Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 07 Apr 2015 04:18

NEW DELHI: India will not ink the mega $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 fighters till France agrees to stick to its original pricing, which led its Rafale fighter to defeat the Eurofighter Typhoon in commercial evaluation over three years ago.

This is India's "bottom line" on which the outcome of long-drawn final negotiations with French aviation major Dassault now hinges, even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to leave for France on Thursday as part of his three-nation tour.

"Dassault has to adhere to its earlier commitments. No Indian government can finalize such a major project if the L-1 (lowest bidder) pricing is changed... it can be a deal-breaker despite political pressure from France," said a top source.

As first reported by TOI, the defence ministry is upset with Dassault's attempt to "change the price line" because it will substantially jack up the production cost of the 108 Rafales to be made by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) in India after the first 18 are imported.

As per Dassault's costing, there is now a "big jump in the man-hours needed" for each jet to be produced by HAL after transfer of technology. In effect, each jet will now cost much more than what was originally projected.

"Hypothetically, if the cost of each jet goes up by around Rs 30-40 crore, we will then be looking at a hike of Rs 3,240-Rs 4,320 crore for the 108 jets to be made here. Dassault should relent, become fully compliant to the RFP (request for proposal) and stand 100% by its original offer. It can live with a slightly lesser profit margin," said the source.

There is, however, progress on the other major stumbling block. A mechanism is being evolved to ensure there are no penalties or liquidity damages imposed on Dassault if HAL fails to deliver as per specified timelines, sources said.

The voluminous MMRCA contract was almost 90% done, with technology transfer, offsets and other issues as well as the inter-governmental agreement all ready, when pricing and guarantee issues stalled negotiations almost a year ago.

With continuing delay in finalization of the MMRCA project and IAF down to just 34 fighter squadrons (14 of them made of old MiG-21s and MiG-27s), India is also trying to fast-track the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft project with Russia, as reported by TOI earlier.

India has told Russia it wants deliveries of the FGFA to begin 36 months after the main contract is inked, instead of the 94 months envisaged earlier. For this, India is ready to switch from the original co-development and co-production plan to direct acquisition of an initial lot followed by co-production. India will spend around $25 billion on the FGFA project if eventually 127 such fighters as planned.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 07 Apr 2015 05:10

Pagot wrote:@Cosmo yes, deal will be finalized in Delhi.

Quoi? Je ne comprends pas

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Apr 2015 05:38

Sumeet thanks for the post. I highlighted the relevant parts.

It address the key points in my above post.

Also looks like NaMo gave IAF their Plan B/C which they claim they didn't have!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Apr 2015 09:05

So the codevelopment farce on the FGFA has ended with us back to our good old Su-30 model. Looks like the IAF will have to make do without its super duper 2nd seat, 360 degree AESA etc etc.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Apr 2015 09:13

Philip wrote:Yes,it does look like a consolation prize,but a huge prize too! Curious that the IAF have plumped for a twin-engine platform.Most AWACS use 4 engined ones.The same platform for AWACS/Tankers will give some savings in commonality,support,etc.,but are expensive buys and a v.good deal for France along with the naval SR missile. This then looks bad for the Rafale as if they also get the Rafale deal sealed,the French would then walk away $30B+ in combined orders. A huge win.If Raffy is dumped,then the IAF will then have to make do with about $10-12B for the MMRCA requirements and examine its Plan B/Cs whatever.Any rejection of the Rafale will obviously spur LCA development/orders and extra MKIs/Russian birds.

What exactly is the reason that 4 engines would be required? And please don't quote the Boeing 707 based E3 AWACS since that is essentially a vintage aircraft and the USAF and NATO alliance is finding it a little tough to keep them all flying as of now itself..obviously no one will look at such an old platform for any future requirements..and the only other western jets that meet the requirement of 4 engines are the A380 and the 747-8..both are massive overkill for the AWACS role..

And when civil airlines the world over are moving to twin engine platforms and away from the 4 engined 747-8I and the A380 (both of which cost substantially more to operate and maintain over their life span), what is the great advantage that 4 engines offer? The turbofans that power all 3 of the aircraft I mentioned above are among the most reliable ever seen in the history of aviation. These airlines maintain utilization of nearly 14-15 hours a day for long haul ops with these airplanes, and spares and overhaul for these will be a LOT easier than any bespoke 4 engined Russian platform which will hardly see service with any air arm, perhaps with the exception of the RuAF.

The A330 will be substantially cheaper to operate per flight hour than the Il-76 or Il-476, with their 4 engines. Plus the maintenance of the A330 is a well known plus point..and these overhauls don't come cheap for large airplanes.

the Boeing 767,777 and the Airbus A330 are the likeliest candidates for any large AWACS project that'll originate for future NATO requirements as well.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 07 Apr 2015 09:54

I agree with the IAF chief when he says that we need the MMRCA (not necessarily the Rafale, although that is quite clearly the best of the bunch). The bird needs to arrive quickly, and if buying off the shelf is significantly cheaper, then that is the way we should go. HAL can build up spare and supply management capability in parallel, and also start integrating desi armaments like astra, maybe brahmostra etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Apr 2015 10:06

the 4-engined concept is dead in civilian aviation. the 747,A380 are likely the last 4 engined jobs we will see in decades. the improved reliability of 2 engines and all ETOPS clearances opened all routes to the 2-engines.

perhaps even in mil role the C17 types could be run with 2 bigger engines...lesser engines means a lot less things to repair and check in the hangar. less need for engineering staff.

future cargo hauling for std pallet type loads will likely shift to unmanned drone a.c which will take off and land automatically, open the ramp, pump out the pallets and depart.
useful to send resupplies to fwd positions.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2015 10:07

Its not too late to start M-2000 production line if Rafale is cancelled considering we just recently upgrade the M2K and would last for next 25 years

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2015 10:34

Civil and mil needs differ. An AWACS could come under air attack and lose and engine. Range,endurance/time on stattion are critical. One is only asking why for the larger AWACS a twin-engine platform has been preferred.The reliability factor of the new engines powering civilian aircraft is not in Q. For the smaller medium sized aircraft platforms for our desi AEW&C aircraft,two engines would suffice.

Secondly,there is no AWACS as yet tested on this platform.We will be the guineapigs.We will also be operating two types of AWACS platforms,3 using A-50/IL-76s and the rest using A-330s. However,this report from LIve Fist is piuzzling.Are we still negotiating for 2 more IL-76 platforms for augmenting the first series of AWACS (Israeli/Russian) or is this version (A-330s) meant for another type/design (desi) altogether? Quote from LFist:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/03/ ... still.html

The Indian MoD today sanctioned $818 million (Rs 5113 crore) for the country's indigenous AWACS programme, with a go-ahead to order two modified Airbus A330 widebody jets as the platform. Funds for four additional jets for a total of six will come through later.

The decision ends suspense on a single bidder situation, as first reported by Livefist last month, and gets things rolling on what will be, in effect, the Indian Air Force's third separate platform for a comparable mission. The IAF currently operates three Il-76 based Phalcon AWACS jets (and is processing paperwork for two more) and will take delivery of the first of two Embraer-DRDO EMB-145i AEW&C jets this year.

This is good news for Airbus, but there are, of course, nuances and implications:

1.First, the A330 platform will now be yoked to progress on the indigenous AWACS radar and systems. As the Airbus platform hasn't supported (or been tested as) an AWACS before, the programme will present several deep challenges on both sides. Of course, the fact that Airbus even sent in a bid meant that they're presumably on board for whatever it takes. Interestingly, Boeing, which has AWACS experience with the E-3, says it didn't bid because, "Boeing recognizes the complexity of the system requires an incremental development program to successfully manage the program risks and ensure an affordable program. As currently structured, the RFP does not support this approach."
2.Second, and on the other hand, the programme could perhaps offer Airbus a low-risk opportunity to push its A330 platform into real special mission aircraft territory. It has wanted to do that for a while to stretch the A330 out on the lines of the 767. The Indian programme is small enough not to shackle things down.
3.Third, while Airbus will welcome the all clear to the A330, it still has no clarity on the far more pressing and delayed deal for eight A330 MRTTs for the IAF, that's been stalled for two years in 'final negotiations'. While Airbus officials say they have indications that the deal will go through this year, there's no official clarity yet.
4.The MoD's decision to provide rare sanction for single bid program may gladden Airbus -- it's currently a sole bidder for the IAF's HS748 Avro transport replacement programme, offering its C295 with Indian partner Tata. A decision on that bid is currently with the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) too, the same body that approved the A330 for AWACS buy today.

Since this is the MMRCA td.,soldiering on,it looks like the "take it or leave it" missive has been delivered to Dassault/France. It's now upto them.Negotiations have dragged on for far too long.The GOI/IAF can't wait any longer. Good news too for the FGFA if the report is accurate.Cutting through red tape there too. Here too we'll have to make do with the Russian version for the first 2 sqds. or so and then decide later on whether its worth developing a two-seat version out of the trainer.I guess that the fully desi stealth fighter will have to be the AMCA

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 07 Apr 2015 10:42

As I posted many times here French are stupid to think that they can increase the price at their will and wish. Now they are going to lose the deal.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 07 Apr 2015 11:16

Austin wrote:Its not too late to start M-2000 production line if Rafale is cancelled considering we just recently upgrade the M2K and would last for next 25 years

What production line? It is loooong gone! And why not simply go with the better plane that you already have?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2015 11:22

As mentioned many a time,the scandalous cost of M-2K upgrades is so high ,that one can buy a brand new MIG-29K and still have $10M for pocket money in hand! The $2+ B we are paying for the upgrade of 40+ M2Ks is simply unaffordable,even if there were other M2Ks available for upgrades.The cost of the 60+ MIG-29upgrades is less than $!B too! It would be far cheaper to acquire/upgrade MIG-29s instead of M2Ks.

However,acquiring new affordable aircraft is best,given that we don't have money on tap. With the latest statements,one is sure that the Plan B/Cs are being dusted off the shelves at least in the MOD,even if the IAF has not bothered to do so.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Apr 2015 12:19

LOL@ MiG-29s. First let MiG meet its IN commitments then let it talk about its stuff.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 07 Apr 2015 12:46

Yagnasri wrote:As I posted many times here French are stupid to think that they can increase the price at their will and wish. Now they are going to lose the deal.

not stoopide. THE BRIBES PAID BY THE FOREIGNERS IN ANY DEAL ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY THE INDIAN TAX PAYER AS REFLECTED IN THE INCREASED COSTING.

it simply means that the french have paid off enough people and are trying to close the deal as per the old parameters. The new lot in the GOI are not willing to play the old game.

the frenchies are working on a pretty high and pre determined ROI and consequently having made some investments and attracted some natives with shiny baubles they are hoping to reel in the new big fish.

natural big fish in the defence (and other) eco system(s) may not be amenable to shiny baubles. the minnows like baboo(n)s, kernails and jernails have all been scared away after wrongly having bet the farm on the congis coming back to power.

They have duly taken their revenge in bringing the aap to power in dilli as a show of defiance.

These are early days yet with the elections far far away.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 07 Apr 2015 13:12

Airbus may be opening up new line of AWACS for its aircraft. The potential orders from other customers can reach anything from 50-100, so they may be taking a calculated risk. I think that (depending on price & terms) it may be a very intelligent move by India also to go with a supplier who may have the technology base but not a direct product. It allows India to become a joint IPR holder and prevent blackmail by Uncle. We must try this strategy in turbine engines also. Our obsession with USA-GE is killing our options to tie up with MTU, RR etc.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Apr 2015 14:04

Austin wrote:Its not too late to start M-2000 production line if Rafale is cancelled considering we just recently upgrade the M2K and would last for next 25 years

That was what mmrca was to start with.

More m2000s

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Apr 2015 14:53

chetak, exactly.

austin, not a conspiracy theory. check out the french behavior over india's internal affairs including kandhamal, they were also part of the NGO gang which targeted the BJP/NDA over Gujarat. point is, they (or any other nation) does not have carte blanche to interfere in India's internal issues.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2015 16:22

Airbus may be opening up new line of AWACS for its aircraft. The potential orders from other customers can reach anything from 50-100

50-100? Where are you coming to that number from? There isn't that big of a demand for AEW aircraft, and won't be for a very very long time if ever. NATO is upgrading their aircraft and Boeing is currently expected to get those delivered by the end of this year. The second upgrade contract signed last year sees upgrades being performed till 2018-2020 timeframe. Even though there are usual rumblings from within NATO every year or so they really won't begin to replace their AWACS before mid to end of next decade. NATO operates 17 AWACS aircraft with France and UK operating another 10.

The E-7 has 16 as its order book (13 confirmed orders or deliveries + 3 unit order announced for Qatar) and is likely to add 4-5 more on that platform before it winds down production. That is about the limit of how high you can go with an AEW program in today's western budgets. NATO will buy a maximum of 15 but 12-13 is more likely imho. They also have to decide whether they want a A320/737NG based system or an A330/767 based system as the cost for the latter would be significantly more. The USAF isn't going to buy from Airbus because they already have the 767 tanker operational (economies of scale) and have invested over a billion dollars in the E-10 and will most likely start off from where that program left off. I expect NATO to buy whatever USAF buys given the economies of scale associated with that effort but they (NATO) may compromise with an Airbus airframe. Regardless, Airbus does not have a sensor for such an aircraft.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2015 16:43

MIG-29UGs are also meeting the IAF's requirements quite happily. The issue is the comparative cost of upgrades for both aircraft whose capability is about even,the original MIG-29 in IAF mano-a-mano dogfights whipped the M-2000 everytime.(AM Masand Vayu) Thr MIG_29 even whipped F-16s in Germany,that too with export versions of the basic aircraft,much inferior to today's deep upgraded aircraft.

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/germa ... lcrum.html

Strengths
•Incredible turn rate. The manually controlled MiG-29 (28°/sec) even beats the fly by wire F-16 Block 50 (26°/sec).
•The Archer is able to target 45° off boresight
•Superior in dogfights/close combat to US 4th generation fighter aircraft like McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, General Dynamic F-16 Fighting Falcon and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (as proved in dogfights with the Swiss Air Force among others).
•Helmet Mounted Sight

This led Johann Koeck, Oberstleutnant at German Luftwaffe, to the analysis:
Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period.

What the Iraelis found out and this was astd. MIG-29,not a 29K or upgraded version which has far more features and capability.

http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/06 ... 15s-f-16s/

The day Israel obtained MiG-29s and discovered they were a match for their F-15s, F-16s

June 23, 2014 · by globalaviationreport · in Fighter Aircraft, Military Aviation
Credit: Israeli Air Force – MiG-29 fighter jet

The “Sting” has landed

. Last year, Russia negotiated the sale of MIG-29 fighter jets to Syria. This is a good time to recall that in 1997, under a heavy cloud of secrecy, three MIG-29 “Fulcrum” (“Sting” in Russian) landed in Israel. For several weeks, Israeli test pilots learned the plane and its weapon systems inside and out, flown numerous hours, and tested the jet’s abilities when facing Israeli fighter jets

“In terms of its abilities, the MIG-29 equals those of the F-15 and F-16 jets. In some respects it even surpasses the two”, said Major N, Chief Experimental Pilot of the MIG.

Three single seat MIG-29s stayed at one of the Israeli Air Force bases for a few weeks. The MIGs were secretly brought to Israel, and it was a rare opportunity for the air force to study up close what of the main interception jets used by Iran and Syria.

Lieut. Col. M was in charge of the test centre of the air force, and one of the few Israeli pilots to fly the MIG: “We are used to test foreign aircraft, as part of our purchasing procedure, but the MIG-29 was an out of the ordinary kind of test flight”, he said. “Not even for a moment did we forget that this aircraft is the most advanced strategic threat that exists at the arena today”.

In order to fly the MIG-29s, the test-pilots had to undergo a special course. At the first stage, the crew learned of the special structure and systems of the jet. The language barrier was the main difficulty: the study material was all written in Russian, forcing the Israeli pilots to use a translator, and at times to improvise.

“The language post a great challenge, as the voice warning system in the aircraft, who alerts the pilot of potential malfunctions, spoke Russian”, says Lieut. Col. M. “The visual warning, that appear on screen, were all displayed in Cyrillic script as well”.

Upon successful completion of the theoretical part, each pilot performed three flights with the jet.

“Since we are used to fly unfamiliar aircraft, it wasn’t a great challenge to fly the MIG-29 by ourselves right from the first time”, says Lieut. Col. M. “Within minutes sitting in the cockpit, I was comfortable. While everything around me was written in Russian, we labelled most of the instruments with English translation”.

One of the things that caught the pilot’s attention was the difference in the Eastern approach to jet construction, characterising the MIG, and the western kind, typical of the F-15 and F-16. “One of the greatest tools available to the pilot in this jet, is its ability to land by itself, without the need for pilot’s involvement”, Says Major N. “Landing destination is entered into the computer before takeoff. In case of bad weather, or any other difficulty, hampering pilot’s ability to land, he simply needs to press a button, and the jet will land by itself. When testing the jet, we did not use this system for several reasons, but no doubt, it is a nice system. Another system worth of mentioning, is the one that stabilises the jet in case the pilot is affected by Vertigo disease, and loses his orientation in space. Such systems do not exist in western aircraft, counting on the pilot to handle such situations independently”.

Credit: Israeli Air Force - F-16I, F-15I, MiG-29

The three jets were received at one of the air force bases, where they were thoroughly studied, and the first solo flights conducted. “I wasn’t too excited about the first solo flight on the MIG”, describes Lieut. Col. M. “What exciting, is the fact that so many people watched that premiere flight. It’s not every day that a MIG takes off the squadron’s runway. Everyone at the base stopped what they were doing to watch that jet fly”.

There were several flights every day at which the weapon systems of the jets were tested. Each test flight began with a brief on the expected simulation, and each flight concluded by a thorough debrief, where both MIG pilots and those who simulated the “enemy” in Israeli jets.

“The debrief is the most serious part”, tells Lieut. Gen. G, one of the MIG-29 pilots. “This time, they were even more serious. After each flight, which last an hour, there was a two to three hours de-brief, sometimes even more”. Each of the test pilots accumulated 20 flight hours, gaining significant experience in operating the aircraft.

Studies of the aircraft confirmed it as a serious opponent in air combat. “MIG’s abilities equals and sometimes even exceeds those of the F-15 and F-16 jets”, says Major N, a test pilot. “The aircraft is highly manoeuvrable, and its engines provide higher weight to thrust ratio. Our pilots must be careful with this aircraft in air combat. Flown by a well trained professional, it is a worthy opponent”.

Lieut. Gen. M shares the appreciation for the Russian aircraft: “Flying the MIG was one of a kind type of experience for a test pilot. Now I know that the result of an air combat between the MIG and an Israeli fighter jet depends on how the combat develops. In a tight battle, it is a real threat. It’s an advanced aircraft, and in close manoeuvring engagements it is absolutely terrific. It makes sharp turns, it’s quick, and to my opinion, as a platform, it does not fall short of our advanced fighter jets”.

Credit: Israeli Air Force - MiG-29 fighter jet
Credit: Israeli Air Force – MiG-29 fighter jet

Advantages and disadvantages

Test-Flying the MIG provided a lot of useful information regarding its weapon systems. “I was positively surprised by its systems”, says Lieut. Gen. G. “The different parts (Radar, helmet mounted display, and the missiles) are very well combined. The jet is equipped with an advanced air-to-air guided missiles, as well as radar guided missiles. The jet features an IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) system, which identifying targets by their heat signature, without using radar. All these, combined on a relatively good platform, result in an advanced weapons system. The MIG turned out to be an advanced fighter jet, similar to the F-15 and F-16 aircraft”.

“The MIG has an excellent radar system”, says Major N. “I was also very impressed with the IRST system. The missile systems provide the jet with significant advantage. I made a good use of the Russian helmet, and I can say that it works fairly well. Having said that, it is less convenient than the Israeli system, and in some ways it falls short of it. Overall it works well”.

There is a major disadvantage: difficulty to fully utilize the jet’s abilities. “One of the greatest problems of the MIG is its human engineering”, explains Major N. “Most of the systems installed are good overall, but their combination, and the user interface is cumbersome, and begs for an improvement. On several occasions, I needed a certain piece of information which was not showing on any of the cockpit instruments”.

Trustworthy, Strong, Massive

Major H., an F-16 pilot underwent the MIG training course along with the test pilots, so in case of an emergency or a malfunction, he could guide the pilots over the radio on how to proceed. During the course, he also had flown the plane.

“It is a great experience for an Israeli jet pilot”, he says. “I was positively impressed with the overall simplicity of the jet. The important things are proper and simple. The ignition for example, is done with a single push of a button, following which there are only a few tests the pilot needs to perform. Its manoeuvrability was also very impressive”.

For a long time, the MIG was regarded a replica of the American F-18. Major N. Had an opportunity to fly both, and to compare:

“You can see from the first glance, that there is a great resemblance between the two”, he says. “They both have a twin engine, a double tail, and an IRST system. But in contrast to the American jet, the MIG was designed with air combat as its main mission in mind. According to its designers, it can also serve as an attack aircraft as a secondary role, and it cannot carry a large amount of air-to-surface ammunition”.

Lieut. Col. G. Concludes: “The jets had very few malfunctions, and like other Russian products the MIG-29 is trustworthy, strong, and massive. The F-15 and F-16 are much more delicate, compared”.

If the Raffy deal is abandoned,extra MIG-29UGs are one way in which numbers and capability can be improved at affordable cost.With Taneja Aerospace being given the contract for upgrade,etc.,the issue of support indigenously is now well looked after.

"The contract makes TAAL the first private company to modernise an entire IAF aircraft, which until now would be performed by the state-owned HAL."

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2015 17:06

There is an active forum member at f-16.net named "fulcrumflyer" (Lt. Col. Fred Clifton) who has 500 hours on the Mig-29, 2000 hours on the F-16 and 900 hours on the F-15. There is also another forum member who has 1000+ hours on the F-15 BAZ (IDF). You can reach out to them if you want "another side" or a first hand account on their "opinions" on how the two aircraft differ. Do keep in mind that everyone has their own views and beliefs.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=155456

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2015 17:19

Sure,but these are from the experience of two air forces themselves.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Apr 2015 17:29

My point was that there are pilots who spent extended deployments with Mig-29 units, trained to fight with them, against them and evaluated them hands on against F-16's, F-4's, and F-15's (and have a published research thesis on this very thing no less). Its much better to converse with them imho then to read an article without access to the author or the pilots themselves to get both sides of the argument accounted for. The USAF has also extensively evaluated the Fulcrum (and flanker) through exchange pilots in Germany and testing the aircraft at home (21 were purchased by the US).

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 07 Apr 2015 18:01

IAF wanted a true multirole fighter and Mig 29 does not qualify for that. I would prefer an MMRCA that can perform the job specially when it comes to high-altitude bombing as M2k did in Kargil. Apart from M2k (maybe Jaguar?), can Su 30 MKI do that job?

LCA is the closest to Rafale in it's multirole capability IAF can get, and hence substituting Rafale with stop-gap measures (mig-29 or Pak-fa which is strictly air dominance fighter) is not right way to go.

member_28131 · Post by **member_28131** » 07 Apr 2015 19:00

If the French are this difficult and arrogant when 'selling' their product, one can only imagine how they will make us feel once we are stuck with their product and require any sort of end user support or overhauls in the future.

I think its great that we walked away from this deal.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 19:19

If an international deal has 30,000 pages in the contract, how quickly can it be done?

As a student - reading a 1500 page textbook just once (as part of "last minute" exam preparations) used to take me about 6 weeks. Typically I would have to re read (usually faster) 2-3 times to get a firm grasp of the contents for the exam. That usually mean 3-4 months preparation time - i.e the reading alone. Dumb extrapolation of that to 30,000 pages means 60 months. Preparation of the documents, negotiation and correction and the fact that "offset partners" also have to read and approve (parts) would mean that progress would be necessarily slow.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Apr 2015 22:25

shiv wrote:If an international deal has 30,000 pages in the contract, how quickly can it be done?

As a student - reading a 1500 page textbook just once (as part of "last minute" exam preparations) used to take me about 6 weeks. Typically I would have to re read (usually faster) 2-3 times to get a firm grasp of the contents for the exam. That usually mean 3-4 months preparation time - i.e the reading alone. Dumb extrapolation of that to 30,000 pages means 60 months. Preparation of the documents, negotiation and correction and the fact that "offset partners" also have to read and approve (parts) would mean that progress would be necessarily slow.

That's for one person. In this case, there'd be hundreds of individuals involved along with dozens of point-persons each responsible for their own section of it. Also, the contract has been in the making even before 2007 when the RFP was released rather in 2011 when the Rafale was declared L1. (BTW if you take a look at records of litigation involved big firms, 30,000 pages isn't really that much.)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Apr 2015 22:55

Philip wrote:MIG-29UGs are also meeting the IAF's requirements quite happily. The issue is the comparative cost of upgrades for both aircraft whose capability is about even,the original MIG-29 in IAF mano-a-mano dogfights whipped the M-2000 everytime.(AM Masand Vayu) Thr MIG_29 even whipped F-16s in Germany,that too with export versions of the basic aircraft,much inferior to today's deep upgraded aircraft.

You have a basic misunderstanding of AM Masand's article if you think it involved dogfighting. The records of MiG-29 in Luftwaffe are mixed. The MiG-29 was better at CCM but hugely inferior as a system.

For all its low speed high AoA performance, the MiG-29 also had a very short range, awful MMI, mediocre avionics (even on Russian aircraft), non-existent multi-role capability and most importantly horrible serviceability/availability (despite the 'rugged' nature of the aircraft).

Here's a reminder -

The Indian Air Force (InAF) MiG-29 Experience:

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31 March 1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25July1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. (Familiar story?) In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the InAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.

And in response to the inevitable argument that this was an old MiG and things have now changed, this is from two months ago -

INS Vikramaditya’s operation crippled

Barely a week after Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar witnessed the ongoing theatre-level naval exercise TROPEX-15 on board the newly acquired INS Vikramaditya , reliable information suggests that the aircraft carrier’s operation is crippled, owing to issues with its integral fleet of MiG-29K fighter jets.

Nearly 30 of the RD-33MK engines powering the twin-engine MiG-29K aircraft attached to the ‘Black Panther’ squadron have packed up ever since aviation activities got under way from the deck of the refurbished Soviet-era carrier that was inducted into the Indian Navy in Russia in November, 2013.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 08 Apr 2015 00:13

Defence ministry ignores Russia's requests to discuss fighter project

IAF is focused on Rafale; argues the fifth generation fighter aircraft would not meet Indian expectations.
The programme for India and Russia to jointly develop a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), long touted as the flagship of a time-tested defence relationship, has run into a stone wall.[...]
Sources tell Business Standard this is because air marshals fear the FGFA undermines the rationale for buying the Rafale fighter from France, a $18-20 billion contract that is sputtering through so-far unsuccessful negotiations.[...]

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 031_1.html

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Apr 2015 01:31

Austin wrote:Its not too late to start M-2000 production line if Rafale is cancelled considering we just recently upgrade the M2K and would last for next 25 years

We have something called the LCA MK2. Would we not be better off pouring resources into that? Both would arrive at the same time since rebuilding the supply chain in India would take awhile.

The Rafale is a stop gap for the failure to rapidly order 126 M2Ks in 1999-2000. At $100-120MM a pop for a 4G fighter it's not a great deal. Neither BTW is the PAK/FA.

What might make sense is simply leasing the Rafale with maturities coinciding with AMCA deliveries.

We lease nuke subs. What's so special about fighters? I believe you can even lease new build US fighters via FMS.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 08 Apr 2015 01:43

ramana wrote:Sumeet thanks for the post. I highlighted the relevant parts.

It address the key points in my above post.

Also looks like NaMo gave IAF their Plan B/C which they claim they didn't have!

Ramana you are welcome. I think so too. Now Hollande himself is confirming:

No Rafale Sale Announcement Before PM Modi's Visit, Says French President

PARIS, FRANCE: French President Francois Hollande said there will be no news on the sale of Rafale fighter jets to India before the arrival of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday for a state visit this week.

"There will be no announcement on the Rafale sales before the visit of Prime Minister Modi in France and I do not want the Indian premier's visit to be put in the context of a contract," Mr Hollande told reporters in Paris.

"We are working on it," Mr Hollande added, when asked about the proposed sale of 126 Rafale jets to India.

Talks with France's Dassault Aviation on the proposed purchase of the fighter jets have been ongoing for more than three years to resolve differences over pricing as well as local assembly.

The deal was initially worth $12 billion or over 74,743 crores but is now widely estimated to have jumped to $20 billion or over 1,24,572 crores, primarily because of the implications of building some of the jets in India.

Under terms of the contract, 18 of the planes will be sold ready-to-fly while the rest will be assembled at the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bengaluru as part of the government's effort to build a domestic military-industrial base.

Sources at Dassault told NDTV earlier this year that the French firm had calculated a rise in hours required to make the jets at HAL, and that would impact prices. The government wants Dassault to stick to the original price.

The two sides have also wrangled over the issue of guarantees for local production of the aircraft NDTV reported in February 2015 under a new proposal, Dassault says it should not be liable for penalties if HAL fails to deliver the planes on time.

India conducted a global tender in 2007 for the planes. The Rafale was chosen in 2012 over rival offers from the United States, Europe and Russia.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2015 02:57

arthuro wrote:
Defence ministry ignores Russia's requests to discuss fighter project

IAF is focused on Rafale; argues the fifth generation fighter aircraft would not meet Indian expectations.
The programme for India and Russia to jointly develop a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), long touted as the flagship of a time-tested defence relationship, has run into a stone wall.[...]
Sources tell Business Standard this is because air marshals fear the FGFA undermines the rationale for buying the Rafale fighter from France, a $18-20 billion contract that is sputtering through so-far unsuccessful negotiations.[...]
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 031_1.html

Same author, same paper:

Rafale proposal 'effectively dead' as Dassault bid not cheapest

Even as three Rafale fighters line up in Bengaluru for eye-popping aerobatics displays at the Aero India 2015 exhibition this week, senior ministry of defence (MoD) sources say the proposal to buy the French fighter is "effectively dead".

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 056_1.html

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Apr 2015 03:38

Well, IF the Rafale/MRCA drama is over (hopefully), this presents a golden opportunity to the Tejas - and I think Modi is gunning for something of this nature under the make in India initiative. There is absolutely no need to replace one MRCA candidate with another, the Tejas + Pakfa combo should cover these needs. Time for ADA, HAL and all well wishers to start making some noises and offers ala Euro consortium or Saab. Would love to hear something like - "we can produce 3 LCAs for the cost of one Rafale - capability wise, we are hardly far off from other MRCA candidates like the Gripen or the IAF fave, M2k" Talk @ AI 2015 of 36 of the first 40 mk1s coming in at FOC standard are a good start, now to achieve FOC in record time.

The one problem with the Tejas is that it will take some time to ramp up production capacity - something at which HAL doesn't have a stellar record. But this can be mitigated by a limited off the shelf purchase of a fighter that meets the 3Cs criteria - capable, compatible and cost effective. I can only see 3 such birds - the MKI, the M2k-5 and the Mig-29 or any combination thereof - 2 quick sqds will give just the right impetus until the Tejas Mk1 (and later, mk2) starts production in full swing

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Apr 2015 05:19

Viv S wrote: That's for one person. In this case, there'd be hundreds of individuals involved along with dozens of point-persons each responsible for their own section of it. Also, the contract has been in the making even before 2007 when the RFP was released rather in 2011 when the Rafale was declared L1. (BTW if you take a look at records of litigation involved big firms, 30,000 pages isn't really that much.)

Maybe, but it is a big contract and we don't know the details. We hang on to every news item that appears as if the reporter has some inside information or that he is reporting the exact words said by someone faithfully. Defence reporters do not play a stellar role in being accurate and unbiased and portals will publish for money. Nothing is totally credible.

The deal is neither done nor cancelled.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Apr 2015 09:55

In the race to the tape,there are bound to be media reports for and against the Rafale and the MKI,as the latter is the anticipated alternative (along with LCAs) in case the deal falls through.

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/c-est-la-vie-228

C’est la vie
Mohan Guruswamy
Apr 08, 2015

From 2000 onwards the total FDI in India was close to $900 billion. France’s contribution was below $15 billion or about 2% during this period. Clearly the economic relationship could do better.
.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Paris later this week, reciprocating French President Francois Hollande’s visit to India in February 2014. Despite the frequent high-level interactions there has been little traction on substantive issues.

There are several long-pending deals such as six new nuclear power plants by Areva and Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), a government-owned entity, and the order for the Dassault Aviations Rafale fighter, that have long-term implications for India and France. In both these deals pricing has become a major bone of contention and it seems unlikely that these agreements will be formalised any time soon, apart from a reiteration of determination to iron out differences.

In the case of the nuclear power project envisaged for Jaitapur on the west coast state of Maharashtra, Areva has sought a tariff of `9.18 per unit. This has been challenged by prominent sections of civil society as being too expensive. Besides, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s ally in Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena, is opposed to the project because of local objections on environmental grounds. The area around Jaitapur is politically significant to the Shiv Sena and overruling it may have political consequences for the BJP.

The Rafale fighter deal is stalled not only due to the high costs involved, but also due to disagreement on how the local component of fighters to be produced in India will be aggregated. Dassault has taken the position that it cannot guarantee the quality of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) built 108 Rafale fighters after the first 18 are imported. But many experts here say that this is merely a fig leaf to cover Dassault’s financial inadequacy. According to them, Dassault wants another local partner, like the private-sector giant Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), to complete the deal. RIL, with its $10 billion cash hoard, has already set up a defence sector business unit, Reliance Aerospace Technologies Pvt Ltd (RATPL), in anticipation of this.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has, however, made his position clear. The terms of the Indian Air Force tender require the French company to guarantee the 108 fighters that HAL would build in India.

Mr Parrikar said, “I have told Dassault to send a person to work out the differences. You have to be clear that, irrespective of anything, the tender’s terms have to be met. They cannot be diluted.”

Then there is the question of money. The initial estimation of $12 billion has now escalated to over $22 billion. The defence minister has publicly questioned the high cost of the Rafale by rhetorically asking as to how he can justify the purchase of a fighter that costs twice as much as the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter being produced in India.

To add to Dassault’s discomfiture, Mr Parrikar has also disclosed that the highly rated Su-30MKI costs Rs 358 crore each compared to the `700 crore price tag for the Rafale. This means two Su-30s could be secured for the price of a single Rafale. Many knowledgeable people in the military tend to believe that the Su-30 is a more capable aircraft and certainly represents better value for money. The IAF has an order of 272 of these fighter planes and they are now manufactured by HAL and the Russians have already offered an upgrade to make Su-30 even more potent.

There are others in the influential bureaucracy who are not entirely enamoured of French partnerships given the manner in which the project to manufacture six Scorpene-class submarines has meandered along with huge implicit price escalations.

The Scorpene deal is with the DCNS, a French-law public limited company in which the French state holds a 64 per cent stake, private weapons maker Thales 35 per cent and the personnel a 1 per cent stake. It is the heir to Direction des Constructions et Armes Navales (DCAN).

In 2005, the Indian Navy ordered six Scorpene submarines, all to be built at the ministry of defence- owned Mazagon dock and elsewhere, with the last two to be fitted with an Indian air-independent propulsion (AIP) module.

The first India-made Scorpene has just been floated, 12 (?) years behind schedule. There is also a follow-on requirement of six submarines, for which DCNS plans to offer a larger version of the submarine to the Indian Navy.

India has just floated a requirement for six new submarines to replenish its depleting fleet, but other companies too will be in the fray.

India and France entered a strategic partnership in 1998 to ensure bilateral cooperation through regular high-level exchanges at the head of state level, and growing commercial exchanges, including in strategic areas such as defence, nuclear energy and space.

The number of “strategic partnerships” India has with other countries causes some hiccups, but even so the relationship with France is a highly valued one — France ranks just below Russia and the US as India’s third most preferred partner, higher than Britain and Japan.

A high-ranking official recently summed this up as France being preferred even though “it has time and again proved to be more mercenary than we like.”

On the economic front France is still not much of a partner with bilateral trade of about eight billion euros. This is less than India’s trade with all of France’s neighbours such as Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Italy. From 2000 onwards, the total foreign direct investment in India amounted to close to $900 billion.

France’s contribution has been below $15 billion or about 2 per cent during this period. Clearly the economic relationship with France could do with much improvement and the political relationship, based more on arms transfers, is something neither country should be comfortable with.

Sadly, there are few expectations of a Modi-Hollande breakthrough on this score. But, as the French would say, c’est la vie (this is life).

The writer held senior positions in government and industry, and is a policy analyst studying economic and security issues. He also specialises in the Chinese economy.

Just for the record.
There are several reports about the 29K's virtues,here are just a couple.
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/12326 ... ndian_Navy
MiG-29K Looking at a Bigger Role in the Indian Navy
Wednesday, March 4, 2015

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/taking ... 1655853601

The Indian Navy's young and potent MiG-29K fleet gives their long-awaited aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, a serious punch. India remains committed to simpler ski-jump instead of catapult configured carriers, and what is not great for a fighter's range and payload is fantastic for visuals, as you can see in the video below.

In many ways, the MiG-29K is the ultimate comeback kid. The earliest version of this MiG-29 Fulcrum derivative first flew in 1988. After the fall of the Soviet Union there were no funds available to field two carrier fighters for what was then Russia's rusting navy.

Mikoyan and Gurevich continued to tinker with their carrier capable MiG-29 over the years and by the mid 2000s, when India came shopping for a fixed wing aircraft carrier, the Mig-29K suddenly leaped back into life. During India's initial evaluations, the MiG beat out the current operational Russian naval fighter, the gargantuan Sukhoi SU-33.

After negotiating the refitting and purchase of the derelict Russian carrier Admiral Gorshkov, India also purchased 16 highly evolved MiG-29Ks to fly off of it. As the program matured, India doubled down on the MiG-29K with another order of 25 examples. Russia, as part of its revitalization of its expeditionary forces, is also now ordering the MiG-29K to be deployed on its own carrier, the Admirial Kuznetsov, replacing the big but dated SU-33 entirely.

24 examples will be delivered to the Russian Navy by the end of 2015, although this number could substantially grow over time if Russia actually realizes its plans for expanded its naval power projection capabilities by adding additional aircraft carriers. At this time, such a proposition is still a paper one, but the MiG-29k is seen as the aircraft that Russia would build a multi-carrier force around.

Taking Off In A MiG-29K From A Carrier At Night Is A Fiery Thrill.

It is very exciting to see the MiG-29 line continue to evolve and thrive in what is a very fickle and crowded international marketplace for fighter aircraft. The MiG-29K is a very different machine than its legacy brethren, even from the first prototype aircraft that took the designation some 26 years ago.

The MiG-29K features a totally redesigned wing and leading edge root extension, beefier landing gear, a modern glass cockpit and the proven and upgradable Zhuk-ME radar. It also carries much more gas than the "legacy" MiG-29 (40% more internal fuel), includes a full fly-by-wire flight control system, has true multi-role capability and includes a high-degree of sensor fusion, at least for a Russian design. All of this comes in a package with the ruggedness that is a hallmark of MiG designs. As a comparison, the MiG-29K is very roughly analogous to something between an F/A-18C/D Hornet and a early block F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

In the end, the MiG-29K seems like a rational mix of capability, size and cost (unit cost around $32M). It also offers the multi-role capability, relatively advanced weaponry and ability to act as a buddy tanker that have been lacking in past Russian naval fighter designs. Still, I would love to know what type of actual payload and range envelopes these machines can achieve when working off of ski-jump equipped aircraft carriers.

Regardless of the MiG-29K's actual combat radius or its ability to lift heavy loads off the boat, once it is airborne it represents a formidable and modern threat.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2015 16:34

Philip wrote:Just for the record.
There are several reports about the 29K's virtues,here are just a couple.
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/12326 ... ndian_Navy
MiG-29K Looking at a Bigger Role in the Indian Navy

Seeing as the Sea Harrier will be retired next year, that the MiG-29K will play a 'bigger role' is a given.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/taking ... 1655853601

As a comparison, the MiG-29K is very roughly analogous to something between an F/A-18C/D Hornet and a early block F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Would have been better still if it were as reliable as either of the two.

In the end, the MiG-29K seems like a rational mix of capability, size and cost (unit cost around $32M).

The Super Hornet also costs just $35 mil flyaway. Well it did back in 1998. What's the point of flogging an outdated irrelevant number? The $32M figure is for the contract signed in 2004.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Apr 2015 04:01

Viv S the writer is plugging for US planes.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 09 Apr 2015 10:16

Stéphane Fort ‏@Stephane_Fort 11h11 hours ago

India's PM Modi says progress possible in Rafale fighter jet talks. PARIS (Reuters) - http://dlvr.it/9JVvfb #MMRCA

India and France should be able to make progress in talks over the purchase of Rafale fighter jets, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro.

"The question of the Rafales is still in discussion and we should be able to make progress on mutually acceptable bases," Modi told the newspaper ahead his arrival on Thursday in France for a state visit.

Talks on the proposed purchase of 126 Rafale planes have been under way for more than three years, trying to resolve differences over pricing and local assembly.

nash · Post by **nash** » 09 Apr 2015 11:08

If above statement is from Modi then the deal is still very much on with some hard bargaining on prices.

possibly some hard gujju bargaining tactics going with french..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Apr 2015 12:58

"Bases" or "basis"? Byzantine bargaining going on, perhaps a package deal involving many items of malware,N-reactors,etc.,which would be a huge coup for the French if it all coalesces.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 09 Apr 2015 15:02

It's in the indian press as well:

PM Narendra Modi says progress possible in Rafale fighter jet talks

PARIS: India and France should be able to make progress in talks over the purchase of Rafale fighter jets, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro.
"The question of the Rafales is still in discussion and we should be able to make progress on mutually acceptable bases," Modi told the newspaper ahead his arrival on Thursday in France for a state visit.
Talks on the proposed purchase of 126 Rafale planes have been under way for more than three years, trying to resolve differences over pricing and local assembly.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... M40W6Wq6Kr