint going to win any further competitions that would keep it alive for any significant purpose. As far as the Rafale is concerned, it aint as much about whether it can potentially take off but about the utility if it could, as in what would the impact be on performance vis-a-vis payload.

[member_20292]

[
The AMCA obviously is an Indian effort. Cannot kill that (but strange things happen in India).

" We'll order 40 of those , and wait for AMCA Mk2. By the time the Mk2 is ready, everyone is using drones, so we are not that hot on AMCA Mk2 anymore.

Useless buggers, the HAL/DRDO/ADA/ Indian RnD complex!

The dunderheads can't seem to keep up with technology, while our RfPs and technology goalposts, always keep up and are in fact, more advanced than the best technology standards set by the west. "

[member_20292]

SH can work in STOBAR configuration

Rafale probably could too, but that hasn't been confirmed and the naval variant isn't what you're getting and the naval variant is single-seater only

I'm ready to order some SH18s to make GeorgeWelch happy.

GW, how much for a dozen?

[member_24684]

[
The AMCA obviously is an Indian effort. Cannot kill that (but strange things happen in India).

" We'll order 40 of those , and wait for AMCA Mk2. By the time the Mk2 is ready, everyone is using drones, so we are not that hot on AMCA Mk2 anymore.

Useless buggers, the HAL/DRDO/ADA/ Indian RnD complex!

The dunderheads can't seem to keep up with technology, while our RfPs and technology goalposts, always keep up and are in fact, more advanced than the best technology standards set by the west. "

no offense

Is this Peoples mind in India ..If DRDO/HAL/ADA develops Something regarding to the forces Nature .They must accept without Questioning.

damn

[chola]

True.From 2020 onwards the 5th gen threat from China arrives.Their S-bird is being unveiled at the Zuhai air show the result of systematic espionage, allegedly swiping huge amts. of JSF secrets.

Copy and paste projects will never equal the real thing. The Rafale is real Western technology. I guarantee you whatever copy-paste s-bird at Zuhai will not amount to a fifth of what the Rafale is.

And the Russians can go royally screw themselves in their collective arses. The Rafale can't match the Su-30 technology that Russia back-stabbed us by selling to the chinis? Bull manure.

Nothing from the Russians works. Not even the MKI. Everything that is good about the MKI came from ourselves -- the avionics, software, etc. The crashes, the substandard engines and the fact that 50% of the fleet is grounded (and that is not counting the 100% groundings for two months after the last crash) come from sh1tty Russian design and production.

What's more, everything we from them are already shown to our enemies. I have no doubt that every inch of the MKI known to the Ruskies is already sold to the lizard.

The way forward is to go ahead with Western aircraft full bore. The Rafale will not be known to the chinis unlike the Sukhois. It will destroy anything the chinis have -- many times over. The truth is when western and russian aircraft actually fight, the results are lop-sided with kills ratios in favor of western aircraft. What is the record of the F-15 and F-16 versus MiGs? Somewhere in the range of 300 kills to ZERO losses.

Why do we repeatedly give these communist-loving a-holes the benefit of the doubt even when they screw us again and again on T-90 ammo, the Vikramaditya, MiG parts. etc. ?

[srai]

No one gives full source code. India will have access to "interfaces" to the source code that can be used for some level of customization/integration work.

Please check on that. France actually OKed the sale of the code - exception AESA (????). French have made the argument that India can do whatever with the Rafale. (I thing all vendors approved the inclusion of code - with the exception for AESA.)

...

Can you point me to your source? I haven't seen any reports that state French are giving the Rafale source code. It is typical in the software industry to provide interfaces where client customisations can take place. The level of these customisations that can take place can vary by a lot depending on the types of interfaces made available to the client and the client's ability to make use of them. New interfaces are provided to support additional client requirements. Source code itself are treated as black box. If you give away all your source code, you have pretty much given away all your hard-earned IP and with it your competitive edge. No company would do that.

[member_20292]

Copy and paste projects will never equal the real thing. The Rafale is real Western technology. I guarantee you whatever copy-paste s-bird at Zuhai will not amount to a fifth of what the Rafale is.

And the Russians can go royally screw themselves in their collective arses. The Rafale can't match the Su-30 technology that Russia back-stabbed us by selling to the chinis? Bull manure.

Welcome back Anna. You were missed around these parts. Some of your posts have inspired some us to start learning Chinese and gearing up to attack the Chini market in our own little ways.

Nothing from the Russians works. Not even the MKI. Everything that is good about the MKI came from ourselves -- the avionics, software, etc. The crashes, the substandard engines and the fact that 50% of the fleet is grounded (and that is not counting the 100% groundings for two months after the last crash) come from sh1tty Russian design and production.

What's more, everything we from them are already shown to our enemies. I have no doubt that every inch of the MKI known to the Ruskies is already sold to the lizard.

Respectfully disagreed. Western Europeans ki fattthi hai Russki ke haath. There are solid reasons for that, and the Russians have a long history of making okay war weaponry, although not as good as the west. They are certainly superior to both the Elephant and the Dragon.

The way forward is to go ahead with Western aircraft full bore.

Agreed 100%. At the same time, you must know that the Russkis have a long working relationship with us. We are comfortable with them for the longest amount of time. They share a LOT with us....this is not known to most. Which country has sold another, a nuclear submarine? Russians did give us the Chakra in 1989 and now again recently. Our Arihant is modeled after that sub.

The Rafale will not be known to the chinis unlike the Sukhois. It will destroy anything the chinis have -- many times over.

yes.

The truth is when western and russian aircraft actually fight, the results are lop-sided with kills ratios in favor of western aircraft. What is the record of the F-15 and F-16 versus MiGs? Somewhere in the range of 300 kills to ZERO losses.

Our Su 30s beat the F 15 and F 16s 21:1 kill ratio in favour of the Su30. At mountain home air base during red flag 2008. Famous videos made by Youtube Terry on this - Col Terrence Fornoff - please refer to Pushpinder Singh Chopra's rebuttal to his youtube videos as well.

Why do we repeatedly give these communist-loving a-holes the benefit of the doubt even when they screw us again and again on T-90 ammo, the Vikramaditya, MiG parts. etc. ?

INS Chakra above. That's why. Known devil is better than unknown angel. Old relationships which are not anglo saxon mercenary .

But, the good news is that we are getting closer to the big daddy USA's war making supply chain. We are getting hooked in, and hopefully we will be buying more from them as time goes on.

[NRao]

Hmmmm..................

All vendors had agreed to part with code, with the exception of the US for the AESA.

What use is an API? It will only make Indians great SIs. Cannot help with new development, etc.

However:

Nov, 2008 :: Dassault ups the ante with full technology transfer for Rafale

[member_26622]

Copy and paste projects will never equal the real thing. The Rafale is real Western technology. I guarantee you whatever copy-paste s-bird at Zuhai will not amount to a fifth of what the Rafale is.

And the Russians can go royally screw themselves in their collective arses. The Rafale can't match the Su-30 technology that Russia back-stabbed us by selling to the chinis? Bull manure.

Why do we repeatedly give these communist-loving a-holes the benefit of the doubt even when they screw us again and again on T-90 ammo, the Vikramaditya, MiG parts. etc. ?

Good point ...extending it further so that we have a full Divorce not a half Divorce from current liabilities.

1. The French will sell Rafale and all to China as soon as Euro ban on defense export to China goes away. By the way, guess who is pushing hard for getting rid of the ban...French again.
2. Which Western country is selling to Russia anything military ...French again
3. Who is selling to Pakis and indirectly providing access to tech to China ...French again

Basically France is 'needy' and will sell to anyone to get scale benefits - at the right price, no donations. Obviously China with 3+ trillion $ reserves is high on the list of potential customers for them. My point been buying Rafale will be a repeat of SU-30 liability

This leaves Franco-German and US as potential sources who are ideologically and financially sound to resist bending backwards to Chinese. Franco-German equipment will bankrupt us as even they cannot afford to buy in significant numbers. US gear comes with a lot of handcuffs.

Best way to make the most of our friendly stature in to a win-win position is
1. Buy components not platforms off the shelf from Western/US - engines, radar and so on to bridge domestic gap
2. Be a cheap source for exports to other nations, cull off Chinese exports in process

[srai]

Hmmmm..................

All vendors had agreed to part with code, with the exception of the US for the AESA.

What use is an API? It will only make Indians great SIs. Cannot help with new development, etc.

However:

Nov, 2008 :: Dassault ups the ante with full technology transfer for Rafale

I doubt "full (100%) TOT" type of talk. There is no such thing. What people verbally say versus what they agree to legally sign are two very different things. There are usually a lot of caveats in fine print, and we are talking of a complex contract running into thousands of pages. Let's wait and see in the coming decades what the Rafale deal actually encompasses.

[NRao]

You should have said that earlier and saved me some time.

[brar_w]

TOT is a function of cost. Unless one is dealing with a socialist system where the OEM is a state owned company, a corporation operating in the defense and aerospace sector (even privately held companies) will charge a favorable price for what it sells. Go deeper into transfer and expect a disproportionate increase in the money charged for the same.

[kit]

Hmmmm..................

All vendors had agreed to part with code, with the exception of the US for the AESA.

What use is an API? It will only make Indians great SIs. Cannot help with new development, etc.

However:

Nov, 2008 :: Dassault ups the ante with full technology transfer for Rafale

I doubt "full (100%) TOT" type of talk. There is no such thing. What people verbally say versus what they agree to legally sign are two very different things. There are usually a lot of caveats in fine print, and we are talking of a complex contract running into thousands of pages. Let's wait and see in the coming decades what the Rafale deal actually encompasses.

+1 to that ! ..i ll have less TOT and more in house technology development ..that "TOT" word should be banned ..its just an oxymoron !

[member_28476]

Few interesting infos (or confirmations) in latest Air Fan "special Rafale" issue.
SATCOM IS integrated on two prototypes planes B301 and C101. You can see it on the B 301/nEUROn/Falcon flight. Atm it is working on inmarsat civilian network, but will of course work with others.
A HMD is being fully integrated (my bet would go on scorpion as Thales has bought visionix, but no clue)
MLU will mainly concern sensors, weapons and EW. Time schedule unclear, lets say 2025. smart skin/cheek arrays seem to be involved, aswell as more offensive capabilities for RBE2 and very high bandwith directional datalink. Mica NG also.
Standard F3.4+ being tested at CEAM.
Now my guess :
Recently, we have seen CARAA study plan finish (possibility of physical division of the antenna of RBE2), aswell as INCAS (which led to improved spectra with GaN modules) and DEDIRA (very secret program, means discretion demonstrator for Rafale, all we know for sure is that it is flying and working fine and no special plane having been spotted it is arguably and improvement of ECMs).
MELBAA program, intending to lead to GaN RBE2 with divided antenna AND parallel calculators for those divisions has just been funded, both for Rafale and FCAS.
Add to this Tragedac (aimed at sharing tracks between planes so as to consolidate them)...

I see a schem there, not you?

A nice chart on how costs are calculated, explaining maybe why we see so many numbers floating around and why we should only compare apples to appples.
In the case of MMRCA, one shoudl add costs (and benefits) of ToT and industrialisation.

[Viv S]

In the case of MMRCA, one shoudl add costs (and benefits) of ToT and industrialisation.

We've been doing the ToT and license building routine since 1966 when the first Type 77 went into production, yet the major technological advances have only been made when the country rolled up its sleeves and invested in a domestic project, whether it was with the Dhruv, Tejas or Arjun.

Given the costs involved with the Rafale, I think most BRFites would believe a direct investment in domestic institutions (whether public or private) would yield a better return on that capital.

[NRao]

I doubt "full (100%) TOT" type of talk. There is no such thing. What people verbally say versus what they agree to legally sign are two very different things. There are usually a lot of caveats in fine print, and we are talking of a complex contract running into thousands of pages. Let's wait and see in the coming decades what the Rafale deal actually encompasses.

+1 to that ! ..i ll have less TOT and more in house technology development ..that "TOT" word should be banned ..its just an oxymoron !

Man!!!!

Internet!!!!

Ban ToT, Do not believe "full (100%) TOT", whatever.

The topic was getting source code, there was doubt about getting source code. And, when the article was produced then comes the googly.

Granted there is nothing called 100% ToT, etc. But India could still get the source code she wants - matter of being able to pay the cost for it. And the cost does not have to be in terms of $, it can be political costs, trade, ................ Bananas!!

[member_26622]

One question - Can we get the Spectra from Rafale and put it on Tejas - paying like 0.5 billion $ ?

Rafale nose size is limited with the dual air intake position and guessing Tejas nose will have similar sizing for main radar sensor. Other sensors sizing and countermeasure does not look like a big deal and smaller sized Tejas will do better anyways.

I really don't see any upside in Rafale other than Spectra. Platinum and Gold standard is F-22/35 electronic+sensor suite but willing to settle for a bronze 'french' Spectra version. Better option would have been getting Israel supply us with F-35 suite but that might take 5 years ...

[brar_w]

That's Mac's image of the US DOD's costing breakdown for the various technical parameters. I've posted it a couple of times on this forum based on his work.

[member_28722]

The current line is 'rated' for 12 aircraft per year IIRC. It can probably be increased further if the backing for the same were to come from the MoD and IAF.

Yes, but the projected delivery from public sources is being slated at 8, max 10. If IAF increases Mk1 orders post FOC then I am all for taking it up, till then it will be good if this stays at 8 and Mk2 development speeds up.

The AMCA's induction should coincide with the start of Su-30MKI retirements, long way off. As for our current requirements, both the PAK FA and F-35 are available off-the-shelf in the same timeframe as we're receiving the Rafale.

Not as direct replacement no. But its worth examining as a limited acquisition (40-60 units) for high end tasks (SEAD, anti-AWACS, EW, ISR) that the existing fleet is poorly suited for. You can use the Rafale for that, but it has the basic 'non-fixable' limitation of a non-VLO airframe. Same off-the-shelf acquisition cost for both BTW.

Alternatively, the IAF could manage with an early off-the-shelf order for Russian built PAK FAs. Nowhere as reliable as Western platforms, but at least the basic design delivers far more capability than the Rafale.

I highly doubt we will ever go for F-35 unless we decide to dump PAKFA.

CAS for the future will consist of PGM employment from medium-to-high altitudes targeted by high resolution high fidelity EO systems. A mission profile in which, the Tejas+Litening G4+Paveway II/Sudarshan is just as capable as the Mirage 2000, and more so than the Jaguar and MiG-27.

I think we would need TV-guided PGMs for actual CAS. Most of our ammunition are laser guided.

- The PLAAF will be inducting hundreds of 5th gen fighters regardless. Whatever the China's limitations may be, manufacturing at a large scale is not one of them.
- J-31 might be out-of-budget for the Pakistanis for the moment, but a decade from the same may not apply. If nothing else, they'll be able to get it on credit from the Chinese, who'll be doubly eager to see India off-balance.

If the J-31 is not at least F-35 then we should not be much worried. With AESA on all our AWACS and front line aircraft, detecting such aircraft should not be a problem. Also any J-31 inducted in this decade will be to F-35 what Su27 is to Su30MKI, so not too worried. Realistically we won't be much behind PLAAF w.r.t 5th gen induction.

The Rafale's delivery schedule has already been laid out in the MMRCA contract. One squadron delivered off-the-shelf starting 36 months from contract signing and ending 48 months after. So the first squadron will be up by 2019. Production at HAL is to span eight years IIRC. So domestically assembled Rafales will be delivered between 2019-2026, starting probably at less than 8 aircraft per year, increasing to perhaps 16 annually (by 2023 or so).

Totally depends upon how quickly the line is built. Su30 started in 90s, two decades later we can expect the technology to be absorbed faster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Going a bit OT but IMHO, I would rather that we focus on completing Kaveri:
(a) Develop variants which can be used in LCA Mk2 and develop it further so that we Su30MKI comes up for engine change in second half of next decade, it is replaced with Kaveri. Use Rafale deal as leverage to JV this with Snecma inputs if needed. This should be our primary focus
(b) Develop the 5th gen variant of Kaveri engine which would power AMCA and FGFA also

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider Rafale as a platform equal to medium weight Su30MKI, if not better and more reliable. Ideally we should be getting 300 of these instead of 300 Su30MKI, but costs and reality of world keeps us at disadvantage.
J-31 in its current form is a 4.8 gen aircraft, so if its inducted in this side of 2020 by PLAAF then I would rather that our pilots are seated in mature 4.5 Gen platforms Super Sukhoi or Rafale, both of which are superior in capabilities to any 4th gen the PLAAF are going to have in their inventory for near future.

[srai]

The current line is 'rated' for 12 aircraft per year IIRC. It can probably be increased further if the backing for the same were to come from the MoD and IAF.

Yes, but the projected delivery from public sources is being slated at 8, max 10. If IAF increases Mk1 orders post FOC then I am all for taking it up, till then it will be good if this stays at 8 and Mk2 development speeds up.

...

Here is a public source that states 12/year: HAL to build 8, then 12, Tejas fighters each year

The ministry of defence has sanctioned Rs 1,556 cr for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year
Ajai Shukla | Bangalore December 30, 2013 Last Updated at 00:19 IST

...

The ministry of defence (MoD) has sanctioned Rs 1,556 crore for HAL's high-tech production line that aims to build 12 Tejas fighters each year. The funds will come from the IAF (25 per cent); the navy (25 per cent), while HAL will put up half the money.
...
"... By the end of next year four Tejas will be in production. In 2015-16, we will build six fighters, and in 2016-17, we will build nine. We are targeting an annual capacity of 12 Tejas fighters," says V Sridharan, the project manager hand-chosen to build the LCA. Earlier, he set up HAL's production line for the Hawk trainer.
...
That was the pattern while building the Hawk. After building just two aircraft in the first year, seven were built in the second year. In the third year, HAL built 18 Hawks, and the remaining 14 Hawks were produced within months.
...

This is what the production rate plan is:

• 4 -> 2014-15
• 6 -> 2015-16
• 9 -> 2016-17
• 12 -> 2017-18
• 12 per year post 2017-18

[kmc_chacko]

So many fighters development programmes are running in China JF-17, J-10, J-11, J-15, J-16, J-20, J-31, is this possible?