Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Mar 2015 19:41

The Rafale has a very good chance in Qatar as well.

Did not know that the IAF was willing to fund them too!!!!

How many are they being funded for?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Mar 2015 19:45

Humor aside, Qatar can afford any price for its military defense kit. Just look at the HUGE purchases they made in the US last year. Some reports indicate a potential F-15 SE and Rafale split. They are also currently negotiating at least 3 E-7 AEW aircrafts that were announced earlier.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 03 Mar 2015 03:30

If Qatar opts for Rafale then it is a good chance for the IAF to buy their Mirage 2000's. We will have a squadron worth to replace the other aircrafts being retired.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Mar 2015 03:51

Vipul wrote:If Qatar opts for Rafale then it is a good chance for the IAF to buy their Mirage 2000's. We will have a squadron worth to replace the other aircrafts being retired.

Thank you Vipul! I knew we'd come full circle after 10 years.

In fact, I had suggested this was going to come up as Plan B, earlier in this thread. And, it is a sad testimony to the utter lack of defense planning and political expediency in 2001 when the IAF simply wanted 126 new build M2Ks. However, since that could not be cast as a follow on order, the ghost of Bofors arose and you know we would do anything not to jeopardize the first familia.

JMVHT, the Qatari Mirages are going to need updates/upgrades and the Frenchies will make us pay through the nose as in $40-50MM per.

We would be better served by a war footing approach to LCA MK2 with a built in expansion to a F-16 size fighter in a MK3 version that allows us breathing room and numbers to segue into AMCA. Then of course, there is HAL but that's another story.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Mar 2015 11:10

You know the idea that Shiv and I mooted a decade ago,best replacement for an old MIG-21....new MIG-21s!",seems to come to mind every now and again.Tongue in cheek of course,but with some reasoning. There is no aircraft available right now as a cheap replacement for the retiring MIG-21s other than the Gripen,MIG-29s and LCAs,which have yet to pass final tests and with an abysmally slow production rate.
M-2000 upgrades are being done at horrendous expxense,more than $50M /aircraft! How on earth was that passed when new MIG-29Ks for the IN were available for just $32M and MIG-29 deep upgrades ,all 60+ for only under $1B?

The time has really come to bite the bullet. Unlike the IN,where the naval design team is firmly under IN control,similarly unless the IAF is also allowed a deep involvement right from the start into every aspect of aircraft and helo design,since it is the end user,the IAF's ultra-expensive requirements will prove to be a millstone around the services' neck. One cannot understand why there has not ben greater ass-kicking up the LCA/HAL's team to deliver on the umpteenth revised schedule for the LCA. HAL too has been selective in its vociferous support for indigenisation.

When it comes to the BT,it is all up in arms to supply the IAF with a paper plane (to replace the world's best trainer,the Pilatus) which has never ever flown,that too on the abysmal track record of the "crashing" success of the HT-32 and the IJT,which surely must be the world's first "stealth trainer",because no one can locate it at all!
Such frenzied support for the HTT is inexplicable when it has kept mum over the need for a firang MMRCA to be "licence built",when the LCA MK-1 has attained IOC,MK-2 in development and comes in at low cost! When the SU-30MKIs are also being built at home by HAL,why has it not proposed that just these two aircraft (plus stealth aircraft in the future,FGFA/AMCA) could serve the IAF's needs for the future? Is this selective policy due to the irresistible scent of umpteen freebie visits to the fleshpots of Paris for HAL/DRDO boffins ?

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Mar 2015 11:53

maybe it should be rephrased as a plane like the mig 21 for the 21st century ! mig 21 does not fit the bill on any count ! India is surrounded by potential enemies that boast of contemporary fighters and good air defenses !!

KumarA · Post by **KumarA** » 03 Mar 2015 12:06

Cosmo_R wrote: Thank you Vipul! I knew we'd come full circle after 10 years. In fact, I had suggested this was going to come up as Plan B, earlier in this thread. And, it is a sad testimony to the utter lack of defense planning and political expediency in 2001 when the IAF simply wanted 126 new build M2Ks. However, since that could not be cast as a follow on order, the ghost of Bofors arose and you know we would do anything not to jeopardize the first familia.

JMVHT, the Qatari Mirages are going to need updates/upgrades and the Frenchies will make us pay through the nose as in $40-50MM per.

We would be better served by a war footing approach to LCA MK2 with a built in expansion to a F-16 size fighter in a MK3 version that allows us breathing room and numbers to segue into AMCA. Then of course, there is HAL but that's another story.

What happened to M2Ks in UAE Air Force? They had quite advanced ones - M2K-9 variants with latest radar and Shaheen missiles. The inventory of new ones was 30-35 while equal number of older ones were also available. IAF negotiated for a while with UAE to acquire them, then came Rafale and the negotiation broke down. It will not be a bad idea to acquire these and augment the M2K force. They will buy 15-20 years in medium class while LCA-2 and AMCA are being developed. As far as Su-30MKI is concerned, there is a limit to how many heavy fighters you can have in your air force. The Su-30MKI number can be increased max to 320-345 and anything above would be a counter purpose.

KumarA · Post by **KumarA** » 03 Mar 2015 12:11

Philip wrote:You know the idea that Shiv and I mooted a decade ago,best replacement for an old MIG-21....new MIG-21s!",seems to come to mind every now and again.Tongue in cheek of course,but with some reasoning. There is no aircraft available right now as a cheap replacement for the retiring MIG-21s other than the Gripen,MIG-29s and LCAs,which have yet to pass final tests and with an abysmally slow production rate.
M-2000 upgrades are being done at horrendous expxense,more than $50M /aircraft! How on earth was that passed when new MIG-29Ks for the IN were available for just $32M and MIG-29 deep upgrades ,all 60+ for only under $1B?

The time has really come to bite the bullet. Unlike the IN,where the naval design team is firmly under IN control,similarly unless the IAF is also allowed a deep involvement right from the start into every aspect of aircraft and helo design,since it is the end user,the IAF's ultra-expensive requirements will prove to be a millstone around the services' neck. One cannot understand why there has not ben greater ass-kicking up the LCA/HAL's team to deliver on the umpteenth revised schedule for the LCA. HAL too has been selective in its vociferous support for indigenisation.

When it comes to the BT,it is all up in arms to supply the IAF with a paper plane (to replace the world's best trainer,the Pilatus) which has never ever flown,that too on the abysmal track record of the "crashing" success of the HT-32 and the IJT,which surely must be the world's first "stealth trainer",because no one can locate it at all!
Such frenzied support for the HTT is inexplicable when it has kept mum over the need for a firang MMRCA to be "licence built",when the LCA MK-1 has attained IOC,MK-2 in development and comes in at low cost! When the SU-30MKIs are also being built at home by HAL,why has it not proposed that just these two aircraft (plus stealth aircraft in the future,FGFA/AMCA) could serve the IAF's needs for the future? Is this selective policy due to the irresistible scent of umpteen freebie visits to the fleshpots of Paris for HAL/DRDO boffins ?

LCA MK-1 production can be increased if there is another order and that would suffice for this category. There is no other need for any light combat fighter other than LCA in IAF. MiG-21/MiG-29/Gripen all can look for other shores as Indian market for them has closed now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Mar 2015 12:35

That is what the majority of thinkers are suggesting,but why is there resistance in the official quarters? NO urgency visible reg. LCA prod acceleration,spl. task force teams to achieve results. The IAF seems content to simply wait for HAL to deliver "as per ususal",so that they can claim non-delivery of the LCA and lay their hands on their latest French toy! I agree,in a fleet of around 800+ aircraft,about 350+ MKIs would be sufficient,provided the rest of the fleet did not consist of legacy aircraft tied up with string and duct tape. Just imagine that the MIG-21 Bisons will soldier on until 2025!

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Mar 2015 13:48

Older mirage 2000 with quatar might go to India while uae one most likely to Pakistan. .so india should gun for the uae ones if they plan to retire their mirages

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Mar 2015 15:12

Philip wrote:That is what the majority of thinkers are suggesting,but why is there resistance in the official quarters? NO urgency visible reg. LCA prod acceleration,spl. task force teams to achieve results. The IAF seems content to simply wait for HAL to deliver "as per ususal",so that they can claim non-delivery of the LCA and lay their hands on their latest French toy! I agree,in a fleet of around 800+ aircraft,about 350+ MKIs would be sufficient,provided the rest of the fleet did not consist of legacy aircraft tied up with string and duct tape. Just imagine that the MIG-21 Bisons will soldier on until 2025!

Philip, your concern about Tejas production is quite hilarious...because it is not the Tejas that you're worried about but the induction of Rafale; that IAF may actually go for a modern aircraft from another country but Russia. In the above post, you show-case your concern about Tejas production but don't fail to mention the number of Su-30 MKI go from planned 272 to 350+....not to mention the absolute nonsense about IAF complaining lack of Tejas production as justification for Rafale. Something which Indian Army did with Arjun and T-90.

Some things never change!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Mar 2015 15:24

NRao wrote:.. Egypt will default.

It's what Egyptians do (and well).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Mar 2015 17:53

If we have the moolah,go for Raffy,no problem.It was selected fair and square over the other contestants.The problem is that we don't have the money. It's not a 10-15% increase in cost either but from the info available 50--100%.A $10/12B deal has suddenly gone up to $20B.very least mentioned is around $15B. The DM's statements about it costing twice as much as are on record.When that happens,any buyer starts to bean count and look for other options.It's got nothing to do with a "modern fighter", and the capabilities for the MKI speaks for itself,esp with the BMos missile to also be carried by it shortly.

There are 2 fundamental Qs,what is the Rafale for? Replacing legacy MIG-21s as some even in the IAF are touting as the reason for acquiring the MMRCA? Then even the Gripen is a better cost-effective choice,but that won't happen because of its similarity to the LCA which our DPSUs/HAL fear will kill that programme,stunting it like the fate of the HF-24. That may still happen given the tardy development of Mk-2 and prod. rates mentioned.

An interim solution until the LCA arrives in numbers then? That was also put out at one time.The reason why we are in such indecision was the mistake made right from the start,putting in all manner of fighters available into the contest,both light and medium ones and choosing the most sophisticated of the lot,forgetting that the original idea was simply a replacement for the MIG-21s.Now its all talk of advanced capability,sensor fusion,cutting edge avionics, avionics,etc.,etc,which comes at a price! A "turd" world economy cannot expect a first world economy's defence budget . The IAF must also take a holistic look at its future force structure,it simply cannot expect the GOI to fork out cash every time for expensive firang toys. "Cut your coat according to your cloth".

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 05 Mar 2015 05:47

Yes i hope this holistic thinking by the IAF bosses includes not thinking of Natashas and not to be hoodwinked by the Russians into bank rolling their 5th Generation Aircraft program and getting just 13% of the work share in its development (as against 50% agreed to earlier).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2015 07:20

are the UAE mirages even for sale? they seem to have got F-16-block60 in good number also and using them to bombard ISIS but would hold on to the mirages until they get JSFs most likely.

we have reached the endgame state. IAF has no rich sugar daddy anymore to fund its foreign toys and has to hunker down and make domestic kit work in collab with the OEM. always a harder task but a step up the big-boy maturity curve. afterall, playing with best imported toys is just what the KSA and UAE AFs do.

whether IAF will grow out of early adulthood into a mature entity remains to be seen. the mentality has to change both at the top and bottom.

else they are lining up to be overwhelmed and hammered by the PLAAF which is quietly adding lot of domestic numbers to the force levels.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Mar 2015 07:31

are the UAE mirages even for sale? they seem to have got F-16-block60 in good number also and using them to bombard ISIS but would hold on to the mirages until they get JSFs most likely

Unless there is some massive build up of force (Like S400's) in Iran, there is unlikely to be an F-35 export to the UAE or any other non partner/customer of the F-35 in the region. Frank Kendall said as much at IDEX15. They are considering a bunch of 4.5 gen aircraft and are also considering a follow on to the block 60 tentatively referred to as the block 61 that upgrades some of the internal components with the latest technology. UAE is also keeping a close eye on the Textron Scorpion, which given the prevailing situation in the region may just be the best suited fixed wing acquisition.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2015 10:15

Was trying to read the lines and between the lines of statements at the air show/media reports from the air chief,DRDO(Aero) head,LCA proj. Dir,etc.reg. LCA timeframes reg. MK-2. MK-2 to first fly only in late 2018,IOC not expected until the early 2020s,around 25% of commonality with the Mk-1.No need for intake redesign,500 kg to be shed,improved avionics,easier maintenance through modular components,larger cockpit displays,etc. Therefore even with accelerated production from say 2022 onwards of MK-2s (which will meet the 1998 ASRs),the number at the end of the decade may not be more than 120+.Before 2020 at least 150-200 MIG-21s and 27s will be retired. LCA MK-1 at 6/8 per yr for the 40 on order will not fill the gap either. It explains why the IAF say that they have "no plan B". .Even if extra MKIs are acquired,there will be no LCAs to support them for 5-7 years.Even the first MK-1 sqd. is being based in the deep south,close to BLR to be "hand held" ,to out it through its paces and iron out flaws,as the air chief put its.

It is why in such circumstances both the GOI and the French will try and arrive at some compromise and shoehorn an agreement. Let's say 65% for and 35% against the deal going through.Cost is everything.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Mar 2015 10:21

Of the IAF, can simply be asked to accept the Mk1.5, in large numbers. With EG 414, AESA radar & IFR. Till the Mk2 matures.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Mar 2015 16:24

This is the problem.Some individuals like Prof.PD advocate just that. Others,which constitute the IAF and IN brass want the MK-2 which alone will meet the "1998 ASRs",improved capability,etc.etc. One can choose either!

Some quotes,
Proj. Dir LCA: "MK-2 is conceived to improve performance and maintainability over Mk-1.Issues which could not be addressed in Mk-1 have been clearly understood and ..addressed in MK-2".
"..additional systems to enhance capabilities and address obsolescence"
Apart from several significant improvements like a Unified EW system (EUWS),desi OBOGS and IFRS,AESA radar (project Uttam),preferred to the Israeli ELTA 2050,new DFCC,new avionics with 6"X8" MFDs,aerodynamic improvements,more powerful engine,etc., the MK-2's AUW will be 15t and can carry an additional 1500kg.
"The original sanction was only to change the engine,but when the design conceptualization started many new system enhancements and capabilities as mentioned above got introduced".
"PDR completed,clearance given for the Detail Design phase."

In another report,"MK-2 has 25% commonality with Mk-1"

The opposite viewpoint.
Prof.Das:"Beloved aircraft-or lemon?"
"The LCA 414 stop it! This rings alarm bells of all kinds. We are hatching another wild goose to chase....In any case the pure delta with or without FBW is a dead end in fighter plan forms.The LCA 414 will be a great help to those who are looking for a big fat well-funded project with no timelines and accountability".
"I think that if we focus on the weight reduction,,we will get a useful enough warplane.After that minor tweaks,may be the wing tweak,should be done. We could after the first 100 LCAs talk in terms of a dedicated GA fighter with a MIG-27 style nose ,Gat gun.."
"Focus on the post-natal phase of the IOC...snap out of the small production mindset,this will result in a replay of the HF-24".

Such confusion over the LCA will only help the Rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Mar 2015 10:13

Karnad on the Raffy deal,2 articles.Thw war for and against is reaching summer temperatures!

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 699390.ece
Terminate the Rafale Deal
By Bharat karnad
Published: 06th March 2015

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha has repeatedly and publicly declared “there’s no Plan B”, that in effect it is Rafale or nothing with respect to the Indian Air Force’s dubious Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement. It merits his dismissal from service, because these words denote gross incompetence, failure to anticipate the unexpected and prepare for it—axiomatic in all military planning and, hence, of leadership. For every plan there is always an alternative plan of action in case things don’t work out as envisaged.

The absence of a fallback scheme is, of course, a ruse by Raha to pressurise the government into acceding to IAF’s wishes for the Rafale, despite defence minister Manohar Parrikar spelling out an alternative—the cost-effective, Nasik-produced Su-30MKI, which won’t require multi-billion dollar investment in another production facility and beats the French combat aircraft by any performance standard.

The prohibitive cost and questionable fighting qualities of the Rafale apart, the unwillingness of the French consortium headed by Dassault to guarantee the aircraft licence manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), and to fully meet transfer of technology (TOT) obligations involving Indian public and private sector entities directly or by way of offsets, too, are factors of serious concern. Source codes, flight control laws, and “black box” technologies, including all aspects of the engine, advanced sensors and avionics are likely to be left out of any TOT agreement or worse, paid for but not delivered, if previous defence deals are any guide. Dassault plans on supplying critical components and technologies for the entire production run of the “Indian-made” Rafale to ensure massive recurring profits, whence its insistence that its novice Indian partner, Reliance Aerospace, be part of the local production cycle. One other aspect is equally worrying. HAL assembling Rafale may face the kind of troubles Mazgaon Dockyard Ltd. is experiencing with the French Scorpene submarine where French vendors are delaying the supply of material and hence delaying induction and raising the direct and indirect costs.

The Price Negotiation Committees (PNCs) instituted by the defence ministry to hammer out contracts with foreign firms are to blame for such flawed transactions. Voluminous contracts are drawn up—the Rafale document reportedly exceeds 1,500 pages—but the use of indistinct language deliberately leaves large enough loopholes for even middling technologies, what to speak of the more sensitive “know why” knowledge, to be legitimately denied even as the suppliers pocket the monies the defence ministry is quick to disburse in full at the start. The PNCs need investigating, particularly for the vast leakage of the national wealth through this route.

A recent visit to HAL facilities by Dassault officials is a pointer to things to come. They complained to the US-based Defense News about the low productivity of HAL workforce and lack of economies of scale to argue that Indian-built Rafales will be costlier. Besides indicating that defence PSUs are not proficient in even the low-end screwdriver technology, the French hinted at further escalation of realistic cost beyond the presently estimated $30-$35 billion!

Flawed contracts drafted by PNCs that do not insist on penalties for time and cost overruns, and on staggered payments to fit delivery schedules, moreover, substantiate the fear repeatedly voiced by this analyst, of manipulation of assembly kits and spares supply, for foreign/economic policy reasons by France to ground the IAF squadrons at any time, is real. Such apprehensions are sought to be doused by Paris claiming that owing to TOT India will achieve “industrial autonomy”. But considering the guaranteed high level of French content in the supposedly “indigenous” Rafales, this is a laughable claim.

There are operational reasons as well why Rafale will be a liability. The IAF has always been wary of buying foreign aircraft accessible to its Pakistani counterpart. This was a reason for the rejection of F-16s as MMRCA given that they outfit the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) strike squadrons. Now consider this: Dassault is cock-a-hoop about the likely purchase by Qatar of some 66 Rafales. The Qatari Air Force (QAF) has traditionally been run by PAF pilots, with the understanding that these squadrons will switch to PAF use in any conflict with India. So, IAF Rafales will go up against Pakistani-flown Qatari Rafales that potentially will be better equipped and periodically upgraded with more sophisticated sensors, avionics, and weapons that Saudi Arabia will happily finance, as it did the $500 million deal for PAF’s F-16s and Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and missile technologies from China. The Gulf regimes, after all, consider the Pakistan military their palace guard.

And, Rafales cannot be effectively used against China either. Why? Because, firstly, it will not survive sophisticated Chinese air defence; secondly, Dassault won’t allow the indigenous Brahmos supersonic cruise missile to take out targets inside China from standoff range to be integrated with it; and thirdly, because the Rafale is a compromised system for another reason. Pakistan is the prime conduit for Western military, especially aerospace, technologies to China. A Qatari Rafale will be disassembled in Pakistan for Chinese engineers to scrutinise, or wing its way to a Chengdu Aircraft Industry Groupsite for its best features and technologies to be reverse-engineered and incorporated in Chinese combat aircraft, and otherwise permit the Chinese military to familiarise itself with its technical weaknesses and configure appropriate counter-measures and counter-tactics.

Every demerit attends on the Rafale aircraft deal, including its outrageous cost and negligible effects in growing a self-sufficient Indian defence industry. It should be terminated also because of the country’s meagre resources—the capital defence budget of `94,588 crore for 2015-16 remains unchanged from last year, and careful inter se choices will have to be made from among myriad military procurement programmes. In the competition for the defence rupee, the Rafale is eminently expendable. It is time Parrikar told IAF, using the words of former US defence secretary Robert Gates, that “there’s no endless money”. If a Rafale deal is still signed to crown Narendra Modi’s April 10 visit to France, the government will have much to answer for.

The second report was later denied by the MOD,therefore deleted.

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Mar 2015 12:58

Rafale is no use for India if at exorbitant costs and no guarantee that it can hold its own against a PLAAF with 5th generation fighters.IAF will not have a quantitative nor a qualitative edge 5 years later

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 06 Mar 2015 16:08

Philip wrote:http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 699390.ece
Terminate the Rafale Deal
By Bharat karnad
Published: 06th March 2015

To put mildly this article reeks of frustration over something imminent

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 06 Mar 2015 21:03

Karnad on the Raffy deal,2 articles.Thw war for and against is reaching summer temperatures!

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns ... 699390.ece
Terminate the Rafale Deal
By Bharat karnad
Published: 06th March 2015

The absence of a fallback scheme is, of course, a ruse by Raha to pressurise the government into acceding to IAF’s wishes for the Rafale, despite defence minister Manohar Parrikar spelling out an alternative—the cost-effective, Nasik-produced Su-30MKI, which won’t require multi-billion dollar investment in another production facility and beats the French combat aircraft by any performance standard.

The whole point of getting a multirole fighter from a country other than Russia is so that we don't have all the eggs in one (Russian) basket. So we can't be black mailed in time of a major crisis (as may happen in case we get into it with China, where the Russians and the Chinese are buddy buddies).

We didn't get the F-16 or the F-18 or maybe even the Typhoon because of the known tendency of the Anglo-American combine for sanctions.

We also didn't get the Swedish Gripen because of its use of American engine, weapons and avionics.

So that left the French with the Rafale in which all sub systems and technologies are or can be of fully French origin. Despite its high price we should get the Rafale and be done with it before any further cost increases. It is an excellent aircraft and will fulfill our needs very effectively and we can learn from it for our current and future indigenous endeavors.

For someone to say let's juts get the MKI and that will solve all our problems is short sighted. Evan as close as we are to Russia we still don't want to be fully dependent on them or any one else. That is the reason for wanting this diversity of weapon systems. I'm glad we are continuing to develop our own in LCA, ALH, LCH, Arjun, AWACS and other assortment of weapons and systems. All these developments have been painfully slow but we should never give up on self reliance and continue with these programs to fruition no matter what.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Mar 2015 21:50

@Luxtor^^^ The LCA MK1 and 2 will have GE engines. The Jaguars have (will have) Honeywell F125 engines). The P8s and C-130s are also sanctionable.

The US can twist its friends and allies to do anything: Mistrale sales to Russia, weapons to PRC.

Part, if not the whole problem is our lack of strategic vision. We don't even know what we are arming for. The best answer you can get is "A two front war". But that does not explain much except to justify 45 squadrons, a mountain strike force and a bunch of T-90s.

Long ago, Alain Peyrefitte wrote a book called "Le Mal Francais" (The French Sickness). There is a memorable line "..Those who do, do not know and those who know do not do." That about sums up the relationships between the MoD/CCS/Indian military services. GoI is so afraid of a coup that it keeps the services out of the loop and they in turn have no clue on what threats to budget for and so they add a little bit of this and that and it all becomes a game to a bigger slice of the pie. The MoF is also in on the game: the capital budget for defense (some 12-15% of the total), knowing the inevitable delays, it reclaims unspent monies at the end of the fiscal year and uses it to plug deficits run up by populist programs to get votes.

Like it or not, thanks to the PRC which has picked a fight with every neighbor, we are locked into a convergence if not a de facto alliance with the US, Japan and Oz.

Pakistan has nuisance value but we'll not do a 1965 or 1971 with them.

Time to figure out strategy and align it with the acquisition process.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Mar 2015 22:08

40-50 Million for a 15-20 year old platform? What a waste of good money. Extra 40 sukhois and 40 Mk-1 LCA should be enough to cover for the 126 rafales that will come by 2025. This will happen now and will be more useful. If the PakFa deal gets signed, then 20 of those by 2018-2019 will be game changers.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 06 Mar 2015 23:48

Why don't we buy J-10/JF-17 instead? That will make China & Pakistan our strategic partners. One uses Russian engine, other plans to use French engine (dream come true). Unity in diversity, that's our moto.

This way IAF will never have to think about two front war... ever!!!!!

ek teer doo nishane

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Mar 2015 00:40

Oh hell its not even discussion about a 5th gen fighter ....

Get a god damn decent 4 plus or minus airframe and put in the best avionics package (would cost as much as the fighter maybe !) and in numbers ..isnt that the IAF looking for ? some real numbers ?? Or is it looking for a squadron of audis to fly around

.. Katrinas have killer looks but at not the costs to beggar the country ! If IAF wants we can buy a few for evaluation purposes onlee

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 07 Mar 2015 01:22

I think Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha's statement sums it up quite nicely "We want MMRCA, not necessarily Rafale".

If price was such a big point then we should have laid down a fixed budget, and expected numbers. Vendors would have responded accordingly. But everything was open ended from the get go, from cost to numbers to everything. At one point people even speculating if IAF should get two platforms to appease different parties (US vs Ruskies). IAF showed door to both parties. Su 30 option was speculated at that point as well.

All said and done Gov gave IAF a choice to shortlist platform for its future needs based on available options. It chose Rafale, and it was a wise decision (BRF celebrated for months). Its a true 4+ Gen multi-role fighter with sensor fusion. Sensor fusion is something in which Ruskies lag behind a lot. But that was in 2012.

Things changed a lot since then. But what to do? While people are discussing about prices, IAF fleet strength kept on depleting. If it was upto IAF plans, they could have received first HAL built Rafale by next year (signing of contract in 2013). It could have taken a breather and started to phase out super old platforms like Migs, bought in simulator based training regime (hopefully bringing down some training cost).

But in all this babu MoD, MoF, MoXXX BS IAF is left hanging. Other non priority uber expensive items like C-130, C-17, AW 101, went straight through the MoD/MoF while IAF's priority program was still up in the air. That's 4 billion worth of transport planes, while its primary military acquisition program waiting to lift off. When someone gives to X money to buy some medicine, you don't end up buying old monk.

Only option I see right now is to shut up and buy Rafale. Because we are going to spend this money on some other BS item anyway.

Let's stop this hoo haa over India not having strategic vision or plan, because we never will have any. Thats the truth.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Mar 2015 02:20

Indian Budget Casts Doubt on Rafale Deal

NEW DELHI — India may not have the funds to seal the deal with Dassault Aviation to purchase $12 billion Rafale fighter planes, according to an Air Force source.

While India plans to boost hike defense spending by almost 8 percent, defense analysts and military officers say it falls short of expectations and isn't enough to buy fresh weaponry.

India will spend US $40.4 billion on defense in the April 1 2015-March 31 2016 financial year, according to the Feb. 28 proposal to Parliament.

That's an increase of 7.74 percent over the previous year. The previous year's budget went up 12.4 percent.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley gave no additional funds in the "Capital Account Head" of the budget proposals, which is earmarked to buy fresh weapons. The budget included the same amount as last year: $15.5 billion.

"With the stagnation in capital expenditure, I believe there is very little left in the budget to cater to new contracts," said Laxman Behera, research fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses think tank in New Delhi.

DEFENSE NEWS

Russia Eyes India, Dassault Celebrates in Egypt

Amit Cowshish, retired Defence Ministry finance adviser and defense analyst, said: "It is unlikely that the allocation [under Capital Account] would cater for only committed liabilities."

Said an Air Force officer: "With no fresh money it is unlikely if we can contract the $12 billion Rafale fighter deal with Dassault Aviation of France, nor buy additional aircraft in the next financial year."

The contract is to be paid in installments, with 15 percent due at the signing of the deal.

At best, a $2.5 billion deal finalized two years ago to purchase attack and heavy lift helicopters from Boeing could be inked as the US company has threatened to hike the price if the deal is delayed, the official added.

"The budget allocation may not be sufficient even for contracted projects as they are carry over from the 2014-15 budget on capital account," said Rahul Bhonsle, retired Indian Army brigadier general and defense analyst.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promised during that election to modernize defense and meet weapons requirements, said defense analyst Nitin Mehta. "The first full budget of the new government announced Feb. 28 is a let down on expectations," he said.

"There are serious concerns over government's commitment to fully budget India's defense and security needs despite statements by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on modernization of the armed forces," he said.

Said Mehta: "Sadly, the budget reflects continuation of the policies of the previous government. For structural changes there has to be greater synergy between the Ministry of Defence and Finance."

Behera said security needs to have support from both the government and lawmakers.

"However, such security needs are to be satisfied within the overall resource availability," he said. "The defense budget 2015-16 has been subject to resource crunch arising out of slowdown in revenue mobilization and greater devolution of resources to the state government."

However, Cowshish said defense still constitutes around 13.88 percent of India's total budget and as such is a major chunk of allocation.

"Defense budget is the second largest single item of expenditure in the non-plan segment of the union budget. One has to keep these facts in view while forming an opinion on whether the allocation is in sync with the promise or not," Cowshish said.

With such a tight defense budget, it remains to be seen which of the ongoing programs will be inked. Nearly $20 billion worth weapons purchase projects are in the mix, including:

• $12 billion to purchase medium multirole fighter jets

• $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

• $200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS

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

• $250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 07 Mar 2015 04:01

What I would like to see:
• $12 billion to purchase medium multirole fighter jets-- nope
• $1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers --nope
• $1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters --nope, built some toilets with money!
• $1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters --yep.
• $833 million for 15 Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters --yep.
• $600 million for light howitzer guns from BAE Systems -- nope.
• $200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS --yep.
• $350 million for 1,418 Israeli-made thermal imaging sights for T-72 tanks -- werent these tincans the cheap ones? yep.
• $250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries -- done deal.

what I fear
• $12 billion to purchase medium multirole fighter jets-- yep
• $1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers --yep
and next month too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Mar 2015 06:13

The first priority has to be the economy. No economic growth, nothing happens, in fact India will slide backwards. BTW, the GoI seems to have changed the way the GDP is computed. Not sure what it means outside of the fact that one needs to add a fudge factor somewhere while comparing GDP between the divide.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Mar 2015 11:17

Sid,quote of the year!

When someone gives to X money to buy some medicine, you don't end up buying Old Monk.

Sh*t happens when you put monkeys in charge!

Going over the list of acquisitions given above by members,Shree and others,some thoughts:

What I would like to see:
• $12 billion to purchase medium multirole fighter jets-- nope
• $1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers --nope
• $1.1 billion for 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters --nope, built some toilets with money!
• $1 billion for 197 light utility helicopters --yep.
• $833 million for 15 Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters --yep.
• $600 million for light howitzer guns from BAE Systems -- nope.
• $200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS --yep.
• $350 million for 1,418 Israeli-made thermal imaging sights for T-72 tanks -- werent these tincans the cheap ones? yep.
• $250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries -- done deal.

what I fear
• $12 billion to purchase medium multirole fighter jets-- yep
• $1.2 billion for six Airbus A330 tankers --yep
and next month too.

*MMRCA,Rafale,can it.Build extra MKIs,MIG-29UGs,120 aircraft can be obtained for just $5B. Use the saved $5 B for fast-tracking the LCA,finalise the FGFA deal,and begin the AMCA programme.

*Tankers,buy a few more Il-78s.Reading the reasons for the A-330 selection,opposed by our bean counters,the argument put forth was that it can carry fuel and cargo/troops,unlike IL-78s which can carry only fuel.However,with the C-17,C-130 acquisitions,why do we need another troop carrier type? In a crisis,the MOD has always used IA civil aircraft for the same.
Costwise also the IL-78 is under $100M,compared to the A-330's $150M+ (DID stats)! We already have 7 IL-78s in service,why create another type? MKI's are also capable of "buddy-buddy" refueling.
Extra IL-78s will be the best cost-effective solution and drastically reduce spares inventory,maintenance and training esp. as the Il-76 transport version has been in service for 2 decades now performing splendidly. Upgraded IL-78s/76-90s with more powerful engines,avionics,etc.,are now being manufactured in Russia.Interestingly,the cockpits of the MTA and IL 76-90 will be the same.
3-4 Il-78 tankers will cost only $300-350M.

* Scrap the Apaches,fast track LCHs. This is a desi success which must be acquired in large number for the IAGF/IA.In any case our large fleet of MI-17Vs,Dhruvs,etc.,have armed versions supporting the MIG-25/35s in service.The unit cost of an LCH is only around $17.5m.For just 22 Apaches,we are to spend a massive $1.1B,that is each Apache will cost us $50m.In simple beancounting,we can get 3 LCHs for just one Apache!.IF one wants a heavyweight attack helo,the KA-50/52 series was available for only $16M+ 2011 figs),and should be not more today than $20M.Wik has a good feature on how it is superior in may ways to the Apache.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50).
Buy 60 LCHs for the same cost,plus 30 KA-52s to replace old MI-25s/35s.Plan for 200 LCHs.

*200 LUHs go ahead.They were needed a decade ago.

* 15 Chinooks at $55m apiece? Our much larger Mi-26s,new MI-26T version available is just $15-18M! In addition,MI-26s have recused Chinooks downed in Afghanistan,can carry a 70-90 seater jet underslung as well.They can also carry light tanks,MICVs,heavy eqpt.,great rtack record esp. during natural disaster relief carrying heavy eqpt,seen at UKhand,etc.
Buy 20+ MI-26s for just $300-350M.Save $500m.

*$600M for light howitzers? Get them all built at home by pvt. players,who have already displayed prototypes of larger 155mm howitzers. Throw open the order to pvt. industry.Also consider acquiring 2S25 Sprut-SD type light tanks (18t) which have a 125mm main gun,ATGMs,firepower as good as an MBT,PT-76 replacement,meant for airborne and naval forces,which can be carried by our existing transport aircraft and MI-26s. These would be v.useful in countering the new Chinese light tanks stationed in Tibet which have a main gun of only 105mm.

The 2S25 is designed to be parachuted from aircraft such as the Il-76 with the crew inside, allowing nearly immediate combat readiness upon landing to provide high firepower alongside paratroopers. Like other tank destroyers, the Sprut-SD is designed to fight and destroy modern main battle tanks such as the M1A2 Abrams or the Merkava IV.

The foll. no problem.
• $200 million for 98 Black Shark torpedoes from WASS --yep.
• $350 million for 1,418 Israeli-made thermal imaging sights for T-72 tanks -- werent these tincans the cheap ones? yep.
• $250 million for 262 Barak missiles from Israel Aerospace Industries -- done deal

I would however add that we require asap,the finalisation of the order of med. naval multi-role helos,of which 100+ are required.Since the order is so large,which no doubt will increase in time,they must be a "made in India" deal.Sikorsky have already expressed their willingness to do so should their bird be selected. This is a high priority item as ASSW warfare in the IOR and Indo-China-Pacific theatres will be the major task of the IN to meet the challenge of 100+ PLAN and PN subs. Another approx. 100 subs of ASEAN and Far Easter navies ,including Oz,will also be muddying these waters.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Mar 2015 13:32

Umm... Philip, tell me something, in all the times you've flown (commercially of course) how many times has your mode of conveyance been a made-in-Russia aircraft? Because every time I fly, its in an aircraft made by Boeing or Airbus or occasionally ATR. Why is it that all these airlines that are so focused on profitability have shown no appetite for operating these Russian aircraft available at fantastic prices?

Just FYI -

1. IL-78:

You may still be marketing the IL-78, but the RuAF apparently prefers a far more sensible approach; converting a commercial jetliner as a tanker instead of flogging a cargo lifter airframe that's far past its sell-by date. (Time to start talking up the Il-96

)

As for the IL-78's supposedly <$100M costs, it would be an interesting achievement given that the baseline IL-76/476 platform is already closer to $150M. I'm more inclined to chalk it up to enthusiasm induced 'creativity'.

2. Ka-52

While I'm not supporter of the Apache deal, we may as well settle your Ka-52 claims.

The supposedly ultra-cheap Ka-52K, costed $27M each for the RuAF in 2013 (current cost with the falling ruble and rising inflation is unknown). Link. For an export customer in 2016, that figure will be closer to $40M. And going by our experience of Russian platforms, it'll never match the AH-64E's serviceability, MMI or sensor performance.

3. Mi-26

As for the Mi-26, it weighs four times as much as the Mi-17. The Mi-17 is also in steady production with a steady stream of orders while the Mi-26T2 total orders to date stand at less than two dozen. With the Mi-17 costing about $10 mil each, do you honestly expect folks to believe that a new build Mi-26 is available for just $15 mil?

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Mar 2015 14:19

I am still trying to find the logic in the supposed saying of the upa government to iaf. .. "never mind the money go for the best there is "...and then go for a tendering process lasting nearly half a decade to find the lowest bidder which we'll less said the better .... no logic no reasoning except for a transparent veil of apparent selection process . One would think it was all a melodrama...maybe it was meant exactly that !

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Mar 2015 15:02

It is Best equipments at the Best Prices.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 07 Mar 2015 15:36

..and then go for a tendering process lasting nearly half a decade to find the lowest bidder which we'll less said the better .... no logic no reasoning except for a transparent veil of apparent selection process . !

Sir, which was the last non Russian or US plane purchased for IAF. How long did it take. It is strange but the AJT requirement also dragged for 20 years even though there was urgent need for it.

Link and quotes from some old articles
http://www.thehindu.com/2000/01/13/stories/05132524.htm

The Government not purchasing an advanced jet trainer all these years defies logic. It has to be accepted that the IAF is very serious about getting such a plane, but somehow it has not been able to convince the bureaucracy about the urgency of the need. Other air forces have similar requirements and are able to meet them expeditiously by going about the identification, analysis and procurement process systematically and in a timely fashion. In the Australian Air Force, the procurement was done within four years of the need being felt. This time includes that for identification of the qualitative requirements, selection of the plane, placing the order and obtaining it.

Meanwhile, flight safety is being jeopardised and operational preparedness is suffering, as without a proper advanced trainer many combat exercises have to be restricted or deleted in the training syllabi. Perhaps it is not understood by Government functionaries that just producing pilots to fly fighter planes for displays and flypasts is only a small confidence- building measure for public consumption. What the country pays big bucks for and needs is combat pilots who are trained to fly, fight and win against an adversary. It has to be remembered that in war, there are no prizes for a runner-up.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2 ... 705300.htm

The IAF had been demanding AJTs for the last 20 years. As a stop-gap measure, it brought 27 second-hand MiG-21 trainers from Kyrgyzstan recently.
A variety of factors prevented successive governments from negotiating an AJT deal; the price was one of them. The government was also keen to diversify its purchases. It wants to use defence purchases for political leverage, particularly in capitals such as London, Paris and Washington.
The IAF finally opted for the Hawk, as it had a proven track record. Most of the other planes on offer were either on the drawing board or had yet to prove themselves

Surprising though but the story remains the same

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2015 20:59

Here is a comment I posted in IDRW.org - but I must post it here as well

Discussions about the MMRCA/Rafale deal are getting frightfully tiresome with vested interests churning out "news" that say diametrically opposite things. The Russians and people in their payroll are constantly saying that the deal will not take place. Others say something else. I think Indians need a break from this relentless yes-no- yes-no- yes-no news about the Rafale. I hope the damn thing is signed or junked soon - I have lost interest in reading anything further. Indian military enthusiasts need something different to talk about - this has gone on too long

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Mar 2015 21:48

We need a decision one way or the other - either buy the Rafale or terminate it. Order the LCA Mk-1 in numbers or stop wasting taxpayer funds. If we want to be a Russian dependency, so be it. Then the pretense of independent, sovereign procurement should also be given up. Armata > T-90 > Arjun, 35> 29, Su 35 > Su 30 just sign a blank check and let Putin fill in whatever he needs.

IAF needs aircraft - Now! For the chief to say there is no back up to the Rafale, is extremely dangerous.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 07 Mar 2015 22:28

European defence R&D has fallen 'catastrophically', new EDA chief states

Brooks Tigner, Brussels - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
05 March 2015

Key Points
Spending on defence research and development has fallen catastrophically since 2006 according to the new head of the EDA
In total spending among the 27 EDA members on R&D has dropped by 40% over this period
Defence expenditure for research and development (R&D) across the European Defence Agency's (EDA's) 27 nations has fallen "catastrophically", according to the agency's new head.

Speaking on 4 March Jorge Domecq said new incentives must be found to reverse the trend and address Europe's capability gaps. All EU countries belong to the agency except Denmark.

"The figures are quite worrying. Since 2006 there's been a decline of EUR20 billion (USD21.9 billion) or a 40% decrease in R&D spending by the member states.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 08 Mar 2015 09:51

just a joke...