Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2015 10:00

Karan M wrote:Guys, confirmation on my thoughts above!!! Man we guys on BRF do five minute soch samaj versus our MSM which can't be bothered

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... 5&tabId=13

Alarmingly, in one of its reports, the committee put the actual operational squadron strength at a paltry 25, after discounting aircraft undergoing repair and refit at any given time. The estimate is that 35 to 40 per cent of the aircraft in a squadron can be expected to be in the maintenance or refit or upgrade hangar at any given time.

Is that a normal thing for air force globally to have 35-40 % of fleet in repair/refit etc or is it specific to IAF here.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2015 10:07

Rafale deal will bring oxygen to IAF: Parrikar

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... 4900[quote]

Panaji: The deal struck with France for purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets will bring some "oxygen" to the Indian Air Force into which they will be inducted within two years, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on Saturday.

He described as "great" India's decision to buy these fighters after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Francois Hollande in Paris on Friday, saying it will go a long way in strengthening the IAF.

"Indian Air Force will get minimum oxygen (relief) it requires with this deal...In fact we have not purchased any major new generation aircraft in (last) 17 years.

"It's a great decision taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on better terms and conditions. Procuring 36 planes for two squadrons is an extremely positive decision which was needed," said Parrikar.

Modi had on Thursday said in Paris that India will buy 36 Rafale fighter jets in "fly-away" condition from France at the earliest by "keeping in view the critical operational necessity of fighter aircraft in India."

The Defence Minister said Rafale's induction into the IAF may take two years "as 'fly-away' does not mean we will get them tomorrow".

"It has to be designed as per India's need," he said, adding negotiations will be held over their pricing, which are currently valued at Rs 700 crore.

"The RFP (Request for Proposal) procedure for procuring these aircraft had been dragging on for several years. This was started in 2000 and still it wasnot getting completed because of a lot of confusion so I am very happy that the PM has taken the initiative," Parrikar said.

He said the fighter jets will be inducted into IAF within a span of two years, adding the ice has been finally broken over the deal.

Parrikar did not give any reasons why it will take up to a maximum of two years for inducting these much-needed fighters into IAF.

Experts feel that time may be needed for further price negotiations and refitting the aircraft in tune with Indian requirements. While the government-to-government negotiations may have ended, the forces may have to fine-tune the deal with the manufacturer Dassault.

The fighter aircraft strength has fallen to 34 squadrons from the sanctioned 42 and will further dip with phasing out of MiG-21s and MiG-27s in the next few years [/quote]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2015 10:07

Austin wrote: Is that a normal thing for air force globally to have 35-40 % of fleet in repair/refit etc or is it specific to IAF here.

Austin no one reveals these figures in public. The only time such figures come out is when there is a specific reason to publicize a particular statistics. There is always an agenda in revealing these figures.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2015 10:09

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote: Is that a normal thing for air force globally to have 35-40 % of fleet in repair/refit etc or is it specific to IAF here.
Austin no one reveals these figures in public. The only time such figures come out is when there is a specific reason to publicize a particular statistics. There is always an agenda in revealing these figures.

If such a things is secret and some one has agenda reveling it assuming these are facts , arent we giving information on Fleet Availability to our enemy they can well take this stastics into account on availability in their planning

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 10:10

Austin,

Depends on funding & a variety of factors - funding, supplier issues, age of platform (MMH/FH). Serviceability figures I have seen range from 40% to 80%.
See for instance:
http://www.janes.com/article/44111/germ ... ity-issues

By the metric of merely aircraft available, German AF had 39% availability! IAF comes out much better above. Again, this was due to both tech issues w/EF but a lot die to German funding allocations.
By the metric of only discounting aircraft away on long term maintenance, they had 68%. RAF UK numbers for this - 75%.

USAF
http://www.sae.org/events/dod/presentat ... eserve.pdf
See slide 9, ready to launch - 67% for fighters.

In short, IAF is not really an outlier & the Su-30 rates climbing is the biggest thing (new platform, our heaviest hitter).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 10:13

Austin wrote:If such a things is secret and some one has agenda reveling it assuming these are facts , arent we giving information on Fleet Availability to our enemy they can well take this stastics into account on availability in their planning

True but tet me put it this way, if these figures were not out in the open, you think the likes of Antony would have bothered?
All this stuff is out in the open, because it crossed a line which shouldn't have been.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2015 10:18

^^ True Thanks Shiv, Karan

I think the more the aircraft is produced indiginously the less is issues of Spares one major factor affecting availability .....the other factor is Lic Production and TOT for components to manuf locally.

Else for imported stuff they need to take into account spares to be imported much in advance including taking into account war time loss

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 10:20

1.Which is why the Rafale TOT is/was such a big thing. However the dogs mess previous GOI made of the whole MMRCA has meant we are now in the unenviable position wherein supplier position >>> customer position & we are buying these aircraft off the shelf.

2. which is why when I see the HAL annual report, the three things important (to me) are production numbers/whether they met projections, internal R&D, and spares indigenized

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 12 Apr 2015 10:21

We have seen many posts in BR lamenting how we get fleeced in the fancy terminology of ToT and how it is sham and all, but here again we are ready to plunge in to that, what makes us so sure that this time it will be different.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 10:24

Nitesh wrote:We have seen many posts in BR lamenting how we get fleeced in the fancy terminology of ToT and how it is sham and all, but here again we are ready to plunge in to that, what makes us so sure that this time it will be different.

Look at the context please.. TOT is often seen by many as some boost to local industry, makes us on par with world powers etc. That is clearly wrong and which is where its a "sham" etc. IOW, Rafale TOT doesn't mean India can make local F-22s.

However TOT is vital for local sustainment. Spares, logistics, keeping numbers high. IOW, Rafale TOT keeps spares sourcing localized (to a large extent) which is a plus.

I only look at TOT as a winner for sustainment

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 12 Apr 2015 10:29

Karan M wrote: Look at the context please.. TOT is often seen by many as some boost to local industry, makes us on par with world powers etc. That is clearly wrong and which is where its a "sham" etc. IOW, Rafale TOT doesn't mean India can make local F-22s.

However TOT is vital for local sustainment. Spares, logistics, keeping numbers high. IOW, Rafale TOT keeps spares sourcing localized (to a large extent) which is a plus.

I only look at TOT as a winner for sustainment

Karan saar, we all don't know what are the details worked out, we have seen the MKI tyre saga too. may be I was not clear enough, I was trying to make a point is, we are going to be sucked up in to this Rafale thing where we will end up doing the circus of managing different inventories, giving heed to France whims, and suck up. The whole fleet will be dependent on goodwill of Russians and France, to my view, can't see the situation improving even after 20 years.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2015 10:53

Karan M wrote:TOT is often seen by many as some boost to local industry, makes us on par with world powers etc. That is clearly wrong and which is where its a "sham" etc. IOW, Rafale TOT doesn't mean India can make local F-22s.

However TOT is vital for local sustainment. Spares, logistics, keeping numbers high. IOW, Rafale TOT keeps spares sourcing localized (to a large extent) which is a plus.

I only look at TOT as a winner for sustainment

True , TOT is just a Fancy Name given to manufacture Spares and Components that is agreed upon from locally sourced material in exact composition and process that each components/spares/parts would need.

In simple english it would teach us not just the Know How ,Process but also the Know Why.

In the good old days of lic Manuf of 21 and Jags we would procure the lic to build it and local manufacturing of spares components was not agreed upon at the onset of the contract but was done at the later stage also the Know how and Process was known to make it and we had to really pay for the lic and local manuf cost for all the component we made as part of lic cost. We still ended up importing many stuff even after decades of lic production.

With TOT you can make as much as spare/components for operational/reserves need , you just end up paying for the lic aircraft cost.

All in All it works out cheap if you consider the Life Cycle Cost of 35 years of new types and Operational Availability is drastically impacted if you can procure what you want from local store and not import.

Again what TOT wont give you is ability to build aircraft beyond the agreed numbers and paying lic fees for it , it may or may not help in our other programs too as things can get specific to aircraft in terms of composition or if at all the learning process will be gradual , we dont get Design Data on the aircraft in terms of the tons of data Dassult would have accumulated in Desigining and Flight Test program of Rafale , something we have it with Tejas.

So any changes to be done on Rafale like adding CFT or Weapons load that can off set the CG you would still have to depends on Dassault for go ahead once they test it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 10:56

Nitesh wrote:
Karan M wrote: Look at the context please.. TOT is often seen by many as some boost to local industry, makes us on par with world powers etc. That is clearly wrong and which is where its a "sham" etc. IOW, Rafale TOT doesn't mean India can make local F-22s.

However TOT is vital for local sustainment. Spares, logistics, keeping numbers high. IOW, Rafale TOT keeps spares sourcing localized (to a large extent) which is a plus.

I only look at TOT as a winner for sustainment
Karan saar, we all don't know what are the details worked out, we have seen the MKI tyre saga too. may be I was not clear enough, I was trying to make a point is, we are going to be sucked up in to this Rafale thing where we will end up doing the circus of managing different inventories, giving heed to France whims, and suck up. The whole fleet will be dependent on goodwill of Russians and France, to my view, can't see the situation improving even after 20 years.

Nitesh, the point is that as long as we purchase from abroad we will be dependent on their good will. That part is a given.

With TOT, you reduce the amount.

E.g. for Su-30 MKI, we indigenized the tyres since they were an issue. Without TOT, it wouldn't just be tyres is my point. It would be everything.

Hence, if we must purchase from abroad, we must & should get as much TOT as possible & also consistently work on localizing as much as possible above & beyond the TOT and work that into the agreement too (eg Su-30 MKI agreement had this proviso). Otherwise, the OEM will say warranty void etc if we have a mix of local & original parts.

PS: For Rafale,The details worked out - per original deal - if it goes through, should be 55% TOT (at least). That's per DPP. I had dug that number out once.
Also, for Su-30 MKI, the TOT has taken a long time because of delays on Russian side. The AL-31FP for instance has been 2+ years over schedule. So, HAL made components have mostly gone into its Sukhois. The IAF in the meantime was to source directly from Russia. Delays there too. Now, HAL is setting up a spares bank with mix of own/Russian spares & increasing indigenization on priority basis. At least they have that option for the Su-30. Otherwise without TOT imagine being 100% reliant on Sukhoi/Russia.

Which is why I would still want TOT for Rafale to minimize reliance on Dassault/Thales/Safran.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 Apr 2015 11:26

As long as we are importing , with or without TOT, we would be depending on the whims of other nations. In this regard credentials of Russians and French are much higher and proven in the event of war. US is totally unreliable partner. However we need to build our own manufacturing base and develop MIC. Perhaps LCA, PAK-FA and FGFA were steps in that direction. What succeeds is yet to be seen. LCA seems ahead. If we get TOT for Rafale then I am sure NaMo would not make mistake of earlier Govt of not taking Assembly line of Mirage 2000. He would go full force and the behind the scene discussion would be that only .

Regarding Bofors , Tech was transferred to India by the Company but India did not take action to produce a single gun on its own while banning the import from Sweden. When VKS tried we all know what happened. In fact this knowledge that tech transfer had happened was also due to VKS insistence became public. Else it was a State Secret. Now why Congress would do that unless they have been thoroughly compromised by traitors in their ranks.

By taking a decision to purchase Rafale NaMo has shown who is Boss here. If he decides to take 200+ LCA under direct purchase Make in India category , after FOC is given, IAF can not do Yak Yak anymore. By Jan 2017 NaMo will have his chosen Chief and Army Chief by July 2017. So expect all the officers in the line of "Succession" to work harder.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 11:35

Fair points C.

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 12 Apr 2015 11:59

1. The order of Rafales cannot stop at 36. If the price for the first lot is set at $125mn without TOT etc, how will it be lower for any subsequent tranches?
2. Is the most urgent IAF need fulfilled with 36 or will they need three more sqns in say 5-8 years? (imo, yes)
3. Are we looking at any real HAL involvement in manufacture vs. kit assembly/integration? (imo, No).
4. Please stop ascribing any chankianness to the politicos - one bunch is the same as the others. At least we knew for sure one bunch was corrupt. This is definitely not a corrupt bunch so it must be bargaining-challenged or chanakian-retarded.

I had posted a list of types and the IAF projected retirement dates (collated from various sources) on the Indian Military Aviation thread after someone said let's go over this with more data but never came back with any specifics of how to take this further.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 12:05

Dexter, I think there will be further orders, the 108 deal will be done & the HAL part isn't closed yet. IMO (gut feel etc).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Apr 2015 12:17

DexterM wrote:<SNIP>I had posted a list of types and the IAF projected retirement dates (collated from various sources) on the Indian Military Aviation thread after someone said let's go over this with more data but never came back with any specifics of how to take this further.<SNIP>

Dexter - your numbers and assumptions are way off the mark.

- Mig-21M/MF are only 4 squadrons and don't amount to 150 a/c. And will go between 2015-2020. But not at one go.
- There is only 1 x Mig-21 bis squadron and this will also be phased out in 2015-2020 period.
- 5/6 x Mig-21 Bison squadrons will soldier on till 2025 at least.
- Of the Mig-27, 3 x Squadrons are Mig-27ML (which were not upgraded) and 2 x Squadrons are Mig-27UPG. The Mig-27ML will go in between 2015-2020 period. Mig-27UPG will go after 2020 period.
- There are ~200 Su-30MKI in service between 10 squadrons. We're looking at 4 more Su-30MKI coming online by 2018.

At the expense of repeating myself 'Nth' time, the phase over in 2015-2020 period will look something like this:

- OUT: 4 x Mig-21M/MF, 1 x Mig-21Bis, 3 x Mig-27ML (Total: 8 squadrons) [This can be higher is IAF brings forward phasing out of Mig-27UPG and HAL produces more Tejas Mk1 basis increased order from IAF]

- IN: 4 x Su-30MKI, 2 x TejasMk1, 2 x Rafale (Total: 8 Squadrons)

DexterM · Post by **DexterM** » 12 Apr 2015 12:33

Rohit, we could list the numbers without dramatics such as nth time etc? You've until now only listed sqdns and not AVAILABLE numbers.
I don't own the numbers, so if they're wrong, we can fix them.

From what you're saying, we're doing worse in terms of operational a/c.
If I try to fix the numbers vis-a-vis squadrons, could you help with those?

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 12 Apr 2015 13:06

Karan Boss, got the point.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Apr 2015 13:17

The Rafale was declared winner fair and square after a most excruciating battle with its rivals from east and west. The only issue that alarmed the nation and led to a heated debate of the entire deal was the massive price escalation and reluctance of Dassault to guarantee an HAL built fighter. The undercurrents for this are in the realm of speculation,as everyone knows,there were several interested pvt. parties too wanting to build the fighter (with no aerospace experience whatsoever) instead of HAL. The drift in negotiations could be seen either as total incompetence of the UPA-2 regime or a cunning plan using the delay to hike the price to suit the interests of a few lucky entities. One may remember that the same thing happened in the case of the Scorpene deal and the French have never been averse to indulging in under-the-table gestures of affection and thanks,just ask the Pakis!

The new dispensation was caught in a cleft stick. The alarming crisis in the IAF's rapidly depleting numbers and capability and the legacy off a struggling debt-ridden economy thanks to that famous mendicant and expert of global economics,Snake-oil Singh. bargaining for a lower price for off-the-shelf Rafales in much smaller numbers was the only way in which the deal could go forward. Tejas has still not arrived combat capable and though extra MKIs were/are still an excellen option,they require two pilots and one knows that entails extra human support for the additional pilot,his family,etc.,adding to the IAF's logistics and cost.

The 36 aircraft buy will arrest the slide ,improve capability and still offers the IAF options of extra MKIs and accelerating Tejas production spurring the "make-in-India" mantra of Mr.Modi. decision on extra Rafales will certainly come later on,perhaps in 2-3 years time after the first batch is delivered,as the bird has got its nose inside the tent.It has always been easier for the GOI/MOD/IAF to plump for extra aircraft,tanks,whatever once a weapon system has been inducted and is performing satisfactorily.No need to go through the torturous exercise of tendres,evaluation,etc.,taking years.

The IAF/MOD have actually taken a breather,postponed the decisions on the battle order for the next decade+ and have options in the form of upgraded MKIs (Super Sukhois),LCAs-both Mk-1 and MK-2 (when it arrives),FGFAs and later on the AMCA after the LCA programme has succeeded.
Since this deal is costing us only around $4B,one expects and hopes that in the interim ,more MKIs and LCAs are ordered,perhaps 40+ of each type,so that for another $3-4 B the IAF will get its 120+ numbers and have some extra money for the tankers,AWACS/AEW&C aircraft,helicopters,etc. If this is indeed the strategy of Mr.Modi and the DM,then it would appear very pragmatic and sensible.

As for the good Dr.SS,surely he should understand that the Rafale was chosen after the most extensive contest for any fighter in history and that its performance parameters have never been an issue.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 12 Apr 2015 13:23

PS - Hope this doesn't stray away from the MMRCA discussion. IndiGo, agreed to buy a record 250 single-aisle planes from Airbus Group valued at 25.7 Billion$ (Oct 2014) whereas Emirates’ order for 150 Boeing 777X aircraft, valued at $76 billion (in 2013), is the single largest aircraft order by value in the history of US commercial aviation, creating and supporting an estimated 436,000 jobs in the US. Even the 76 Billion$ order didn't influence Boeing to make planes in UAE as far as I know.

Indigo purchase - http://www.wsj.com/articles/indigo-orde ... 1413359129
Emirates purchase - http://www.emirates.com/us/english/abou ... oeing.aspx

Suraj wrote:
shiv wrote:I think that Airbus order by Indigo was the largest single order placed for any aircraft in any airshow ever.
It was, at that time. It has since been overtaken by large Emirates widebody orders I think. Just for that reason, we should demand that we have a localized A320 line in India.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 12 Apr 2015 13:37

Cain Marko wrote:^ IIRC the F3R is still under works. The one missing capability for IAF Rafales, and an uber capability at that will be the lack of the Meteor integration - sucks! I wish they would push for this even more than the M88 @ 9tons.

By the way, does anyone have an idea where the first Rafales will be based? Kalaikunda, Bengaluru?

So, now we are faced with one great option and a second calamitous one with a third, "meeh" type option.

Good news first:
Rafale buy stays limited to present 36 (or at the most another sqd or so) and LCA mk1 numbers increase. Plus a concentrated effort at Pakfa.

Awful option:
Rafale buy increases and LCA mk1 is ignored. Pakfa is pursued

OK option:

Rafale and Pakfa duke it out and LCA mk1 + mk2 numbers increase.

With possible Integration of Astra and Astra MK-2 into Rafale in near future , Meteor will not be missed and even french will get F3R post 2018 which is still 3 years away by the time we will get all 36 ordered jets. Software upgrades for radar performance improvements an be performed in India .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Apr 2015 13:46

If the French transfer some of their existing aircraft within a year so that at least one sqd. can be established in 2016, replacing them with new ones later on as was done with Jaguars and SU-30s,the definitive new ones replacing the first aircraft,then the deal would make greater sense.It would shorten the time taken for training of pilots and technicians and a faster combat capability too.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Apr 2015 14:06

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Apr 2015 14:09

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Apr 2015 14:13

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 12 Apr 2015 16:10

36 Rafaels in ready to fly condition and what about 126 MRCA programme?

GoI brought initial 50 Su-30s with produced in Russia and brought in different batches. I feel Rafaels will go in that same line.
Initial order of 36 in ready to fly condition, under MRCA order 18 produced by France after some modifications, HAL produce 108 with local ToT
under option of buy additional 60-70 making it total 13 sq of Rafaels

so by 2030 we can see
Su-30s - 15 sq
Rafael - 13 sq
Tejas - 10 sq
PAKFA/FGFA - 7 sq
Total - 45 sq

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2015 16:12

Emirates and ksa orders are petro dollar recycling payments for american support to their regimes.

Bhurishrava · Post by **Bhurishrava** » 12 Apr 2015 17:21

Air Force chief made a plea before the PM about the dwindling plane numbers. PM says - Ok lets sort this out first. We will deal with the bigger order in due course of time.
So they buy 36 planes immediately while continuing to negotiate the tougher clauses like ToTs and responsibility for planes being produced in India.
This probably is the more likely scenario.

The India-France joint statement said the order for the 36 jets would be "on terms that would be better than conveyed by Dassault Aviation as part of a separate process underway".

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 12 Apr 2015 17:56

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 896502.cms

French sources said the meeting at the Elysee Palace would be held between Hollande, his top officials and executives from Dassault Aviation, the manufacturers of the Rafale jets.
"There was nobody, either from Indian side or the French side, when the two leaders spoke about the Rafale. Everyone would be briefed in detail on Monday about what transpired and discussions would be held on how it can be taken forward," sources said.
The capacity of the Dassault plant is 36 aircraft per anum and the Indian version of the aircraft will have to be fine- tuned as per its requirement.
One of the options that is being looked at is putting on hold the order for the French military and diverting them to meet India's immediate requirements.
Another issue that will come up for discussion is the pricing and also if the French government will be providing a tax holiday or some other concession to Dassault to bring down the prices of the aircraft for India.

No blah-blah and delaying decision by our current government. Just get things moving. Great job

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 12 Apr 2015 17:59

eklavya wrote:

One of my favorite pic

Add MK1 by 2016/MK.2 by 2020 and AMCA by 2025 and the picture is complete

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Apr 2015 18:27

Austin wrote:
Is that a normal thing for air force globally to have 35-40 % of fleet in repair/refit etc or is it specific to IAF here.

Austin this is a complicated issue but I'll touch very briefly (and we can discuss more if you or others wish). Serviceability and out of " use" can be there for very many reasons. Ultimately unless there is an issue in the aircraft itself (and this has happened to many aircraft before where they are just a pain in the back side to maintain and keep serviced) the down-times are a function of A) the usage you put on the aircraft and

your capacity at the depot level

A) Any model is only as good as the assumptions you make in it. 8000 or 6000 hours is thrown around for aircraft life but do keep in mind that these are based on a modeled approach, based on the user's expect level of use (how hard they push the aircraft, what sort of flying they do, what sort of maintaining they do etc etc). Disrupt the assumptions and your model has to be reworked. Aircraft in the past (especially the 4th gen that introduced 9G's and care-free handling charecteristics) had to have their models revived over time because the pilots just loved pushing the jets. In the USAF and USN this for example led to the concept of engine cycles and placing restrictions on how much throttle you could use on routine missions as an example to keep the engine cycle (life) high or on track.

B ) Your depot capacity ultimately determines how fast you could send the aircraft back to the fleet. This is an investment thing but also is helped by having an inherently easy to maintain aircraft.

As an example, the SEQUESTER has hurt the depot level capability of the USMC significantly. They have had to cut down on the number of depots, and reduce the contracted staff per depot significantly. This when coupled with the fact that their USAGE models have gone crazy due to effectively operating in "combat mode" for more than a decade means that their OLD F/A-18 fleet is at 50% down levels meaning that at any given times 50% of the classic hornet fleet cannot fight or train. But this is a fleet that is towards the end of its life, and this is a reason why they are IOC'ing with the F-35B a full year ahead of the USAF.

This is also something you develop models on, and run simulations and calculations years in advanced. Going back to the USN/USMC they know exactly what stresses and hours the Super Hornet and Growler fleets are pulling at the moment on foreign deployments. They also know that if this continues they would need X level of depot capability when these airframes get to say 4000 hours. They have to plan accordingly and either have more aircraft (to sustain squadron strength while there is a clog in the depot pipeline) or gradually over time build depot capacity. Sustainability, and operation readiness is a process that lasts for years. It is not something you can fix at a snap of a finger and on most occasions when you run into issues, the root cause analysis either points to a miscalculation in the model, lack of proper and timely investment in depot capacity or a significantly higher utilization rate (for example in case of high intensity deployments).

Cain Marko wrote: I do hope that Dassault sweetens the pot with the Meteor. Does anybody know if the IAF evaluated the Rafale with the Topsight HMS? IIRC, earlier variants did not have one.

The IAF purchased close to 500 missiles (MICA's) a couple of years ago so it makes sense to have more of those and ultimately trying to get the ASTRA integrated as soon possible. Do keep in mind that the first export sale of the Meteor had reports that pegged the cost per round at or north of $3 Million. The HMS will naturally be included as its standard now with the Rafale (??).

DexterM wrote:1. The order of Rafales cannot stop at 36. If the price for the first lot is set at $125mn without TOT etc, how will it be lower for any subsequent tranches?

At approximately 4 Billion Euros for the deal (LeMonde) it comes to around $117 Million plus weapons. Depending upon the package expect 20-30 Million (per jet) to be the cost of the weapons package (A standard FMS Multi-role package usually runs in the 15-20 Million price point - I used the South Korea FMS package for the F-35 as a base which was at 17 Million per fighter for weapons) as the French weapons are likely to be the most expensive out of all western suppliers.

I think the TOT cost to be significantly less this time around as I expect them to water down the components of the TOT to keep costs low. That would be a better way to do it but there is a possibility in my opinion that they do another follow on post 36 deliveries to get tot he 63 number and then either scrap the MRCA or produce a smaller batch in India. The same deal scaled up to 126 odd gets us at a cost of around $15 Billion without TOT and weapons.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2015 18:56

When did USMC have f18? Surely not on their ships?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Apr 2015 19:06

Singha wrote:When did USMC have f18? Surely not on their ships?

They have more than 200 F/A-18 (Classic hornets). The Marines operate from a lot more places then just their LHA's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ve ... s#Aircraft

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 12 Apr 2015 19:22

^^^^^
Wiki lists 12 active squadrons of F/A18 (A, C & D variants).

From this link http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... main/6458/

The Marine Corps, much as they hate to admit it, are part of the Department of the Navy. Marine aviators go through Navy flight training, which includes carrier qualification, and wear Naval Aviator wings. Portions of Marine Air Wings will deploy on carriers. (The F-18's they fly are the same as Navy versions...)

and

There are alot of USMC units operating within a Carrier Air Wing on a regular basis.
For example the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314 (VMFA-314) of MCAS Miramar belongs to the Carrier Air Wing 9 (CVW-9), currently on CVN-74 John C. Stennis.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Apr 2015 19:42

sattili wrote:^^^^^
Wiki lists 12 active squadrons of F/A18 (A, C & D variants).

From this link http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... main/6458/
The Marine Corps, much as they hate to admit it, are part of the Department of the Navy. Marine aviators go through Navy flight training, which includes carrier qualification, and wear Naval Aviator wings. Portions of Marine Air Wings will deploy on carriers. (The F-18's they fly are the same as Navy versions...)
and
There are alot of USMC units operating within a Carrier Air Wing on a regular basis.
For example the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314 (VMFA-314) of MCAS Miramar belongs to the Carrier Air Wing 9 (CVW-9), currently on CVN-74 John C. Stennis.

Its getting OT so i posted some info here -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&p=1827253#p1827253

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2015 20:55

So how many in the media other than Nitin Gokhlae wrote about 36 Rafales?

AFAIK this is the most up to date thread on Rafale.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 21:10

Shishir Gupta was the one to say 40 Rafales.

Nitin Gokhale was teh first to break news of Rafale purchase with 63. Livefist and Manu Pubby jumped on the bandwagon later.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Apr 2015 21:16

Shishir Gupta, Gokhale IIRC are old media hands.
Aroor (Livefist) is a pompous showoff. Hit and miss. Pubby is a firm member of what an ex RAW guy (RSN Singh) referred to as the Chandigarh gang. He, Aroor all owe loyalty to Coup-ta. Pubby has run many motivated articles in the past and has the dubious distinction (along with Coup-ta) of being called out by an ex services chief for his motivated coverage.