IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Will · Post by **Will** » 29 Nov 2015 18:38

There were reports that the French were resisting the Indian demand for integrating an Israeli helmet mounted display.Wonder whether they have agreed to it. That's one thing missing even in the F3R standard and a one way data link to the meteor of course.

SPECTRA for the LCA would be nice.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2015 22:27

kmk.. you are drawing attention of lockheed .. watch out. but if the dassault want to save on taxes (67% to french gov?), they can shift mftrg to India.

member_28985 · Post by **member_28985** » 30 Nov 2015 06:30

Please please let this be true

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/in ... 47838.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Nov 2015 06:59

ashbhee wrote:Please please let this be true
Indian Air Force Rafale Jets Will Be Made In India, To Give Boost To Tejas Technology

India's largest-ever military deal is likely to bring in big business for the private sector with the French side looking to set up a production centre for the Rafale fighter aircraft as well as a low-cost executive jet in India, besides sharing vital aircraft technology for the indigenous Tejas project.Dassault Rafale production lineReutersOfficials familiar with the project have told ET that major partners for this 'Make in India' project are currently being identified by the French side and are likely to include Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence Systems, Noida-based Samtel and Bharat ElectronicsBSE -0.36 %. These officials, both Indian and French, spoke on the condition they not be identified.Spokespersons of the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group told ET "there is no development". Officials on the French side told ET, on condition of anonymity, that the agreement between Rafale and an Indian partner will be on the lines of the 2012 agreement between the French company and the Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries.The NDA government had reformatted the UPA government deal and ordered 36 aircraft, instead of 126. The Rafale fighter deal, which will bring in at least $4.5 billion into 'Make in India' projects as per the contract being negotiated, is set to involve a third production line for the aircraft in India, French officials have told ET.While two lines for the fighter are currently active in France at the same facility, a third line in India would take care of export orders for the fighters and also possible future orders by the Indian Navy and Air Force. The line would also support the production of a low-cost variant of the 'Falcon' executive jet for the Indian and Asian markets.Dassault RafaleReuters"It will not be possible to roll out any of the 36 fighters being acquired by India from the production line as it would take time to set up but future orders, including exports, will be fulfilled with the new line," a person involved in the discussions has told ET. "At most, the final painting of the last ten aircraft to be delivered to India could be carried out at the Indian assembly line. This itself is a very high technology process as the fighter has a special anti-radar coat," the person added.Besides the joint production facilities in India, the French side is also set to transfer some key technologies to DRDO that would benefit the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project. A complete list of the technology to be transferred is being finalised but would include several systems to make the LCA more effective.Technology to be transferred includes the air intake system for the fighter, an undercarriage for the naval variant of the LCA, cutting edge radar absorbing painting technology as well as an integrated production line software and management system for the fighter aircraft.Dassault RafaleReutersWhile the main Rafale contract is likely to be signed this financial year, as was reported by ET, a separate contract for armament systems will be signed at a later date with French company MBDA. A partnership for transfer of technology and production could be inked with the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) that specialises in advanced armaments.Engineer-General Stephane Reb, Director of the International Directorate of the DGA (General Directorate for Armament) of the French Ministry of Defence is in New Delhi this week to finalise the inter-governmental agreement draft that is likely to be signed before January 26 when French President Francois Hollande will visit India as the Chief Guest at the Republic Day Parade

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Nov 2015 09:59

I wouldn't be too confident about any of the above.

1. If offsets of 'at least $4.5 billion' are being invested in India, then the contract amount will inevitably be 'at least $9 billion'.

2. The Tejas program has moved beyond the point where it can adopt technological inputs from the Rafale, which would take at least five years to be absorbed. Most of the remainder is minor stuff with the value marked up to meet offset requirements - a rig to paint the aircraft down with RAM (been around for 25 years), production line 'management software' et al. The offer of 'air intake system' technology is pretty pointless with both aircraft having entirely different airframes.

3. As for the assembly line - that's complete balderdash. Nobody sets up a third assembly line with zero assured orders. Even the govt-owned HAL is unwilling to do it. The overhead would be staggeringly high. Even assuming a follow-on order of 18-36 jets to be delivered after 2024 (

), it would still be uneconomical to assemble them in India. And rather than pursuing follow-on orders, the IAF is scouting around for another medium fighter type.

More likely, Dassault will set up a 'finishing line' - to paint the aircraft and carry out pre-delivery flight testing.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Nov 2015 13:40

^^ I wont bet on the final numbers of Rafale in IAF , IAF would still have reason to replace large no of Jags and Jags IM with Rafale , Also a good posibility that next Flat Top would end up with Rafale.

It would be good to standardise the 21 , 27 and Jags replacement fleet with Tejas variant and Rafale.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Nov 2015 13:57

Austin wrote:^^ I wont bet on the final numbers of Rafale in IAF , IAF would still have reason to replace large no of Jags and Jags IM with Rafale , Also a good posibility that next Flat Top would end up with Rafale.

It would be good to standardise the 21 , 27 and Jags replacement fleet with Tejas variant and Rafale.

True. You never know what strings Reliance could pull in South Block to keep the moolah train running (after all, Dassault chose it over Tata and L&T for good reason).

I don't see the IN, generally the smartest of the services, welcoming a 4.5 gen fighter at 5 gen prices at a time (2025) when the Chinese have switched to exclusive production of 5th gen fighters including naval J-31s. Applies to the IAF too, which will also have the PAK FA option available..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Nov 2015 14:12

IF the IAF (and IN) believe in anything called a "5th Gen" aircraft, then Rafale has no place in India. On the flip side if it is a matter of pulling strings, making money, etc then I can see a Rafale well into the century. Good plane, but a little too late. Reliance + PMO, a difficult combo to beat.

And, what ever happened to the AMCA? I woudl expect it to be far better than a Rafale. No?

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Nov 2015 15:42

kmkraoind wrote:India hunts for fighter aircraft other than Rafales

I think time has come again to change title of this thread as "IAF Rafale and MMRCA....."

According to sources, it could well be the F-18 Super Hornet that had competed with the Rafale when India was on the lookout for 126 MMRCAs. Recently, Boeing has offered to set up a manufacturing facility in India and manufacture F-18s to suit the country's needs.

Another round of circus. I don't get the whole acquiring yet another foreign type plus Rafale. From logistics and costs that doesn't make sense. There are separate sets of weaponary that would need to be purchased too. Rafale is too bloody expensive for its own good. India cannot afford too many of it given current budgets and overall acquisition needs of its armed forces. Sensible options are more of Su-30MKI and LCA. Both are in production in India. Together they would fulfill all the roles the IAF desires from a 4.5 Gen MMRCA platform. Build fleet numbers around them. Future 5th Gen, FGFA and AMCA, are in the pipeline. Use the savings to acquire more of the force multipliers like AAR, AEW/AWACS, LR PGMs, etc. Invest more in improving fleet availability of existing types.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 01 Dec 2015 12:41

This whole Rafale saga is baffling to say the least. The proposed delivery timelines complete negate the premise of swift speedy delivery of ready-to-fly planes to shore up squadron numbers.

Setting up local manufacturing and supply lines without any firm indication of going beyond the 36 initially ordered makes little sense, even from export point of view. As posters have pointed out, if the motivation is to benefit the LCA programme, then why not set up an agreement between HAL and Dassault. What does RDAG have to do with LCA?

If there were somethign amiss, I would have expected Subbu Swamy to be on this in a flash. The whole saga is a mass of contradictions.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Dec 2015 13:07

Austin wrote:^^ I wont bet on the final numbers of Rafale in IAF , IAF would still have reason to replace large no of Jags and Jags IM with Rafale , Also a good posibility that next Flat Top would end up with Rafale.

It would be good to standardise the 21 , 27 and Jags replacement fleet with Tejas variant and Rafale.

As some have been saying, instead of rafale we should have built new jags with new engines, composites, radar, etc. and thrown all our weight behind LCA and further indigenized the Su-30. Wtf can Pakistan or China do if we quickly plug the numbers and make it to 42 squadrons.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 01 Dec 2015 17:00

If we want to give French USD 9 Billion then why not ask them to produce/develop 36 AMCA in JV

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 01 Dec 2015 17:12

Er...who is "WE" here?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Dec 2015 21:39

Viv S wrote:I wouldn't be too confident about any of the above.

1. If offsets of 'at least $4.5 billion' are being invested in India, then the contract amount will inevitably be 'at least $9 billion'.

2. The Tejas program has moved beyond the point where it can adopt technological inputs from the Rafale, which would take at least five years to be absorbed. Most of the remainder is minor stuff with the value marked up to meet offset requirements - a rig to paint the aircraft down with RAM (been around for 25 years), production line 'management software' et al. The offer of 'air intake system' technology is pretty pointless with both aircraft having entirely different airframes.

3. As for the assembly line - that's complete balderdash. Nobody sets up a third assembly line with zero assured orders. Even the govt-owned HAL is unwilling to do it. The overhead would be staggeringly high. Even assuming a follow-on order of 18-36 jets to be delivered after 2024 ( ), it would still be uneconomical to assemble them in India. And rather than pursuing follow-on orders, the IAF is scouting around for another medium fighter type.

More likely, Dassault will set up a 'finishing line' - to paint the aircraft and carry out pre-delivery flight testing.

+1,esp point 3. IN esp. Seems keen on US tech, and I would hardly be surprised if the jsf comes in later...

For now, Just buy the rafale otc, for as low a price as possible..and supplement with cheaper fighters, and indications are, this is exactly what is happening. ACM raha has just indicated more mki, as has saurav jha, which makes sense considering all the ongoing work with Russia for more tot, and parrikars emphasis on increasing uptimes. So, all in all, we have 120 odd new fighters for about $12 billion, not too far from original mrca idea.

The article above is incorrect what with no name sources and all..jmtp

One thing I don't get is iaf fascination for rafale, why is it that damn special? A mere 36 hardly supports the diversification argument..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2015 14:47

There are so many cheaper options.What one said right at the beginning of the MMRCA contest and denied by the IAF has come top pass,buying two types in a split decision. Frankly,even with the multiple deefcts/dev to be overcome,the JSF and FGFAs are better buys than the Rafale because they are 5th-gen fighters.One would get 1.5 to 2 JSFs for one Raffy and at least 2 FGFAs. 80-100 MIG-29s would cost just $2.5 to $3.5M.That's a saving of around $4-5B! That moolah could be spent on a lot of other things including 2 sqds. of 5th-gen fighters.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Dec 2015 04:51

French bargaining has left bad taste, hard to believe things have deteriorated so m much...philip saar advocating for jsf

, yes you got that right...time for admins to archive this one

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Dec 2015 11:09

Archive indeed.That's for the sake of argument,costwise!

24/36 5th-gen fighters won't make much of a diff either,hundreds of bomb trucks will! As we're seeing in Syria legacy Soviet era
fighters and bombers can still do the business. It is the quantum of ordnance delivered on the spot that matters,not necessarily by aircraft costing hundreds of millions of $$$. Today's PGMs,stand-off cruise missiles and dumb bomb kits have given legacy aircraft cutting edge capability for close support and strike. These aircraft come in at far lower prices than some 4++/5th-gen fighters. Affordable aircraft in large number could alleviate the depleted inventory and increase sqd. numbers for the IAF,where a mix of various aircraft should be pursued.

2020 will see how the JSF has matured and how much it costs and costs to operate.The latter figure needs to come down substantially for it to be attractive,but 5th-gen fighters will come with a higher maintenance cost,why we have to have mix of aircraft in the inventory,the majority being affordable multi-role fighters like the MIG-29/35.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 03 Dec 2015 11:22

Mig29/35 may not be opted Philip sir.

I am hoping to look at 400 LCAs which can kick some serious a&& in case of need as for as pakis are concerned.

May be we need to develop a two kaveri eng Mig29 or larger version Tejas with greater cost benefit than present day Gen 4 fighters. There is no reason for us to look into ease of maintenance, greater composite material content etc even in Gen 4 ACs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2015 14:49

2020 will see how the JSF has matured and how much it costs and costs to operate.The latter figure needs to come down substantially for it to be attractive,but 5th-gen fighters will come with a higher maintenance cost,why we have to have mix of aircraft in the inventory,the majority being affordable multi-role fighters like the MIG-29/35

With due respect to the folks that look through a crystal ball and predict O&S cost for 55 years all I can say is that without any efficiency in the operating procedures or significant alterations in the O&S practices (although a PBL is in the works) the O&S cost estimates have already dropped by around a 1/3 simply because they were gross over - estimations. The CAPE estimates were unreasonable and have been on a downward trajectory every since they were first released. The USAF estimates put the cost of the O&S between the higher end F-16 and the F-15E fairly in line with the size, weight and capability of the JSF (nearly 30,000 pounds empty).

Operating cost is user dependent. For example working with the customer the JPO narrowed down on $24,000 per hour per fighter for the Netherlands, and $32,000 for the USAF for essentially the same aircraft. This is because of usage, and deployment patterns since O&S cost is essentially what you spend in support of the aircraft divided by the total fleet hours - that is effected significantly by the number of bases you operate and how you rotate your aircraft in an expeditionary environment. A simple trip to red-flag can add significantly to the annual support budget, and if you do not increase flying (i.e. your denominator) your overall CPFH figures will rise.

Similarly, the USAF's F-16's cost 25-50% more to operate in a strict/pure CPFH sense than other NATO f-16's since as I put it CPFH numbers are essentially a division and the numerator can be affected by a ton of measures not directly applicable to operating the aircraft (such as basing costs, overall flying, cost of fuel from tankers, cost to spend 2 weeks forward deployed, cross continent trips per year etc etc etc).

Netherlands Estimate: http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-ops-c ... ds-f-16-10
USAF Estimate : https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... te-386430/

Similarly, Australia estimates their cost to be $21,000 per hour based on the Janes/Stratpost apples to apples comparison posted earlier.

http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/upl ... -x-331.jpg

Even at this stage (actually the data on higher block block 2b/ and 3's is now significant enough to give Lockheed confidence in negotiating a PBL which based on a lack of data can essentially ruin the business case and financially be disastrous for the company) the numbers for routine non USAF users is hovering around 21-25,000 USD or about a 5000-7000 dollar premium over advanced 4th generation aircraft such as the Rafale.

If one were to see the Comptroller website and compare costs, the actual cost of operating the F-16 (maintain and fuel cost) is roughly 1/4th of the $25,000 figure the USAF pays given the ways CPFH is calculated. The majority or around 3/4 of the cost component of CPFH is essentially the enterprise support cost given the expeditionary basing and fighting the USAF does.

Edit - Taking the F-16C as an example - The raw operational cost i.e. fuel, manpower required to maintain availability and operationally required spares (no inventory cost) of the F-16 block 50 with the US department of defense is approximately $8900 per hour. Compare this to the $25000 figure of operating the fleet (All the cost poured into operating and maintaining the F-16 enterprise / total F-16 fleet hours flown). The actual jet operational cost is only 35% of the overall CPFH cost-budget. Why is that? (1) Operational readiness, (2) expeditionary warfare, (3) aging fleet, and (4) operational deployments.

1 - You train as you fight. All those red flags, green-flags, northern edges etc are far more intense now because of the continuous combat deployments and rotations so you end up consuming more training infrastructure. 2 - Expeditionary warfare - the only warfare the US conducts has a cost component totally different from a homeland defense mission and that impacts the overall fleet O&M budget. 3 - As the fleet ages the infrastructure required to maintain it, overhaul components grows in a two pronged way. First, the actual depot capacity has to be increased requiring capital expenditure which gets added to the enterprise account (in this case the F16) and secondly civilian support and contracting rises since you have larger O&M costs given you are running a 6000 hour design through twice that (12,000 hours for the Viper Fleet). 4 -Operational deployments consume far greater expenditure...Fuel from a tanker costs 4-5 times more once all the costs are added up. Depot capacity or even supplies cost far more when they are shiped out halfway across the globe.

A nation like Netherlands that has limited expeditionary responsibilities, and next to nothing as far as logistical expeditionary footprint (outside Red flag deployments and once in a decade (or more) NATO ops) has a far smaller O&S cost for its fighter. However, the fixed costs remain fixed so if the rafale costs $17000 for the french it may cost $25000-28000 to the US and similarly the Netherlands and RAAF CPFH estimates for the F-35A are as much as 35% cheaper than the USAF CPFH figure. At $21,000 the RAAF is paying a premium of approximately $4-5K over the Typhoon or Rafale which can be offset by increasing O&S spending by 10-15% and reducing aircraft flight by 10-15% (adopt a more virtual training construct). The RAAF would essentially be paying the same cost say they would had they acquired an all Super Hornet Fleet. $4-5K premium is not very significant from the aerospace market perspective because that 15K and above threshold is stressing some smaller nations and even larger players like the French that even at $15-18K per hour want to adopt a companion trainer asap for training rafale pilots because they find the O&S cost too high given their future budgetary outlook (classic western readiness vs modernization debates playing out in different capitals). The only advantage is with the Saab-Gripen C (E costs are uncertain because one hasn't flown yet) and the classic F-16 which is a stripped down version with more COTS. I'd put the LCA firmly in that category. These three aircraft have an O&S cost advantage over the F-35 that is likely to make a difference (in determining who can afford one fighter and not the other). The sort of margin the rafale or typhoon (or Super Hornet and expensive block 60/61 F-16's) hold over the F-35 is too insignificant to tilt the market in their favor on O&S costs alone (simply put those that can afford to fly 200 hours a year in a rafale can manage a 10-15% higher O&S cost and can meet there trianing goals with 180 or so F-35 flight hours since its a single seater only).

BTW, there are no credible estimates for the T-50/PAKFA procurement or O&S cost however if one takes a common sense appraoch it will eventually have 65-70,000 pounds of thrust, an empty weight of at least 39-40,000 pounds (we'll know more once the final version is completed) and will be a supercruiser which has an operational cost component that trickles down. All in all its operational cost will be similar to the classic heavies [fuel costs etc as cost of spares and manpower are geographically variable but trends are similar i.e. heavier, larger aircraft consume more maintenance expenditure given similar level of technology] like the Strike Eagle or Super Flankers with added cost for stealth and greater supersonic flight (much like the F22).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Dec 2015 18:53

Kaveri is a damp squib and MIG-29 engines for the UG aircraft are being made in India already. One needs a significant qty of cheap affordable aircraft,better to have more of those already being operated by the IAF,than buying a new type 3+ times the cost for marginal extra performance. Had the IAF been operating F-16s/F-18s instead of either the M-2K or MIG-29,with these aircraft still in production,they could be good replacements for obsolete MIG-21BIS/MIG-27 fighters.Had the LCA production been running smoothly by now at a 20+ prod. rate annually,we wouldn't have such a serious crisis on our hands.It will take around 8 years to produce all 120 MK-1s ,that is if the average is 15/yr.That's too little and too long for the 3000+ retiring aircraft which could go into retirement at any time if we didn't need their numbers to last out another 4-5 years!.

member_29245 · Post by **member_29245** » 06 Dec 2015 16:27

Kashi wrote:This whole Rafale saga is baffling to say the least. The proposed delivery timelines complete negate the premise of swift speedy delivery of ready-to-fly planes to shore up squadron numbers.

Setting up local manufacturing and supply lines without any firm indication of going beyond the 36 initially ordered makes little sense, even from export point of view. As posters have pointed out, if the motivation is to benefit the LCA programme, then why not set up an agreement between HAL and Dassault. What does RDAG have to do with LCA?

If there were somethign amiss, I would have expected Subbu Swamy to be on this in a flash. The whole saga is a mass of contradictions.

Don't expect susu swamy to do anything about this deal

He is a bin taini ka lota

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Dec 2015 18:48

Philip wrote:Archive indeed.That's for the sake of argument,costwise! 24/36 5th-gen fighters won't make much of a diff either,hundreds of bomb trucks will! As we're seeing in Syria legacy Soviet era
fighters and bombers can still do the business. It is the quantum of ordnance delivered on the spot that matters,not necessarily by aircraft costing hundreds of millions of $$$. Today's PGMs,stand-off cruise missiles and dumb bomb kits have given legacy aircraft cutting edge capability for close support and strike. These aircraft come in at far lower prices than some 4++/5th-gen fighters. Affordable aircraft in large number could alleviate the depleted inventory and increase sqd. numbers for the IAF,where a mix of various aircraft should be pursued.

What you're seeing in Syria is a 'Iraq/Libya-like' conflict and has no relation whatsoever to the kind of wars the IAF trains for. Its all very well to say that stand-off munitions can 'do the job' when your cruise missiles are in no danger of being intercepted and total air superiority gives you the luxury of precision targeting. Neither luxury is available against a modernized professional force like the PLAAF/PLA.

Philip wrote:2020 will see how the JSF has matured and how much it costs and costs to operate.The latter figure needs to come down substantially for it to be attractive,but 5th-gen fighters will come with a higher maintenance cost,why we have to have mix of aircraft in the inventory,the majority being affordable multi-role fighters like the MIG-29/35.

The F-35 fleet has clocked over 40,000 flight hours to date compared to about 1,000 hours for the PAK FA. If by your estimate the F-35's maturity can only be judged by 2020, by when can we take we undertake an similarly informed analysis of the PAK FA? 2027? 2030? Or.. is poor operational reliability simply the cost of doing business with Russia, and to be ignored as a gesture of solidarity?

Philip wrote:Kaveri is a damp squib and MIG-29 engines for the UG aircraft are being made in India already.

No they aren't. Only a local MRO facility exists.

One needs a significant qty of cheap affordable aircraft,better to have more of those already being operated by the IAF,than buying a new type 3+ times the cost for marginal extra performance. Had the IAF been operating F-16s/F-18s instead of either the M-2K or MIG-29,with these aircraft still in production,they could be good replacements for obsolete MIG-21BIS/MIG-27 fighters.Had the LCA production been running smoothly by now at a 20+ prod. rate annually,we wouldn't have such a serious crisis on our hands.It will take around 8 years to produce all 120 MK-1s ,that is if the average is 15/yr.That's too little and too long for the 3000+ retiring aircraft which could go into retirement at any time if we didn't need their numbers to last out another 4-5 years!.

The Tejas doesn't have a production rate of 20/yr. Neither does the MiG-29. If capital is to be invested in either program, I'd much rather see it invested in increasing the production rate of the 'cheap affordable' Indian aircraft.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2015 14:19

MIG 29Ks are being built for the RuN too.No major investment is req. for more orders unlike Tejas. It is a cheap and effective multi-role workhorse,but then the IAF wants its "ferraris".Egypt is also ordering 29s.Another 3-4 sqds. shoudl fill the gap of 27s retiring.Tejas can replace MIG-21s.HAL has to really get its prod act together as at this moment,the IAF would gladly accept 100+ LCAs if they were available.5+ years down the line,they may start bleating for something more sophisticated. There was one news item that the Egyptians want a look at the JF-17.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 08 Dec 2015 03:16

people in glass houses should not throw stones.There are 80 million(blacks and hispanics ) reasons America should not do this evil anglo saxon policy of putting shia against sunnis, hindus against muslims etc. They have a a long border with Mexico and I am sure people could be pursuaded.One of these days piss and democracy may come to America if they keep doing what they have been doing to others over many decades.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Dec 2015 03:55

ACHTUNG: Ze Incoming intelligence alert from UBoat-282 stationed outside MoD

Apparently ze Indians want to insert/ upgrade/ swtich ze French Helmet Mounted Attack and Tracking system wid ze Israeli system, now or later.
Ze French are saying Nein Nein Nein, never and are blocking the move. Ze Indiens are saying Ja Ja Ja.

The negotiations are temporarily Kaput.

Ready the Typhoons !! Vrooom Vroom
Jawohl Mein Defense Minister !!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2015 04:06

Philip wrote:MIG 29Ks are being built for the RuN too.No major investment is req. for more orders unlike Tejas. It is a cheap and effective multi-role workhorse,but then the IAF wants its "ferraris".Egypt is also ordering 29s.Another 3-4 sqds. shoudl fill the gap of 27s retiring.Tejas can replace MIG-21s.HAL has to really get its prod act together as at this moment,the IAF would gladly accept 100+ LCAs if they were available.5+ years down the line,they may start bleating for something more sophisticated. There was one news item that the Egyptians want a look at the JF-17.

India ordered 16 MiG-29Ks in 2004, deliveries started five years in 2009 and the first squadron (consisting of 12 fighters) was stood up in nine years later in 2013. Another 29 MiG-29Ks were ordered in Jan 2010, six years later deliveries have barely begun.

On the other side, the Russian Navy ordered 24 MiG-29Ks in 2009. It received the first lot (of four jets) four years later, in 2013. As of Aug 2015 i.e. seven years later the RuN had received just 12 MiG-29Ks.

I don't know what chapati-maker you think RAC MiG is running but in the 12 years since it got its first order, its manufactured a grand total of 30 aircraft. Between its current outstanding orders and the Egyptian order it has more than enough on its plate. Any stopgap orders placed by India will require additional investment in infrastructure and we can still forget about deliveries beginning before 2020.

Any capital investment that India makes ought to be in the production of the Tejas, which BTW can replace the MiG-27 perfectly well. And in the Mk1A configuration will be preferable to the MiG-29K on technical grounds as well.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2015 04:15

Khalsa wrote:ACHTUNG: Ze Incoming intelligence alert from UBoat-282 stationed outside MoD
.
.
Jawohl Mein Defense Minister !!

Heh heh!

I can see why the Defence Minister would be doing his best to kill the deal, but I'm surprised Dassault, on the verge of a major payout, is quibbling over a relatively minor issue. Perhaps they think if they leave it long enough, the Indian side will simple fold as the French President's visit draws closer and pressure is applied to make it a 'success'.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Dec 2015 04:33

I hope they drag this out to after Jan 26th. Then we can target an agreement date when Modi visits france in another two years time

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Dec 2015 06:35

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:MIG 29Ks are being built for the RuN too.No major investment is req. for more orders unlike Tejas. It is a cheap and effective multi-role workhorse,but then the IAF wants its "ferraris".Egypt is also ordering 29s.Another 3-4 sqds. shoudl fill the gap of 27s retiring.Tejas can replace MIG-21s.HAL has to really get its prod act together as at this moment,the IAF would gladly accept 100+ LCAs if they were available.5+ years down the line,they may start bleating for something more sophisticated. There was one news item that the Egyptians want a look at the JF-17.
India ordered 16 MiG-29Ks in 2004, deliveries started five years in 2009 and the first squadron (consisting of 12 fighters) was stood up in nine years later in 2013. Another 29 MiG-29Ks were ordered in Jan 2010, six years later deliveries have barely begun.

On the other side, the Russian Navy ordered 24 MiG-29Ks in 2009. It received the first lot (of four jets) four years later, in 2013. As of Aug 2015 i.e. seven years later the RuN had received just 12 MiG-29Ks.

I don't know what chapati-maker you think RAC MiG is running but in the 12 years since it got its first order, its manufactured a grand total of 30 aircraft. Between its current outstanding orders and the Egyptian order it has more than enough on its plate. Any stopgap orders placed by India will require additional investment in infrastructure and we can still forget about deliveries beginning before 2020.

Any capital investment that India makes ought to be in the production of the Tejas, which BTW can replace the MiG-27 perfectly well. And in the Mk1A configuration will be preferable to the MiG-29K on technical grounds as well.

Well said!

There seems be some false assumptions that foreign production lines are quicker. The reality is they are not. They take the same amount of time to execute. Give them low quantity orders on a new/mod specification and see how long they will take to churn out. Don't forget to start your timers

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Dec 2015 06:47

Ze French and Ze Israelites have a particular disdain of each others products and policies that runs way back.
Also the french would find it insulting that the Indians have improved upon the rafale with their juggad.

Thats only meant to be done to the Russian hardware right ?

Only sends a signal in the market for others to exploit that the French stuff needs improvement.
As an OEM I understand their position but if thats the only point they are quibbling over then its quite dumb and typical of the french.

By that logic they themselves would never upgrade the rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2015 10:04

According to the latest Dec. issue of the "F" mag,just 6 of the 45 MIG-29Ks are left to be delivered."More may be ordered later",is another quote.A former R.Adm. however says that spares/support could be better. There is a media report today about an Indo-Russian agreement to manufacture MKI spares here to increase MKI availability to 75%.The main reason for the delay is supposedly the long time for babudom to approve a request,usually this takes a year.It is only after Babudom gives the nod that the OEM is informed and starts manufacturing the parts.Amazingly,nothing is available on tap in an emergency. Naturally, in such a long drawn-out acquisition process, the services get shafted every which way! This cumbersome process is par for the course whatever the system,country of origin,etc. The GOI is trying to amend this torturous process that only aids babudom's grip on the services to the detriment of the nation.

We know that the same thing happened with the French Scorpene subs,inordinate delays due to the acquisition process leading to huge escalation apart from a 4 years delay in delivery.Whom does this benefit? Babudom and the OEM if they have a cosy relationship! The contours of the rafale deal must be carefully watched.The cost of upgrading the 40+ M2Ks was scandalous,more than double that of the MIG-29 upgrades,even more than buying a brand new 29K!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Dec 2015 14:36

Philip wrote:According to the latest Dec. issue of the "F" mag,just 6 of the 45 MIG-29Ks are left to be delivered.

The Indian Navy has one MiG-29K squadron consisting of 12 aircraft - INAS 303. When the next 12-16 jets are delivered, the second MiG-29K squadron will be stood up/converted.

Unless you're suggesting that the Navy has more than two squadrons worth of MiGs packed away in a hangar somewhere that it refuses to operationalize, the 'F-mag' is wrong. The other possibility is that INAS 303 has an official standing strength of 39 MiG-29Ks and will soon be reclassified from a squadron to a (Soviet-style) regiment - INAR 303.

"More may be ordered later",is another quote.A former R.Adm. however says that spares/support could be better. There is a media report today about an Indo-Russian agreement to manufacture MKI spares here to increase MKI availability to 75%.The main reason for the delay is supposedly the long time for babudom to approve a request,usually this takes a year. It is only after Babudom gives the nod that the OEM is informed and starts manufacturing the parts.Amazingly,nothing is available on tap in an emergency. Naturally, in such a long drawn-out acquisition process, the services get shafted every which way! This cumbersome process is par for the course whatever the system,country of origin,etc. The GOI is trying to amend this torturous process that only aids babudom's grip on the services to the detriment of the nation.

We know that the same thing happened with the French Scorpene subs,inordinate delays due to the acquisition process leading to huge escalation apart from a 4 years delay in delivery.Whom does this benefit? Babudom and the OEM if they have a cosy relationship! The contours of the rafale deal must be carefully watched.The cost of upgrading the 40+ M2Ks was scandalous,more than double that of the MIG-29 upgrades,even more than buying a brand new 29K!

^
I don't know what any of this (Mirage/Scorpene/MKI spares/Babudom) has to do with the debate at hand.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 08 Dec 2015 16:54

I think that Russians rely on political contacts and do not bribe Babus and Pimp Media hence get so much bad press. Look at Su-30MKI which costs around USD 60 Million and requires spares of around USD 1 million per annum. Compare with super duper sexy hot Rafale which will cost USD 250 Million and require spares of USD 5 Million per annum.

Re Philip:- Russian equipment is "incorrectly" hammered on life cycle costs, you need to get some data to deal with such issues. For instance, there is movement to scrap Tu-142 with strike range of 11,000 km even though it can be upgraded to serve for another 30 years. The replacement P-8 has strike range of 3000km and dependent on US sanctions.

Chaiwalla:- Russians equipment has a thumb rule require 3 times more spares but the spares are 10% the cost of western equipment. Hence it is still 3 times cheaper to maintain a Russian weapon platform. The Babus and Jairnails do not order adequate quantities of spares due to dispute about cuts.

Our RM/DM may be well meaning but I feel he is being misled by entrenched lobbies and does not have access to any alternate opinion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2015 21:29

Some of the MOD decisions are baffling.A veteran well-known analyst told me that some decisions are impossible to understand,wrong from key aspects,esp. costs. The current usage of Bears bombing Syria with the latest Russian stand-off cruise missiles should be a revelation to the IN,IAF and MOD. These terrific Soviet era bombers are regularly testing NATO air defences . From the latest Def news report (if true) about the deals that will be finalized during Mr.M's visit to Moscow,and no second Akula,no mention of the FGFA,etc.,good luck to the services. There's v.little money in the pot to spend on luxury items,and just one deal like the Rafale will swallow most of the moolah.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 09 Dec 2015 00:17

Gyan wrote:I think that Russians rely on political contacts and do not bribe Babus and Pimp Media hence get so much bad press. Look at Su-30MKI which costs around USD 60 Million and requires spares of around USD 1 million per annum. Compare with super duper sexy hot Rafale which will cost USD 250 Million and require spares of USD 5 Million per annum.

Re Philip:- Russian equipment is "incorrectly" hammered on life cycle costs, you need to get some data to deal with such issues. For instance, there is movement to scrap Tu-142 with strike range of 11,000 km even though it can be upgraded to serve for another 30 years. The replacement P-8 has strike range of 3000km and dependent on US sanctions.

Chaiwalla:- Russians equipment has a thumb rule require 3 times more spares but the spares are 10% the cost of western equipment. Hence it is still 3 times cheaper to maintain a Russian weapon platform. The Babus and Jairnails do not order adequate quantities of spares due to dispute about cuts.

Our RM/DM may be well meaning but I feel he is being misled by entrenched lobbies and does not have access to any alternate opinion.

That "3 times the spares" will also mean it requires 3 times more manpower and equal amount of downtime to keep them airworthy.

Also there is a problem of where to buy them from. For Rafale you can go straight to one shop and sleep over it. Now in case of IL-76 or An-32 or Migs, where to go? Ukraine/Russia/....ooooorrr Chez/Poland? There is no one-stop no-nonsense shop. Heck we almost lost 5 An-32 when conflict started there. Now in such scenarios babus can make money, and hence problem is compounded. Even if you buy tons from these non OEM seller whats the point if there won't be any guarantees.

In the end India wants reliable machines from reliable seller. Soviets used to be one. Russia is no Soviet Union. That land is lost, sorry to say.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Dec 2015 00:30

I would like to see data on 3 times the spares at 10% the cost claim for O&S.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Dec 2015 00:39

From March 2015:

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12326/ ... mc4nbiLTIU

India has received some 23 MiG29K and MiG29KUB fighters from Russia so far. The latter are the two seater trainer versions. A further six are to be delivered this year followed by an equal number next year. In addition, a simulator provides realistic ground based training for all carrier operations.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Dec 2015 00:52

^^^
Whattt? The mighty Russians only producing 6 MiG-29K/year for the IN. Philiposkvy what do you say

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Dec 2015 08:33

^^^^^^

Maybe the Roosis can talk to SAAB to help set another line to produce some decent numbers.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 09 Dec 2015 08:38

^^^
I think it was mentioned before that the slow delivery rate was induced because of the Vikrant is scheduled to enter in 2018 and we did not want all the airframes to be old.