Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 11 Nov 2014 08:07

^ It is possible if China is providing the money and Russian engineers and scientists are doing the work in Chinese factories. The Russians have more talent, designs and ideas than they know what to do with but have no money.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 11 Nov 2014 09:56

JF-17, J-10, J-11 are done and dusted from a development perspective. J-15 and J-16 are incremental efforts like our Jaguar. So they are concentrating on only 2 types.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 13 Nov 2014 00:11

^^^^ You would still need multiple production lines to produce so many copies
Bandar: Mig21 upgrade
J-10: Lavi (either steal or sold from Israelis)
J-11: Su-27 copy
J-15: Su33 copy
J-16: Su30MKK copy
The J-16 is suppossed to be the most advanced of these and it lags considerably behind the Super Sukhoi.
Also as of 2013 they have been having problems in WS-10 (essentially an AL31 copy). This is after the WS-10 has been in development for 25 years with all the supposed Chinese engineering superiority compared to ours.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 6-2013.asp
-----------------
On a technology level, Rafale and Super Sukhoi are equal (Rafale may be slightly better). If we get Rafale then with our current inventory, we would still retain the quality edge against PLAAF by a good mile.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Nov 2014 19:47

The new defence minister must think far outside the box

Interesting data points:

Of this year's capital allocation of Rs 94,588 crore, over 90 per cent is pre-committed towards instalments for contracts concluded in previous years. Instead of grandstanding over unaffordable purchases like the $20-billion Rafale fighter, Parrikar should initiate a project to increase the operational availability of the Sukhoi-30MKI fleet from the current 50 per cent, to a more respectable 80 per cent.

That alone will put 80 Su-30MKIs into the sky, dramatically eroding the argument for the Rafale.

Simultaneously, a strategic decision to promote the indigenous Tejas fighter would implement the "Make in India" directive, while also making up fleet numbers with cheap, utility fighters.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Nov 2014 20:03

^^^

It is very likely the Rafale deal will languish for a couple of more years in order to clear backlog of purchases (or make room for smaller purchases). There is no funds for it at this time.

India's Defense Spending Boost Won't Be As High, Sources Say

NEW DELHI — Despite calls by India’s new defense minister for a 20 percent boost in spending, sources in the Foreign Ministry say that number will more likely be 10 percent due to New Delhi’s financial conditions.

In a note to the Finance Ministry last week, the Defence Ministry sought a $7.5 billion jump over the existing allocation of $35 billion, announced by the outgoing United Progressive Alliance government in February.

The outgoing government allocated $14.93 billion in the Capital Head for fresh weapons and equipment. An MoD source said the bulk of the allocations in the Capital Head are used for paying for past contracts, leaving very little money for buying new weaponry and equipment.

Also, under Indian procurement norms, the government pays for 10 percent of a contract up front and the rest is spread over the following years. Since India needs to finalize $20 billion in contracts in the next year, it must spend $2 billion in additional money to cover its upfront costs.

“There is a need for substantial increase in the defense budget to cater for both committed liabilities and for new schemes. The pressure on the defense budget has been acute in recent times, to the extent that around 97 percent of the capital acquisition budget was [due to] committed liabilities, leaving very little for the new contracts,” said Laxman Kumar Behera, research fellow at the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses.

The MoD needs to finalize contracts worth $20 billion in the 2014-2015 timeframe, including:

■$12 billion for the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program, with Dassault as the preferred bidder.

■$1.5 billion for eight mine countermeasures ships from Kangnam Corp., South Korea.

■$1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers.

■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.

■$833 million for 15 Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters.

■$600 million for light howitzer guns from BAE Systems.

■$350 million for 1,418 Israeli-made thermal imaging sights for T-72 tanks.

■$250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries.

■$200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS.

A Navy officer said India needs to sharply increase its budget spending to match the increased spending by China, which has an annual defense budget of $132 billion, nearly four times that of India. The officer said the optimum level of defense spending should be over 3 percent of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), compared to its current level of less than 2 percent.

“By a rough yardstick, India needs to spend approximately 2-2.5 percent of GDP consistently on defense so that it is able to stay at par with the modernization curve,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Rahul Bhonsle, now a defense analyst. “In the last five budget years 2010-11 onwards, including the interim budget for 2014-15, [spending] has been below 2 percent of the GDP. This means for the next five years, there is a need to spend on the higher side, that is 2.5 percent of the GDP, and then a review could be carried out.”

However, Amit Cowshish, retired MoD financial adviser and defense analyst, said there is no “optimum” level of defense spending.

“Some people do advocate that [the] defense budget should be pegged at 3 percent of the GDP, but there is no empirical study to establish that this would be the ideal level of funding,” Cowshish said. “Since there is no ideal/optimum level of funding, there is no way of saying what the ‘lag’ is.”

However, MoD is unlikely to get the increased funds as demanded, given the tight fiscal health of the country, forcing the MoD to rejig the purchase and even put some projects on hold, the MoD source said.

“Some smart contract negotiations will have to be undertaken to delay a few contracts such as the heavy lift helicopters, pay lower contracting margins to large projects as the Rafale [MMRCA] and cut back on projects as the indigenous aircraft carrier,” Bhonsle said. “However, any cutback in artillery guns and submarine procurements are not recommended.”

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Nov 2014 20:17

^^^"“Some smart contract negotiations will have to be undertaken to delay a few contracts such as the heavy lift helicopters, pay lower contracting margins to large projects as the Rafale [MMRCA] and cut back on projects as the indigenous aircraft carrier,” Bhonsle said. “However, any cutback in artillery guns and submarine procurements are not recommended.”

I'd bet the retired ACMs and Admirals will have a different story.

This story also puts the Rafale deal in perspective at ~@20 billion lifetime, the ~!0% down payment eats up 100% of spend required on the other items.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Nov 2014 21:01

srai,

Thanks for that article.

This "dispensation"(?) is taking a totally different view: Reduce the deficit and increase the growth of the economy at the same time. IF this strategy works things should be in a better shape.

Looks like there are 4 nations that have essentially "pledged" (if I can all it that) around $30 billion each - in investments in India. that is a good start.

Not going to be easy for the wastage of the previous government spanning 10 years.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Nov 2014 01:00

■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.

Can 1 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot?

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Nov 2014 02:47

koti wrote:
■$1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters.

■$1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters.
Can 20 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot?

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.

Champagne tastes, beer budget.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Nov 2014 05:19

Cosmo_R wrote:
koti wrote:...

Can 20 Apache do what 10 LUH cannot?

Just a funny thought. No offense to anyone. It is relevant in someway to the Tejas instead of Rafale school of thought.
Which I am not a pupil of.
Champagne tastes, beer budget.

More like moonshine budget

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 14 Nov 2014 06:25

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:^^^^ You would still need multiple production lines to produce so many copies
Bandar: Mig21 upgrade
J-10: Lavi (either steal or sold from Israelis)
J-11: Su-27 copy
J-15: Su33 copy
J-16: Su30MKK copy
The J-16 is suppossed to be the most advanced of these and it lags considerably behind the Super Sukhoi.
Also as of 2013 they have been having problems in WS-10 (essentially an AL31 copy). This is after the WS-10 has been in development for 25 years with all the supposed Chinese engineering superiority compared to ours.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 6-2013.asp
-----------------
On a technology level, Rafale and Super Sukhoi are equal (Rafale may be slightly better). If we get Rafale then with our current inventory, we would still retain the quality edge against PLAAF by a good mile.

alexis wrote:JF-17, J-10, J-11 are done and dusted from a development perspective. J-15 and J-16 are incremental efforts like our Jaguar. So they are concentrating on only 2 types.

If JF-17, J-10 & J-11 are done then why this A, B, C alphabetical inductions are going on ? isn't that development ? isn't upgradation is different from development. As for as present status they haven't stopped production of J-10s & J-11s. J-10B is newly developed version production started from 2013 onwards.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Nov 2014 06:46

'Smart negotiations' while importing arms and cutting down on indigenous stuff. What great advice to tide over the fund crunch. What we need is something like a strategic defence review where deals like the Rafale and Apache can be culled wholesale.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Nov 2014 07:07

Re the Chinese working on multiple fighter programmes concurrently, one has to keep in mind that they have a much bigger defence industry. With their big power mindset they were making bombers, ICBMs etc even when their GDP was close to or behind India(when we were content with just screwdrivering a few basic systems).

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Nov 2014 08:01

abhik wrote:Re the Chinese working on multiple fighter programmes concurrently, one has to keep in mind that they have a much bigger defence industry. With their big power mindset they were making bombers, ICBMs etc even when their GDP was close to or behind India(when we were content with just screwdrivering a few basic systems).

They also had multiple aircraft companies, even multiple helicopter companies, that were in direct competition with each other even back in those days. With our apologetic, non-violent mindset, we had and still have only one and that too with near-zero accountability which has naturally achieved near-zero results. All the tech that has been given to China's private companies for being the world's factory, from state-of-the-art production lines, chips, computers, cars, airliners, ships to bullet trains is transferred immediately to its weapons factories. We are only now thinking of doing something like that.

kit · Post by **kit** » 14 Nov 2014 19:01

kit wrote:
nik wrote:@ 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 !

That feels great !!

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 147448.cms

DRDO floats idea to set up fund to support defence start-ups

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 16 Nov 2014 17:42

The delivery date for the Mistrals was November 14. France is dithering under pressure from Anglo Saxon alliance. Russia has threatened to claim compensation and damages by the end of the month.
This will have repercussions on the credibility of the French to deliver when pressurised by Americans.

Will · Post by **Will** » 16 Nov 2014 17:54

With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 16 Nov 2014 18:50

Will wrote:With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?

rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once.. frankly speaking,no country on the earth is so kind to share top tech of 5g bird with india,so india can not learn much from russia t50.........india would find it will get little from t50 project,although it invests billion dollars. india had better invest billion.dollar for bettet labs and experiment infrastructures for its scientists and engineers,instead of order 200 rafaels.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 16 Nov 2014 19:03

chalo ji,

finally you find something in common with our MUTUs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Nov 2014 19:24

ravi_g wrote:chalo ji,

finally you find something in common with our MUTUs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Nov 2014 20:37

Liu wrote:
Will wrote:With every passing month the Rafael deal begins to sound more and more of a bad idea. If the deal had been signed two years back it would have still made sense. With no end in sight, who knows when the first aircraft will fly in IAF colours. The world has already begun to move on in technology and by the time the first plane comes in the world will have well and truly moved on. For 20 Billion it seems to make less n less sense. But what r the options besides the LCA MK2 which is liable to turn into another saga. What are the realistic options to get the numbers up?
rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once.. frankly speaking,no country on the earth is so kind to share top tech of 5g bird with india,so india can not learn much from russia t50.........india would find it will get little from t50 project,although it invests billion dollars. india had better invest billion.dollar for bettet labs and experiment infrastructures for its scientists and engineers,instead of order 200 rafaels.

While I agree with your post in general (if you had gone back in this thread that is what some of us have been saying for about a year now), I really do not think the J-20/31 is there as yet and will not be a good (not great) 5th gen until around 2025+ There a lot more to a "5th Gen" plane than looks, RCS and super-cruise. Thankfully. China has yet to demonstrate other aspects of the "5th gen" planes. China is long way off.

But, I agree, that the Rafale, in its current thinking, is a waste of funds.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 16 Nov 2014 21:14

Come on. Rafale is miles ahead of so-called Chinese "5 gen" aircraft. Pound for pound it is the best bomb carrier around. Its avionics won't be matched by Chinese for a long time and a faceted shape covered in ram coating will give them only so much "stealth" while their noisy engines will nullify the rest to a great extent. Forget about supercruise. And combat availability. Yes they will get there sooner than us but it's a long way off. In the meantime, we can't wait for our R n D to give us anything to bomb Chengdu with. It is needed fast and our potential adversaries fear it.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 16 Nov 2014 22:31

Liu wrote: rafael and ef2000 will be outperformanced by 5g birds soon ,because f35/j20/j31 all are to enter into service during 2015-2020. so.rafael can not play a role of spearblade for india airforce any more,even if india order rafael at once..

What are the capabilities of J-20/J-31 that make it superior to Rafale?

Radar? No
Engine? No
Avionics? No
Sensor Fusion? No
Missiles? No
RCS/Stealth? Based on what?

Why is China still inducting large numbers of J-10/J-11 if the J-20/J-31 will be inducted soon?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Nov 2014 23:06

I don't like the J-20. But I think it will supercruise. Also I would give it radar advantage over Rafale. Everything else is in Rafale's favour. I would buy a Rafale over the J-20. Rafale is expensive, but a beauty.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Nov 2014 23:35

As we type the rafale is worth it (keep the cost aside - that is a different matter).

By 2025 or so, the rafale will be relatively outdated - compared to today.

And, the J-20 would be more mature.

So, I think, the relevant question is which one would you buy in 2025 (or so, do not hold me to that year).

IF in 2025 or so the rafale is still preferred, then why the AMCA?

(Both are thinking-aloud)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2014 00:01

indranilroy wrote:I don't like the J-20. But I think it will supercruise. Also I would give it radar advantage over Rafale. Everything else is in Rafale's favour. I would buy a Rafale over the J-20. Rafale is expensive, but a beauty.

The tradeoff is quite obvious, but then there is no J-20 option anyhow. Super cruise would obviously depend upon the engine, but some suggest that the J-20 is a long range strike fighter that could also do that role in the maritime domain. That would be the logical thing for china as that type of an aircraft is what they require much more then to replace the front line Flanker family, especially since they have the option of the Su-35 for the future. It appears the J-31 would be a more conventional fighter but it is clear that propulsion would determine a lot of the capability, and that is why a fighter designed around very firm and secure propulsion plans will always perform closer to what is expected of it.

The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 00:07

NRao wrote:As we type the rafale is worth it (keep the cost aside - that is a different matter).

By 2025 or so, the rafale will be relatively outdated - compared to today.

And, the J-20 would be more mature.

So, I think, the relevant question is which one would you buy in 2025 (or so, do not hold me to that year).

IF in 2025 or so the rafale is still preferred, then why the AMCA?

(Both are thinking-aloud)

DRDO says LCA is not late because it took 20 years to develop and all good aircraft take 20 years to develop. When did the clock start on the AMCA: which year are we in today?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 00:16

brar_w wrote: The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)

FGFA and Rafale have different roles. How stealthy will FGFA be once its carrying 9 tonnes of gifts for our friendly neighbours? Rafale is a proven system and it is highly reliable and dependable, as well as being lethal.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2014 00:29

eklavya wrote:
brar_w wrote: The problem with the rafale, and in fact that is the only problem i see is that once everything is said and done, the cost to acquire (not including the Life cycle costing which is immaterial and independent) is very very close to what the cost would be to acquire genuine 5th generation aircraft either through the western option or the russian option. At 5 Billion R&D and a 110 million a pop flyaway the cost to acquire a 120 or so PAKFA's would be about the same as the cost to acquire the Rafale given the way the deal is structured (TOT). Sure, the french paid a lot in time and money to develop the capability, but ultimately its still a 4.5 generation aircraft, at a time when 5th generation fighter are going to begin to proliferate. It appears to me at least that the cost of TOT is a lot higher then what would be favorable to the IAF and the MOD. If that is the case, then its much better to up the R&D on the PAKFA and seek Transfer of technology from that program and just buy plain french produced rafales from a proven, developed production line or water down the deal to assembling house without extensive transfer of IP. Now a lot of this is obviously the making of the MOD given the long long delay in acquisition but I guess what is done is done. The return on investment simply isn't worth the expenditure given the timelines involved, for a fighter that fits nearly perfectly into what the IAF really needs for a M2K replacement (imho)
FGFA and Rafale have different roles. How stealthy will FGFA be once its carrying 9 tonnes of gifts for our friendly neighbours? Rafale is a proven system and it is highly reliable and dependable, as well as being lethal.

I assume the PAKFA would have a tactically significant multi-mission internal payload and that the IAF/MOD will get to keep and use the IP whose development is paid for by it. Anyhow that is besides the point, you are bringing technical points to a financial argument. I am aware of the technical merits of the Rafale, and have gone so far as to say that it is by far the best aircraft to replace the mission set in the MRCA. My argument is about the cost of the deal and how to bring it down to a level that can be easily justified for the sort of capability being obtained. Like I said, a decade ago when things like multi-spectral Jammers, AESA radars and IRST's had not proliferated (capable ones anyhow) or gone beyond a few users that sort of cost for tech transfer would have been justified, but in my humble opinion that the MOD is paying "5th" generation premiums for this sort of a deal that won't materialize in decent strength (squadrons) before early 2020's. If it is about where the forex goes then my argument is that we reduce the financial impact of the rafale deal (by still keeping the squadron strength issue in mind i.e. acquire the same number of rafales, just do more from france and look to assemble in house) and make strategic acquisitions elsewhere and in technologies that will have a longer pay off (5th generation technolgies such as those being worked on at the PAKFA and other products outside of fighters)

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 00:35

^^^^
The cost of the Rafale is more than justified by the capability it brings. Certainly we should squeeze the French down to the last cent, and then a bit more (we are in a buyer's market; its kind of obvious).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2014 00:40

eklavya wrote:^^^^
The cost of the Rafale is more than justified by the capability it brings. Certainly we should squeeze the French down to the last cent, and then a bit more (we are in a buyer's market; its kind of obvious).

The capability would be the same regardless of whether the deal is structured to cost 10 billion - 12 billion or 20 billion or higher, heck the capability wouldn't change if we demanded that Francois Hollande himself oversee the activities of HAL while the jet is in production

The rise in the price of the rafale deal is largely attributable to the depth of the technology transfer and IP being sought, and that is the point I am making. The french know exactly to the last euro what a Rafale costs to produce given a production number (within the limits of the line), that is projectable. It is also easy to calculate the learning curve based on experience for how long HAL will take to get to a certain level of proficiency of making it. The variable is the TOT, and that is what is going to cost a lot and where much of the cost analysis is going to focus on, and ultimately it is what is risking a significant delay (over and above) that in a way exaggerates the entire problem the MRCA was crafted to solve (squadron depletion) in the first place.What must also be kept in mind is that Transfer of technology is almost never for what is in the "pipeline", as I have never seen a deal structured to include those elements. No nation will sell its future IP, or "LAB" products unless they are super desperate. So you get to negotiate on what was proposed in the MRCA, whatever goodies the french are working on in secret on the future, would have to be procured as upgrades (like the rest of the world) or TOT for them worked upon at the time they are to be incorporated.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 00:52

^^^^^
We will pay extra for manufacturing it in India (same story for Su-30 MKI), but I am not sure if there is an explicit price attached to the ToT / IP being transferred. The cost of setting up a manufacturing line has to be paid if we want to make them in India. If we make them in India with deep ToT, then we will be able to maintain them more easily, etc. (one hopes)!

Francois Hollande will need a new job soon, so maybe we can offer him a production supervisor vacancy at HAL to sweeten the deal for the French.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2014 01:00

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
We will pay extra for manufacturing it in India (same story for Su-30 MKI), but I am not sure if there is an explicit price attached to the ToT / IP being transferred. The cost of setting up a manufacturing line has to be paid if we want to make them in India. If we make them in India with deep ToT, then we will be able to maintain them more easily, etc. (one hopes)!

Francois Hollande will need a new job soon, so maybe we can offer him a production supervisor vacancy at HAL to sweeten the deal for the French.

I am aware of setup costs, but those are also dependent upon the level of technology that has been transferred and the level of ultimate in house production sought. That is number dependent as it is in all manufacturing. The main cost rise is when you sit down and hammer out the technologies you want to totally own and have freedom on, that is the hard thing to hammer out and agree upon. Like I said, the cost to open a production line for the Rafale in India can be relatively easily calculated based on historic costs for both western and soviet lines, and what the various cost breakdowns were for french manufacturing. It is not going to cause a sudden spike in the overall program cost because experts are usually quite good at running those numbers / predicting them to a high degree of certainty. Now, if this were the early 2000's, when the AESA laden F-2's , F-15's. F-16's and F-22 raptors were just entering frontline service (only a handful delivered to test squadrons with a mid decade IOC planned) then one could justify the cost of paying 20 Billion for 100+ 4.5 gen fighters that brought you those technologies (multi spectral jamming, AESA radar, HMS etc) but around 2020, you will reach a critical global trend where the world would be producing and ultimately procuring as many 5th generation jets as 4th generation jets and even the 4th generation jets being procured (The Su-35's, Gripen NG's, Typhoon Tranch 3's, J-10's etc) would pretty much all carry as standard things as an AESA radar, Active A2A missiles, Multi-spectral integrated Jammers, IR based MAWS (F-16, Gripen and the Su-35 already have these iirc) etc. Like I mentioned earlier, the total cost to buy the jets, acquire of technology has to be on a curve and dependent upon whether the aircraft (whichever MRCA candidate it is) is procured in 1995, 2005, 2015 or 2020 with the same technology. One cannot charge the same amount of TOT cost (hypothetically speaking) for an F-16 Block 60 with a brand new cockpit, AESA radar, Active multi spectral Falcon Edge integrated Jammer, Modern Integrated IRST/FLIR in 2000's as in 2015, because in 2015, everyone else has these things integrated or are on a fairly certain path to get them integrated.

Similarly there has to some factoring in cost and ROI when one is paying 5th generation prices (as evident form the PAKFA example) for procuring and acquiring 4.5 generation Technology in 5th generation timelines. At what point do you step back and start trading off 5 billion in TOT (as an example) for technology acquisition elsewhere (such as the 5th gen PAKFA, or other non fighter related military IP acquisition) given that the technology being acquired has a shorter ROI because it essentially has been standardized by pretty much every other product in the category.At what point does one say, perhaps I should use the 5 billion to LEAP one entire generation and invest it somewhere else, and just license produce the rafale in the most cost-effective fashion so as to provide the IAF with the amount of fighters it needs, the basic underlying reason of the MRCA exercise in the first place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Nov 2014 01:16

DRDO says LCA is not late because it took 20 years to develop and all good aircraft take 20 years to develop. When did the clock start on the AMCA: which year are we in today?

The AMCA team is looking for an engine as we type. They are expected to produce 2 prototypes - I think by 2018-19. And production around 2025-30 time frame. (needless to state I am bullish) Chander IIRC mentioned the AMCA will be a 5.5 Gen (I have no clue what a 5.0 is, so I have absolutely no clue what a 5.5 Gen is. But, he said that. So, expect the AMCA to be a whole Gen ahead of the Rafale when it comes out.)

But, the question still stands, if the Rafale is so good, then why a AMCA?

Again, the Rafale(or PAK-FA) as filler - perfect.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 01:22

^^^^^
Because a filler in hand is better than two in the bush.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Nov 2014 01:28

So, just buy from the country of origin and forget the ToT, etc. That to me is an OK idea.

But it still does not address the compatibility issue that started this discussion. You can fill, but are the fillers good enough in 2025-30? Not the quantity, the quality. IF the fillers are good enough to take on the challenge China throws in 2025, then why even bother with a FGFA and an AMCA? Juts produce more MKIs and rafales and be happy.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Nov 2014 02:05

If it is an established fact that in the strategic sense it is indeed a "filler" for better things to come (AMCA, LCA MKii) then the IAF should be looking to pay "filler prices" for it, and not pay as much as or more then what it will affectively pay for the PAKFA that is supposed to be the most cutting edge 5th generation aircraft in the region for a long time to come. At a flyaway of 100-120 million USD it is good value, especially since western kit makes up for this through low LCC's.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Nov 2014 02:08

eklavya wrote:^^^^^
Because a filler in hand is better than two in the bush.

Have you considered opening the MiG-21 and M2K lines? Plenty of birds in hand.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Nov 2014 02:20

The PLAAF is not going to have only J-20/J-31s in 2030s. Will it? They are still developing and producing a lot of J-1x series.

We need a large dosage of LCA, Rafale, Su-30s to form the base of our pyramid. The 5th gen fighters will form the top of this pyramid. The Rafale and the FGFA are critical to India not just for the fighting capability but for the production technologies that they will bring to us for our AMCA.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 17 Nov 2014 02:21

NRao wrote:So, just buy from the country of origin and forget the ToT, etc. That to me is an OK idea.

But it still does not address the compatibility issue that started this discussion. You can fill, but are the fillers good enough in 2025-30? Not the quantity, the quality. IF the fillers are good enough to take on the challenge China throws in 2025, then why even bother with a FGFA and an AMCA? Juts produce more MKIs and rafales and be happy.

The time for the FGFA and AMCA will also come; now its the time for Rafale. The generations will overlap, its natural.