Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2015 11:14

Cost-effective firang alternatives are the MIG-29/35,Gripen,and SH in price ascending order. If the DM has also officially stated that an MKI is half the price of a Rafale,add it to the list!

If a Rafale is at least $100M,then the deal is a long-term disaster. If more aircraft are later on bought,with no TOT at higher prevailing prices ,there will be little left in the kitty for other equally urgent defence orders.

What a pity,some have a deep rooted animosity towards Russia and Russian milware that has been responsible for our successful wars against Pak in the Past,and are reluctant to acknowledge that the backbone of the IAF today is the MKI! No one is belittling the men and women behind the machines,why India fighting with less sophisticated but rugged and reliale milware always kicked Pak in the butt. Neither is one ignoring the many problems we have had with the support of Soviet/Russian eqpt. after the fall of the USSR,why we have correctly in recent years spread our requirements from abroad amongst various mil suppliers and nations. eqpt. However,when it comes to real cutting edge malware,Russia is still the only one that has given us N-sub tech,N-subs,BMos ,MKIs,etc. and why our Pres. Pranabda is at this moment in Moscow expressing India's solidarity with Russia,despite a boycott from Western nations (who continue to arm and aid Pak like the US) of the WW2 Victory Day parade and celebrations!

X-posted:

US gives Pakistan USD 5.4 billion worth of military equipment
From Lalit K Jha Washington, May 6

The US has given military hardware, including F-16 fighter jets, to Pakistan amounting to a whopping USD 5.4 billion since the 9/11 terror attacks, according to a latest Congressional report.

"The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about USD 5.4 billion for FY 2002-FY 2014," an internal report of the independent Congressional Research Service said yesterday.

Sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for nearly half of this.

Compared to this, in the last 10 years India has placed orders or purchased more than USD 10 billion worth of hi-tech military hardware from the US and is planning to buy more.

The remarkable jump in bilateral defence trade between India and the US is attributable to the improvement in India-US defence ties post 9/11 attacks and the 2005 signing of the Defence Framework Agreement between the two nations.

Meanwhile, the US has quietly armed Pakistan, despite the fact that for two years there was a complete halt in supply of new arms and equipment to Pakistan's military.

The military hardware given to Pakistan in the 10-year framework has been argued as supplies needed by Islamabad for capacity building to fight terrorists in its border areas.

But most of the arms and equipment supplied to Pakistan has been those which could be used for conventional war with India.

According to the one-page Congressional Research Service (CRS) fact sheet, the US Congress has appropriated about USD 3.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Pakistan since 2001. More than two-thirds of this has been disbursed.

"These funds are used to purchase US military equipment for long-term modernisation efforts. Pakistan also has been granted US defence supplies as Excess Defence Articles (EDA). Cost includes training and support," the report said.

Major articles transferred via EDA include: 14 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon combat aircraft; 59 T-37 Tweet military trainer jets; and 374 M113 armoured personnel carriers.

With the extra US "development aid",Pak is also able to buy from China the extra malware aimed at India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2015 12:47

AWST on Japan's new thinking about air warfare.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-r ... -huge-aams

Japan Revisits Slow Aircraft Capable Of Firing Huge AAMs
Japan suspects that by the 2030s the fighter will not be the only means of air control
May 8, 2015 Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Almost 60 years ago, the U.S. Navy looked at replacing fleet-defense fighters with low-performance aircraft firing high-performance missiles. The program was canceled in 1960, replaced with development of aircraft that could do more than loiter and lob missiles at distant air targets. But now Japan, challenged with a numerically superior Chinese fighter force, is taking another look at the idea. The Japanese defense ministry chose Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) on Jan. 22 to outline a

This is in keeping with the USN's CNO,Adm.Greenert's remarks about "bomb trucks" being as good as "sports cars".It is a matter which often gets discussed on BRF,using legacy aircraft with better AAMs,sensors,etc. ,rather than expensive fancy new toys,if it is the "missile that matters".

Just imagine if our heavyeight LRMP aircraft like Bears,with their massive unequalled range and endurance,able to fly to S.Africa and back without refuelling,transports like the Il-76s/C-17s (we used AN-12s as bombers in the past) were equipped with the needful,what effect and extra capability they would give the IAF/IN which are stretched,esp. the IAF for adequate numbers of fighters like Japan.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 08 May 2015 15:09

Actually that's borne out by this study of trends in air to air combat from the defence aerospace site :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 2819/.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 May 2015 16:07

Any thing made by Japan will never be cheap and they have much less experienced developing any thing for themself but rely on khan for critical component/technology etc

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 17:14

khukri wrote:Actually that's borne out by this study of trends in air to air combat from the defence aerospace site :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 2819/.html

Its a CSBA assessment, Briganti doesn't do any analysis on his own (the type you can present to your peers and have them poke holes in), and neither is capable of any

Anyhow that entire presentation can be heard down below -

This is in keeping with the USN's CNO,Adm.Greenert's remarks about "bomb trucks" being as good as "sports cars".It is a matter which often gets discussed on BRF,using legacy aircraft with better AAMs,sensors,etc. ,rather than expensive fancy new toys,if it is the "missile that matters".

Actually, what the japanese are doing and what the CSBA recommends is contrary to what just adding more Air to Air Missiles on legacy platforms. Its a needs things.You can't put 20 Missiles on an F-2 (hypothetically) or an F-15E and claim performance advantage over a J-20. Simply put an RCS advantage that is that significant would have disastrous impact on your detection ranges so those 20 Air to Air missiles are virtually useless. Information is the key here as the article even claims, since Situational Awareness decides the majority of combat encounters. A stealth fighter especially when coupled with a cutting edge avionics and sensor fusion on board has huge advantages in that department.

For the future you need larger aircraft for more sensors, for Directed Energy Weapons, and more importantly you need to add weight to protect them from directed energy weapons. This ups the physical size, and the range and loiter requirements add the size further. A point comes where (what the author recommends) you need to ditch the supersonic requirement in favor of range and signature. It is in no way an endorsement to keep legacy fighters, nor is the Japanese approach.

Any thing made by Japan will never be cheap and they have much less experienced developing any thing for themself but rely on khan for critical component/technology etc

From all the 5th generation products that are being considered (TF-X, KF-X, F-3) the F-3 would be the most indigenous out of the lot. The Japanese don't decide until 2018 whether to go ahead or not, but if they do the aircraft would have Japanese engines (IHI), Japanese radars (AESA), Japanese IR sensors, Fly by optics etc etc. They may not go ahead with it but if they do the product will be highly indigenous, unlike the Korean or Turkish projects.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 May 2015 17:29

My Fellow Ladies: Stop whining and complaining about the cost. A purchase of this nature has strategic value attached to it. Whether you agree or not with that assessment, it is. How many of you can put a cost to the strategic value of appeasing our own Supreme HQs?

Cloak and Daggers, Smoke and Mirrors...whatever you want to call it.

Please re-read the post by brar_w at the very top of page 96 about the cost. And if you still have a problem understanding it, read it again till it sinks in. One cannot explain it any more lucidly than he has. Good job brar!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 May 2015 17:33

+1

GOI may be looking some hard support form French on nuke front etc. French were with us when we tested also. So many other relationships count here.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2015 18:32

May be I've got this wrong but are we not desperate for new equipment (the buying of which is a function of available funding)? Especially considering the speed and scale of the Chinese military modernization program?

Can we afford to be forking over hard cash for nebulous strategic goals?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 May 2015 18:39

Rakesh wrote:Please re-read the post by brar_w at the very top of page 96 about the cost. And if you still have a problem understanding it, read it again till it sinks in. One cannot explain it any more lucidly than he has. Good job brar!

His post put price in proper context (procurement v flyaway cost). It did not however challenge the fact that this is horrendously expensive deal.

The figures make plain what has been said on this thread for a long time - we're paying 5th gen prices for a 4.5 gen aircraft. Coupled with a munitions package costing what munitions from France always do (apt example being our MICAs bought at $2.7M each).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 18:54

It did not however challenge the fact that this is horrendously expensive deal.

Since last year, I have been saying that although a very capable platform (which the IAF itself picked as the best in technical performance) the Rafale will be an extremely expensive platform to acquire. It was always going to be a 4+ gen aircraft at 5th gen prices for a customer looking to build up a fleet by say 2020. This had been speculated by me and others last year but we needed proof since Dassault hadn't managed to sell a single aircraft internationally till about a few weeks ago. From the Egypt deal (signed) and the Qatar deal (signed as well) we can gauge how much an export Dassault rafale costs compared to an F-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35, Su-30 etc. Its roughly comparable to the F-35 and much more expensive then the Super Hornet. I don't have costing data on the Typhoon because a full up multi-role version with AESA hasn't yet been sold (iirc) but given the production run for that aircraft it may as well have been cheaper to acquire.

EDIT: To be honest I had expected an Export contract for the Rafale to be around 20% cheaper on average than an equivalent contract for PAKFA/T-50 and the F35. While we don't know how much a Russian 5th generation fighter would cost since they haven't started serial production we know that the Qatar and Egypt deals are~~pretty much at par~~ [Significantly more expensive if AvWeek's figures are acurate] with what the F-35 sells in the export market in Low Rate Initial Production. This has to be kept in mind. While the Rafale is the best aircraft the IAF had the option of acquiring, it still costs as much as a 5th generation multi-role fighter. This is no way advocacy for the F-35 which isn't an option for political reasons, but this is most likely the reason that an even more expensive deal for the MMRCA was scrapped because the price would have likely been upwards of 30-35 Billion dollars (as was reported in an article on the last page).

This would in my opinion leave the IAF with around 50-60 Rafale's (at best) and having a higher MKI production run coupled with (hopefully) a more aggressive LCA procurement over the next decade. So it does appear to be the only "realistic" Exit strategy since canceling the deal outright would have meant an unfavorable situation vis-a-vis multi role aircraft for the IAF and bad relationship with the French that have been reliable suppliers. Instead of buying just the MKI's as substitutes for the MMRCA you split the MMRCA purchase between the Rafale and the MKI (this is my speculation) and call it a day gracefully. This then ties back to the original requirements (not the technical ones) and the MOD process of creating the bids. Did the really think they could affordably acquire Advanced 4th generation multi-role fighters for under $ 20 Billion including TOT and local production? If so, are those same folks still in charge of the decision making process?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 08 May 2015 19:23

it's going to be expensive to get into the French system initially. once into the system it will be easier for comm/ew upgrades, block model changes, weapons upgrades, etc. At least you won't be co-developing with China by using French gear as you would with Russian gear. With Russian or US gear you are tied to their geo-political strategy. How much is that worth to not have that? Kuwait is an excellent example of being closely tied to the US. Nobody else will come to the rich guys rescue but the US. it's root hog, or die, for them. India is not in that position.

So here's the question, just how bad do you guys wanna be different from the Russian-Chinese gear? What's that worth to you? If this doesn't bother you then go Russki. Otherwise, pony up the bucks and everybody else can go dine with the Chinese or the Kuwatis. yeah, you're paying for caviar and getting black eye peas instead but black eye peas are highly nutritious.

Texafr · Post by **Texafr** » 08 May 2015 21:29

GeorgeWelch wrote:France sells 24 Rafale to Qatar for $7 billion

US to sell 28 SH to Kuwait for $3+ billion

This is probably the closest we can come to an equal comparison of costs.

No, because the Qatari Rafale contract also includes the biggest contract that the European missile manufacturer MBDA has ever received:
- 160 METEOR AA missiles
- 300 MICA AA missiles
- 300 AASM AG weapons sytems
- 140 SCALP AG cruise missiles
- 60 EXOCET AS missiles

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... ew&id=1745

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 21:42

All FMS deals include a weapons package that is separate but also declared and reported by DSCA. You just have to add them to come to a total cost. When the Kuwait deal is announced it would include both the FMS deals for the aircraft and its support kit (one FMS announcement) and the weapons (separate announcement). It hasn't been announced yet so its a wait and see.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 May 2015 23:13

So it does appear to be the only "realistic" Exit strategy since canceling the deal outright would have meant an unfavorable situation vis-a-vis multi role aircraft for the IAF and bad relationship with the French that have been reliable suppliers. Instead of buying just the MKI's as substitutes for the MMRCA you split the MMRCA purchase between the Rafale and the MKI (this is my speculation) and call it a day gracefully.

Yes, this was the only option left to the present GOI - still, I wonder if the possibility of buying some A330s and/or Scorpenes might not have placated the French. Far more useful buys that would fill important gaps in the forces than going this inordinately expensive route. Having said this, let us not forget that the deal is still not signed and there is the possibility that some such agreement might come about.

This then ties back to the original requirements (not the technical ones) and the MOD process of creating the bids. Did the really think they could affordably acquire Advanced 4th generation multi-role fighters for under $ 20 Billion including TOT and local production?

This entire fiasco was a bomb leftover by the previous GOI's dubious security policies. A massive suspicion rose in one's mind the moment the MRCA bid was opened up to fighters in altogether different categories, all under the name of a new DPP, ostensibly created for transparency. My take is that this boondoggle was a result of MMS & Co's cozying up towards the US - possibly a quid pro quid for the N-Deal, and the MRCA would have gone the Shornet way had the IAF not scuttled the plan with a very professional, and thorough technical evaluation.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 May 2015 23:42

Viv S wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Please re-read the post by brar_w at the very top of page 96 about the cost. And if you still have a problem understanding it, read it again till it sinks in. One cannot explain it any more lucidly than he has. Good job brar!
His post put price in proper context (procurement v flyaway cost). It did not however challenge the fact that this is horrendously expensive deal.

The figures make plain what has been said on this thread for a long time - we're paying 5th gen prices for a 4.5 gen aircraft. Coupled with a munitions package costing what munitions from France always do (apt example being our MICAs bought at $2.7M each).

Succinctly put.

This deal - IF it costs around $ 8 billion will be insanity. I don't see any strategic compulsion to pursue this other than a face saving measure. But this might be achieved by other options too.

Just back of the envelope calculations:

Cost of Rafale without TOT/Mfg set-up but with maintenance, training, weapons etc. = $ 200+ million per unit
Cost of Su-30MKI with weapons (no need for anything else) = $ 100 million per unit
Just as an FYI: 2015 deal for Su-30SM with Kazakhstan cost was about $ 20 million per unit - perhaps without support etc.

Cost of Su-30MKI operations = $ 12000 per hr
Cost of Rafale operations = $ 10-12000 per hr? - Based on statements that it is cheaper than the Shornet (Brazil), twice as much as the Gripen NG, and cost about $ 18000 per hour. Could be less than the MKI - considering its size, but then again - western birds are known to have some serious upkeep costs.

@ 200 flt hours per year for 40 years , MKI @ $ 2.4 million per year = $ 96 million
@ 200 flt hours per year for 40 years, Rafale @ $ 1.2 million per year = $ 48 million

Total cost of MKI over 40 years = $ 196 million
Total cost of Rafale over 40 years = $ 260 million

And I am being overly generous with the rafale here - should be a LOT more expensive. Then let us not forget how expensive French MLUs are compared to Russian ones. The difference is staggering...my guess is that we are paying $ 100 million per unit.

Ya, we could afford to get about 50-60 MKI for far less than the quoted $ 8 billion (Rafale) and still gain equal or more capability even counting for the differences in availability rates.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 May 2015 23:53

Cain Marko wrote:the MRCA would have gone the Shornet way had the IAF not scuttled the plan with a very professional, and thorough technical evaluation.

It should be pointed out that both Boeing and Lockheed has plenty of grounds to protest, but decided not to in order to not ruffle feathers with other deals in the pipeline (P-8, C-17, Apache, C-130, etc)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 May 2015 03:24

The only ground for Boeing that I am aware for was that the IAF did not consider the enhanced engine that it and GE were offering while they took into considration the Typhoon's AESA which was also n development at the time and not expected to be operational for a lot many years. Although it could be considered a ground for protest but I seriously doubt it would have been upheld. Its entirely the IAF's peroagitive to pick and choose the areas it can comfortably take risk in and where the risk is perhaps too significant to absorb. I don't blame them and this is something Boeing will continue to struggle with as they look to offer the Enhanced engines for the Rhino unless 5th gen projects such as the KF-X, AMCA and the TF-X etc can co-fund the enhancements for GE. Even in the case of Kuwait, I wouldn't be surprised if they go for the USN configuration as opposed to the International Configuration Boeing as been striving to seek a customer for. In the 2015-2020 environment (where all the future Super Hornet sales would occur) buyers will most likely look for the cheapest 4+ generation deals because the world is moving towards 5th generation with the F-35, PAKFA and the other startup programs around the world (Mostly Asia). The rafale and the typhoon are stuck as far as I can see because they will for a majority of the remaining market (outside of ME) compete with the F-35 where they do not have a cost-advantage going forward. They will also compete with the Gripen that is vastly superior when it comes to cost.

India is a special case (can't buy american, but has a need for high end stuff and has the cash/economy to pay for it) and that is why the deal is incredibly important to dassault's future.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 09 May 2015 04:11

brar_w wrote:The only ground for Boeing

I notice you did not address Lockmart

(as a sidenote, the article does have some real gems in it "The Europeans, he contended, 'were willing to bend over backwards in terms of technology transfer, in terms of industrial work share and in terms of other regulatory issues'")

brar_w wrote:Its entirely the IAF's peroagitive to pick and choose the areas it can comfortably take risk in and where the risk is perhaps too significant to absorb.

My understanding is that's not true. According to the RFP it had to be demonstrated as is. Moreover, NONE of the planes met the criteria specified in the RFP, so if the Rafale did not meet the specifications required in the RFP, how could it be allowed?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 May 2015 07:28

I notice you did not address Lockmart

What ground could they possibly have? There is no significant upgrade to the F-16 planned above the Block 60/61. From the innards, nothing significantly more is even possible. The F-18E/F was always going to be a better US offering based on growth_room alone.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2015 07:42

>> it's going to be expensive to get into the French system initially. once into the system it will be easier for comm/ew upgrades, block model changes, weapons upgrades, etc.

we are already in the french system via the (expensive) M2k upgrade with 2 airframes delivered back so far. it has a more advanced RDY radar, 750 mica missiles (iirc), avionics.......its similar to the F_solah upg TSP has got in that fuel tanks and engines are not touched, but other things are all upg.

it aint cheap, but quality would be good and durable.

also the P53 engine despite being less fuel effcient vs the F100 and F110 family is reputed to be very reliable and easy to repair...perhaps one reason why our m2k fleet boasts of the best uptime among the other types.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2015 10:38

Going back to the decision,theRafale was selected as being the lowest of the two finalists,that price factor included TOT,etc.Both aircraft met the IAF's tech needs. The decision wa spurly on the price. Therefore,the Typhoon team have a legitimate grouse that after the TOT/MMRCA decision was dumped,they too should've had a chance at a new bid for outright sale of the Euro Farter.

Whichever way you play the numbers,you will get two MKIs for the price of just one Rafale and 3 MIG-29UGs for the same.Why this numbers vs cost factor was completely ignored by the MOD beats me.The entire Rafale buy appears to now be clearly a political decision to stroke France and not a technical/cost-effective one.Terribly ironic when the US was brushed off when the shortlist was announced with the statement that the decision was based upon technical capabilities and not for a political relationship!

Lastly,the shortsightedness and profligacy of the IAF is astounding.When the entire nation is demanding a greater share of indigenous built/designed milware,the IAF cry like a spoilt brat for the most expensive friang toy available. This never would've happened if Mrs.G was in the saddle.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2015 11:50

well the US has only itself to blame for a poorer political relation - the khobragade incident, demonisation of indian it and pharma cos, hanging over free or liquidation sale price arms like candy to the munna , funding all sorts of shady NGOs, modi visa issue, religious persecution drain inspector reports, weekly cats pawing by WP and NYT

the US POTUS and official state is not in control of the EJs and deep-state networks thats quite obvious.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 May 2015 17:59

^^ Its in US interest to do all those and keep us off balance , we should act and do whats in our interest no point in being a cry baby and perpetually complaining about it thats how real world geo-strategic interest works.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2015 12:27

Pl. Ck this out in the Turkey/Talisman td.
New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history’s biggest white elephants’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 38761.html

For a comparison with the Rafale's costs,the report says that the JSF,F-35B STOVL version for the UK's carriers will cost approx. $120M a pop. The aircraft is suffering from repeated engine problems,software delays,etc.One recalls that just before the Farnborough Air Show last yr.,a JSF's engine caught fire.

With the latest CAG report on the LCA Mk-1,the IAF must be jubilant,as it means a stronger pitch for Govt-to-Govt deals for more firang aircraft right from IJTs,BTs,fighters,etc.A pitch for more Rafales/options is bound to take place when the accelerated talks start to finalise the deal.
There is supposed to be a crucial def. mtg. tomorrow to decide amongst other matters the LTA.

PS:Is there any credible info on the approx. price that was offered for the F-18SH,Gripen and MIG-35?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 10 May 2015 20:40

Austin wrote:^^ Its in US interest to do all those and keep us off balance , we should act and do whats in our interest no point in being a cry baby and perpetually complaining about it thats how real world geo-strategic interest works.

OT, but nobody is complaining. the actions of "frenemy" need to be systematically cataloged and announced to the world at every opportunity. That how you build a narrative. this notion of shutting up, keeping head low, and somehow "working away in pragmatism" has been drilled into our heads and the "ideal geopolitics".

the US's perfidy needs to be talked about by Indians at every opportunity: this makes sure that our fellow Indians know what they're facing, and it also legitimizes India's grievances regarding US.

We need to learn a few things from Islamics. primarily, the Islamic tactic of constantly being a victim and using it to gain strategic and tactical concessions.

In India's case, we are not pretending to be a victim: we have been systematically targeted in every way that Singha describes above.

my last on this. and it's OT anyway.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 10 May 2015 21:52

Philip wrote:Pl. Ck this out in the Turkey/Talisman td.
New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history’s biggest white elephants’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 38761.html

For a comparison with the Rafale's costs,the report says that the JSF,F-35B STOVL version for the UK's carriers will cost approx. $120M a pop. The aircraft is suffering from repeated engine problems,software delays,etc.One recalls that just before the Farnborough Air Show last yr.,a JSF's engine caught fire.

With the latest CAG report on the LCA Mk-1,the IAF must be jubilant,as it means a stronger pitch for Govt-to-Govt deals for more firang aircraft right from IJTs,BTs,fighters,etc.A pitch for more Rafales/options is bound to take place when the accelerated talks start to finalise the deal.
There is supposed to be a crucial def. mtg. tomorrow to decide amongst other matters the LTA.

PS:Is there any credible info on the approx. price that was offered for the F-18SH,Gripen and MIG-35?

Unless you know what is encompassed in each deals, you won't be able to make a fair comparison.

Just about rafale price you can have differences of a factor 3 depending if you take the fly away costs (below 100 M$), or the costs of facilities, spare, trainings (around 200m$) or you had a indigenous manufacturing and supply chain (around 300M$).

That's why most comparisons are unfair. When you compare rafale price for india (around 200M$) vs other indian platforms, one often forget the initial investment.

The LCA might be cheap but if you add the decades of development to the unit costs you might found a different figure than the price usually quoted.

Each deal is unique and encompass much more than the price of the aircraft itself rolling out of the factory.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 11 May 2015 04:43

So Rafale restricted to 36 i.e. two squadrons?

Manohar Parikkar in ET interview

In his wide-ranging interaction with ET covering several key policy areas, Parrikar also set out the exact figure on India's manufacturing share of the Rafale fighter jet project - France will need to spend 50% of the contract value, almost four billion dollars, as investments in the Indian defence and aerospace sector. The minister said the Rafale jet project will "unleash Make-in- India".

Parrikar also said that with India buying around 36 Rafale jets for now, government savings on the project is likely to be up Rs 60,000-65,000 crore. This money, Parrikar said, will be used to accelerate defence manufacturing in India, including speeding up the long-ingestation Light Combat Aircraft. The minister said LCA will be inducted in large numbers, up to 200 fighters or 10 squadrons.

Q: Do the forces have enough money to modernise? There have been voices of a fund crunch from the three armed forces and some concerns in terms of low spending on the military.

As a percentage of total expenditure of the government of India, the spending on defence has gone up from 12.2% two years back to 13.8% this year. I think that the wise use of money is more important than just having more amount of spending on defence. I am working on it and that is why I have been asking the forces for their priorities. On the Rafale deal, for example, we are ordering just 36. If we had ordered 126, it would have been 3.75 times the cost. Yes, there are money issues but spending more effectively is more important.

Q: What are the next steps in the Rafale deal and how will it be linked to the Made in India concept?

The basic message is that the Rafale deal has been restricted in number. By doing this, we will free about Rs 60,000-65,000 crore - money which will be used for Make in India. Even in the Rafale deal, we will have 50% offsets. So this will take care of partial Make in India. But more than that, we now have money released for activities that can be carried out in improving and speeding up the LCA (Light Combat Aircraft). We can have 10-12 squadrons as MiG 21 replacements.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2015 04:47

France will need to spend 50% of the contract value, almost four billion dollars

This is the most concrete indication that we should be expecting a deal around $8 Billion. What will be interesting to follow is that how this deal would differ from a regular 50% offset. Wasn't the MOD following an offset strategy earlier as well? If so how is this different?

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 May 2015 07:49

brar_w wrote:
France will need to spend 50% of the contract value, almost four billion dollars
This is the most concrete indication that we should be expecting a deal around $8 Billion. What will be interesting to follow is that how this deal would differ from a regular 50% offset. Wasn't the MOD following an offset strategy earlier as well? If so how is this different?

Majority of this 50% offset will go into investment related to local lifecycle support for the Rafale. This is different from the original MMRCA deal where the 50% offset would have included manufacturing and assembly TOT along with lifecycle support investment.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 May 2015 07:57

brar_w wrote:
I notice you did not address Lockmart
What ground could they possibly have?

I assume you read the Tellis piece?

One of the identified shortcomings was engine change time.

Tellis is deliberately obtuse about what happened ('idiosyncratic mishap' and 'multiple stochastic demonstrations' indeed), fortunately other articles were a little more explicit.

The carriage for holding the engine broke during the trial. Stuff happens, no big deal right? Just get a new carriage and rerun the test right? Nope. That's it. Test failed. Disqualified.

And then compare that with the benefit of the doubt the Eurocanards were given and tell me that the fix wasn't in.

If the plane was clearly not qualified on technical grounds, they should have been able to demonstrate it without resorting to such Mickey Mouse level gimmicks.

Anyways, the point is if Lockmart and Boeing had wanted to take it to court, they could have easily torn the entire decision to shreds and gotten it tossed.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 11 May 2015 08:39

brar_w wrote:
France will need to spend 50% of the contract value, almost four billion dollars
This is the most concrete indication that we should be expecting a deal around $8 Billion. What will be interesting to follow is that how this deal would differ from a regular 50% offset. Wasn't the MOD following an offset strategy earlier as well? If so how is this different?

Think the writer meant that the deal is worth $4 bn and the offset will be 50% of it.

[Saving 65,000 crore via (126-36) i.e 90 planes ordered less => implies that 36 planes will cost 26000 crore => $4 bn @ USD=64 INR)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 May 2015 21:59

Why the world's most powerful countries are on a fighter jet spending spree
http://fortune.com/2015/05/12/fighter-jet-military/

“When you buy a plane you buy a strategic relationship,” says Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at defense and aerospace consultants at Teal Group, about the recent spate of fighter jet deals. “And right now the French are seen as a better relationship to have."

Translation: The French will sell to anyone without restrictions

, barring the ASMP-A and other classified toys.

The sudden spike in interest in the Rafale has as much to do with global geopolitical uncertainty as with conflicts unfolding on the ground, Aboulafia notes. Several Persian Gulf countries that have long depended on U.S. companies for military hardware—including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—are diverging over U.S. foreign policy in the region. In particular, American policies pertaining to the newly-minted regime in Egypt and pending nuclear deal with Iran have divided the region.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 May 2015 22:02

Dassault CEO says to raise Rafale output if wins new order
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/1 ... FK20150513

"There is one production line but we will increase output if we sign a third contract," Eric Trappier told reporters, asked whether Dassault planned to add a second assembly line.

"For now we have the first two contracts which fit into our existing production, because France is substituting export planes for its own planes," he said.

Asked on the sidelines of a Thales (TCFP.PA) shareholder meeting whether increasing production would need investment, he said: "Very little. We can double it without any problem".

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 May 2015 03:54

^^^

The French got what they want without having to divulge critical TOT and to keep the manufacturing and assembly work in France. If we combine the orders of the 3 nations, the orders total to 100+ if options are exercised. That matches more or less 126 MMRCA India wanted with deep TOT.

24 - Egypt (+ options)
24 - Qatar (+ options)
36 - India (+ options)

Total: 84 (+ options)

Other highly-likely potential customer is UAE, which needs to replace 60 Mirage-2000-9s. They prefer French jets as the Americans have too many restrictions on their weapon systems. They may go for smaller number like everyone else because of the steep price tag.

I think what the foreign weapons manufactures learned for this episode is that when dealing with Indian demand for critical TOT and offsets is to say "yes" in a cryptic way ("as much as they can absorb") but then prolong negotiations and hike up the price to make it too steep enough that desperate India will eventually relent. The world could see how desperate the IAF is/was and knew they just needed to prolong the negotiation to make them even more desperate and in the end get the best deal possible for themselves. Ofcourse it helps if you can provide some other additional "strategic" value to India.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 19 May 2015 04:05

French team in India to negotiate Rafale deal

PANAJI: French team constituted to negotiate the Rafale deal has arrived in India and talks can start anytime now, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said today as he described the agreement as "one of the bold initiatives" of the Modi government.

Parrikar said India has constituted a committee headed by Air Marshal SBP Sinha to hold negotiations with the French team.

"The negotiations on Rafale deal can start anytime from now. Indian government has already formed a committee headed by Air Marshal Sinha. The team from France already arrived in India on May 12 to start the negotiations," he told reporters.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 19 May 2015 11:55

Transfer of Technology is nothing more than a fancy buzzword for handing over a ton of cash for information on how to turn a screw driver. You cannot download the brains of foreign scientists & engineers who produced the aircraft no matter how much cash you hand over.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 19 May 2015 22:06

eklavya

Post subject: Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

PostPosted: 19 May 2015 04:05

Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57
Posts: 1397

French team in India to negotiate Rafale deal

Quote:

PANAJI: French team constituted to negotiate the Rafale deal has arrived in India and talks can start anytime now, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said today as he described the agreement as "one of the bold initiatives" of the Modi government.

Parrikar said India has constituted a committee headed by Air Marshal SBP Sinha to hold negotiations with the French team.

"The negotiations on Rafale deal can start anytime from now. Indian government has already formed a committee headed by Air Marshal Sinha. The team from France already arrived in India on May 12 to start the negotiations," he told reporters.

Last month our defense minister give statement that Refal French fighter is more then double the price of SU 30 fighter. Let's see how much the price our defense minister will settle for each refal fighter with French delegation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 May 2015 23:07

GeorgeWelch wrote: I assume you read the Tellis piece?

One of the identified shortcomings was engine change time.

Tellis is deliberately obtuse about what happened ('idiosyncratic mishap' and 'multiple stochastic demonstrations' indeed), fortunately other articles were a little more explicit.

The carriage for holding the engine broke during the trial. Stuff happens, no big deal right? Just get a new carriage and rerun the test right? Nope. That's it. Test failed. Disqualified.

And then compare that with the benefit of the doubt the Eurocanards were given and tell me that the fix wasn't in.

If the plane was clearly not qualified on technical grounds, they should have been able to demonstrate it without resorting to such Mickey Mouse level gimmicks.

Anyways, the point is if Lockmart and Boeing had wanted to take it to court, they could have easily torn the entire decision to shreds and gotten it tossed.

LOL, more fibbing from you. If the actual details of the MMRCA evals are shared (and the broad contours are not exactly secret), you'd have massive egg on your face about how thoroughly both platforms were outperformed in trials across multiple criteria. The US could have just said thanks but no thanks, knowing they were sending platforms aerodynamically obsolete vs the newer Eurocanards but hey they went ahead anyway

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 May 2015 00:13

Karan: Christian Nestell Bovee - an American author from the 19th century - once remarked, "No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."

The fact that the Eurocanards actually beat the legacy American fighters is a hard pill for some to swallow. Egos have been bruised quite badly. Either Eurocanard will run circles around the F-16 and F-18 in a close in dogfight. That will likely never happen with AMRAAMs, AWACS and other advanced air surveillance systems that always give the U.S. Air Force the upper hand.

We do not face such a threat from TSP and China.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 20 May 2015 01:41

Rakesh wrote:The fact that the Eurocanards actually beat the legacy American fighters is a hard pill for some to swallow. Egos have been bruised quite badly.

Not at all. The true ego bruising will occur when you realize that you're wasting so much money on something that doesn't matter.

Rakesh wrote:Either Eurocanard will run circles around the F-16 and F-18 in a close in dogfight.

No, they'll get blown out of the sky before they complete a full circle.

Better sensors and HOBS missiles and networks make kinematics less and less relevant. Putting that much emphasis on something whose importance has already declined and will only continue to decline is not being forward thinking. It's like building battleships during WWII. They're great, but the resources are best spent elsewhere. You can have the best battleships in the world and they'll still get sunk by carriers. Similarly no matter how fast you go or how sharp you turn, missiles will always go faster and turn sharper.

A more holistic evaluation that grades overall combat performance rather than a series of arbitrary metrics would have been a smarter course.