IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2016 20:01

What I don't understand about this HMDS issue is why the IAF supposedly insists on the integration of the Israeli Dash system as opposed to the french Topsight, which should be compatible with the mica and therefore save time and money. The navy uses the topsight for the fulcrum as well. And possibly the upgraded mirages as well...someone please tell me that the inordinately expensive mirage upgrade includes an hms, if not, I would rate is chances as downright poor vs. Neighbors solahs, j11s, and God forbid, even the bandar

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Jan 2016 20:01

@ brar_w

^ sweet. khan mijjile on a frog a/c. how many gajjillions for khan now ?

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Jan 2016 20:04

Some sort of illusion is sought to be created by war of words that Rafale is not costly. Refer details about Brazil fighter competition:-

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ram-04179/

Folha de Sao Paolo reports that it was the most expensive of the 3 finalists, with a price tag of about $8.2 billion US dollars (13.3 billion Reals), plus $4 billion in maintenance contracts over the next 30 years. Dassault reportedly offered the best technology transfer package, and Defence Minister Jobim claims a subsequent $2 billion price reduction, but details remain unclear. The plane remained a strong contender, but a deteriorating economy and a binary choice involving Saab’s Gripen created the perfect storm that crashed the Rafale’s chances.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2016 20:05

Nirav, if true, it seems really strange....one wonders if the iaf/goi is simply trying to make the french back out..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jan 2016 20:06

nirav wrote:@ brar_w

^ sweet. khan mijjile on a frog a/c. how many gajjillions for khan now ?

Which missile would they choose that does not have an MBDA alternative, possibly already integrated with the Rafale? Only such weapon that I can think of is the AARGM and the future AARGM-ER. Integrating that would be mainly a Dassault driven process with the missile suppliers providing technical assistance. But that scenario looks highly unlikely although the Rafale does lack a modern ARM.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Jan 2016 20:08

this Rafale "deal" makes a jingo cry YALLAH in despair !

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 30 Jan 2016 20:48

But that scenario looks highly unlikely although the Rafale does lack a modern ARM.

I have a suspicion first ARM might be NGARM from the stables of DRDO. It is requests like these I feel that is making the deal a long drawn out process. There might be many such requests (HMD... etc)which french might have entertained. The deal is making sense now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2016 12:05

AW&ST had an article where they stated that IAF has asked dassult to integrate with Kh-31 ARM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2016 12:20

indranilroy wrote:Rohit, Austin, it will still be on the higher side. There is no questioning that French maal is one of the most expensive from around the world. They are of good quality at premium prices. Of that, there is no question. Also, I don't agree with adding the cost of infrastructure and logistics. You add these if you HAVE TO add another plane (to IAF's existing 6-7 types). Otherwise, you don't need to. For example, if you get more Su-30s and LCAs which you are anyways going to have 10s of squadrons of, then this extra price doesn't have to be paid.

The question is very simple. WHY DO WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE RAFALES? I was one of the strongest supporters of MMRCA. We were getting 6-10 squadrons of one of worlds premier fighters. All this while learning manufacturing technology which could be dovetailed into our own products. Made a lot of sense. This piddly super expensive buy doesn't make sense. 2-3 squadrons of Rafale does not change the face of a 50 squadron IAF. Neither does it make up numbers significantly or fast enough. In the years of global financial slowdown this super expensive buys don't make much sense to me.

Super Expensive may be relative unless we know what is part of the entire package , Mirage 2000 buy in early 80's was also protested as super expensive buy by many.

From IAF past experience 36 wont be the last number for Rafale and likely they would buy more perhaps 70 + as they are stating , IAF would first deploy Rafale and get first hand experiencing in Indian condition before they will give order for more , Something they even did for Su-30 in 90 where initial 40's were ordered.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2016 13:11

Cain Marko wrote:What I don't understand about this HMDS issue is why the IAF supposedly insists on the integration of the Israeli Dash system as opposed to the french Topsight, which should be compatible with the mica and therefore save time and money. The navy uses the topsight for the fulcrum as well. And possibly the upgraded mirages as well...someone please tell me that the inordinately expensive mirage upgrade includes an hms, if not, I would rate is chances as downright poor vs. Neighbors solahs, j11s, and God forbid, even the bandar

Yus yus. Our Mirages will come with the TopSight.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 31 Jan 2016 13:45

But you raise an interesting point Cain. If I may expand it further..

- Why is the IAF insisting on the DASH helmet?

- Why does it want a 'US-origin' missile integrated? (My guess - AGM-88E.)

- Why does it insist on integrating the Astra? (No similar constraints w.r.t the Mirage upgrade.)

- Why does it want two bases set up for the Rafales?

- Why after years of badgering the govt, has the IAF stopped complaining about the pace of the ongoing negotiations?

- Why out-of-the-blue did the IAF chief start publicly talking about 'alternatives to the Rafale', two months ago?

- Why was the IAF's point-man on the deal (AM SBP Sinha) transferred out to CAC, with the negotiations supposedly entering the final stretch?

And of course -

- Why is the MoD insisting on a 50% offset requirement instead of the standard 30%, as mandated by its DPP?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Most likely answer: the PMO is only dept in the entire GoI (including the MoF) that doesn't want the whole cursed deal buried forever.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 01 Feb 2016 08:32

^

1. IAF wants to group all their extras into one contract so that they won't have to go through negotiations over and over again.

2. PMO needs French support to restart talks on an Indo-EU FTA trade deal and improve Indo-EU relations. The other Big 4 in EU: Italy (bad relations), UK (US puppet and indophobic), and Germany (unpredictable, jihadist sympathizers) are not really good options. Overall they are the best possible mutual beneficiary in the EU for India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2016 18:18

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1974082

80 more MKIs?

Does not bode too well for the Rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2016 10:50

Any truth in that report? I would prefer 80 MIG-29K/UG/35 s,plus 40 MKis for the same price.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Feb 2016 11:06

Riight. Gotta keep MiG afloat somehow. Indian-built Su-30s definitely aren't going to do it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2016 11:19

MIG is being kept afloat quite well with sev sqds of 29Ks for the RuN. Plus news of a new high-speed high alt MIG-41 fighter to replace MIG-31s expected to arrive before 2020. Anyway,we're already building the engines for 29UGs locally,so one could extend the local content .I'm looking at it from the cost,plus manpower angle.Single pilot,single family to also support by the IAF.More aircraft/sqds to spread around on both fronts.Our principal adversary will be the JF-17 "Farter".Tejas and 29/35s should easily handle them.One would dearly love some SU-32/34s though.Backfires (upgraded) even better.Can't understand why the IAF is so blinkered about a strat bombing capability that could even carry large numbers of cruise/conventional missiles/munitions as demonstrated by the Rus in Syria.
A comparison of the efficiency of Rafales vs Ru strike aircraft in Syria should be undertaken by our Def. establishment/IAF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2016 14:08

These guys have found a new ~~Turkey~~ lemon. Russia’s Fearsome New MiGs Could Be Lemons

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2016 14:15

Moscow Times :: Russia's Once-Mighty Fighter Jet Firm MiG Struggling as Rivals Make Gains

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Feb 2016 01:06

NRao wrote:These guys have found a new ~~Turkey~~ lemon. Russia’s Fearsome New MiGs Could Be Lemons

Why cant We buy one or two cheap for Kaveri testing or they are too crappy to do the job. ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Feb 2016 03:56

NRao wrote:These guys have found a new ~~Turkey~~ lemon. Russia’s Fearsome New MiGs Could Be Lemons

Meeh...that article is a lemon all on its own. The SMT program IIRC was always about upgrading stock MiG-29s. As far as the upgrade goes, it is an excellent one in terms of pure bang for buck - all the drawbacks of the original (primarily range issues) are rectified, you have full glass cockpit, nice radar kit, and add the Indian AEW suite + the IRST and the bird will compete very nicely with the blk-50/52 at a much cheaper cost. The M2K-5 runs a third now imho without any IRST, and continuing weak thrust issues.

If the spares and support issue could be licked, I'd be hoping that the IAF goes and buys a couple of sqds - @ that price (~ 25 million $), they provide fabulous punch. Far more so than M2ks from the Sheikhdoms in all probability.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Feb 2016 03:59

Viv S wrote:Most likely answer: the PMO is only dept in the entire GoI (including the MoF) that doesn't want the whole cursed deal buried forever.

Hmm...could be a case of Modi wanting to quickly bring in some firepower to the IAF while turning the whole MRCA fiasco around - alas, I don't think it has worked as intended. Let us see if they can make Dassault quit this boondoggle.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Feb 2016 09:10

Boeing is back with its F-18 offer, but now it's "Make in India".

Boeing keen to make F/A-18 fighters in India: CEO Dennis A Muilenburg

Binoy Prabhakar | ET Bureau | Feb 3, 2016, 09.21 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Aircraft maker Boeing has offered to manufacture its F/A-18 fighter jets — the mainstay of the US navy — in India through the government's Make in India programme, taking another stab at winning a potential multi-billion contract from one of the world's biggest military spenders.
"We are taking a hard look at the opportunity for the F18 fighter jet as an area where we can build industrial capacity, supply chain partnerships, technical depth, design and manufacturing capability in India, providing an operational capability that is useful for Indian defence forces," Boeing chief executive officer Dennis A Muilenburg said in New Delhi on Tuesday.
"Make in India is an enabler aligned with that strategy," said Muilenburg.
The F/A-18 lost out in the government's medium multi-role fighter aircraft (MMRCA) procurement programme — designed to replace ageing Indian Air Force jets — to French company Dassault Aviation's Rafale fighter jets. But the Rafale deal for 36 planes, estimated to be worth $9 billion, has been stuck over negotiations over price.
Boeing's latest offer to help the government create an industrial ecosystem to build its fighter planes signals it sees an opportunity in the delays over the Rafale deal. Military officials and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar have said the government is open to buying an alternative fighter jet.

"Our intent here is to build an industrial framework for the long run that builds on the aerospace investments being made not only by programme, but also by long-term industrial capacity that is globally competitive," said Muilenburg, who is visiting India for the first time since becoming CEO of the $91-billion aerospace giant last July.
The government has long been looking to end its reliance on foreign arms makers and create a homegrown military manufacturing sector. The Make in India manufacturing programme is expected to be a springboard to these efforts. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a twinengine, supersonic, all weather multi-role fighter jet capable of landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier, according to the Boeing website.
Muilenburg also said Boeing is in talks with low-cost airline SpiceJet for a potentially large plane order. "We are engaged in a dialogue with them and the new Max (Boeing 737 Max) is a very compelling value proposition."

With the $9-10 billion price tag for just 36 Rafale stalemating the Rafale negotiations, I wonder how many F-18s Boeing will offer for the same price?

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 03 Feb 2016 09:29

After re-reading the last few months of IAF and MoD comments, this is my overall $.02, for whatever it is worth:

If Rafale wins here, then expect them to win at least +80 more aircraft as IAF wants 6 squads as minimum.

My guess is that if IN does not pick up Rafale-M, then 2 more contracts of off-shelf 36 fighters will commence, this will give IAF their 6 squads. If IN decides they want Rafale-M then +150 contract for MII after the initial 36 can be achieved. 4 additional squads for IAF and 2-3 squads for INS Vishal, since it will be EMALS/CATOBAR similar to French AC.

Only other option is F/A-18E 'Super Hornets', which are being offered for MII as well if large order for +200 are procured. That would make it 126 for IAF for 6 squads, and rest 2-3 squads for IN. Advantage here would be cheaper cost, and same F-414 engines that will go into Tejas Mk2, and potentially AMCA. Disadvantage is that it clearly is not as capable as Rafale, and US not reliable as France.

Final option is the Jingo dream of dropping IAF doctrine of low-mid-high fighters, and ordering more Tejas, with investment in additional factories, and ordering more Su-30MKI. So increase low-high fighters and forgo the medium aircraft until AMCA is ready. IAF doesn't get what they doctrinally want and decreased capabilities, but money is saved and indigenous production is secured/money is invested back into economy and Indian jobs. I favor this option the most as I feel IAF doesn't value building up indigenous production and capability as much as it should, and such investment at this stage will have exponential effects 10 years from now. Chinese production capabilities are so high now because they invested billions into their industry a decade ago, while IAF scorned the Tejas and demanded phoren maal while neglecting indigenous capacity.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Feb 2016 09:40

The F-16 and F-18s are too old to be significantly upgraded in the future.They're in their last avatars.The MIG-29 with the 35 development TVC,etc. is a more cost-effective option.But the Q remains,apart from numbers for 45 sqds.,why spend huge amts of money on fighters that will not be able to match those arriving from 2020 onwards? Secondly,adding yet another type to the IAF's fleet defeats the purpose of simplicity and cost-effectiveness in training,maintenance,spares and support,etc. The MIG-29,MKIs,are already in service."Extras" would pose no problem. Even Jaguars if upgraded for the GA/clos support role.

Since the LCA is on the brink of entering IAF service,is brand new,very cost-effective ,desi designed and built and despite considerable firang input (engines,radars,weapons,etc.),will invigorate Indian defence industry where we will be less beholden to any firang manufacturer. Assuming that the Rafale's price is coming down,as the French have said in today's papers,then we will seal the deal. If it does not come down enough,then the option of another 80MKIs built in India for the same price would be a real steal! 4 sqds for the price of two,with money left over for the LCA's accelerated production.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 03 Feb 2016 10:49

Chakra.in wrote:After re-reading the last few months of IAF and MoD comments, this is my overall $.02, for whatever it is worth:

If Rafale wins here, then expect them to win at least +80 more aircraft as IAF wants 6 squads as minimum.

My guess is that if IN does not pick up Rafale-M, then 2 more contracts of off-shelf 36 fighters will commence, this will give IAF their 6 squads. If IN decides they want Rafale-M then +150 contract for MII after the initial 36 can be achieved. 4 additional squads for IAF and 2-3 squads for INS Vishal, since it will be EMALS/CATOBAR similar to French AC.

Only other option is F/A-18E 'Super Hornets', which are being offered for MII as well if large order for +200 are procured. That would make it 126 for IAF for 6 squads, and rest 2-3 squads for IN. Advantage here would be cheaper cost, and same F-414 engines that will go into Tejas Mk2, and potentially AMCA. Disadvantage is that it clearly is not as capable as Rafale, and US not reliable as France.

Final option is the Jingo dream of dropping IAF doctrine of low-mid-high fighters, and ordering more Tejas, with investment in additional factories, and ordering more Su-30MKI. So increase low-high fighters and forgo the medium aircraft until AMCA is ready. IAF doesn't get what they doctrinally want and decreased capabilities, but money is saved and indigenous production is secured/money is invested back into economy and Indian jobs. I favor this option the most as I feel IAF doesn't value building up indigenous production and capability as much as it should, and such investment at this stage will have exponential effects 10 years from now. Chinese production capabilities are so high now because they invested billions into their industry a decade ago, while IAF scorned the Tejas and demanded phoren maal while neglecting indigenous capacity.

Why can't either of these manufactures (Boeing and Dassault) counter-offer to produce LCA, in a jointly-owned production-line with HAL? So create two lines, both jointly with HAL, to produce Rafale/F-18 in one and LCA in another - and thus have a share of the profits as well.

That'll never get discussed though, as all future sale options for these platforms are hinged upon ensnaring the numbers-meant-for-LCA (i.e. 120+ of Bisons + 70 for MiG-27s and plus for 100 more for the addn sqns to reach 42sqn dream etc) to their kitty (all in the name of this so-called fake Make-in-India concept - as fake as Su-30 glorified screw-drivergiri that we see).

And the "no-plan-B" service, is that wink-wink, acquiescent partner to this whole tamasha - after all if 3-tiered force-structure "need" can be manufactured to get these neither-here-nor-there platforms approx 12-13 years back, another modified 2-tiered force structure "doctrine" can similarly be manufactured quite easily really, obviating the need to fly around these non-glamorous light-fighters which happened to be indigenously designed/produced.

The over-arching need for this deal was strategic supplier-diversification - plus the secondary need/requirement was strategic-baksheesh for the support during post-1998-Shakti-II.

It's completely different issue and requires a completely different thinking level, to appreciate that these so-called strategic supplier-diversification etc need, comes to play only in the absence of an actively-supported indigenous-program (to create that "plan B", i.e. an indigenous aeronautical MIC with end-to-end design-and-execution capability) - but with only tactical-level institutional mindset available, such long-term strategic thinking can't be expected from this service atleast.

So all this whine about 200-250-300-350mil unit pricetag etc is non-sequitor really - after all, what is price for buying independence?

Thus this deal turning out to be quite a cheap deal really - come one, come all. All thanks to this "no plan B" services lack of any strategic thought process.
We are lucky!! Rejoice then ...

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 03 Feb 2016 11:07

We should have two lines for LCA. HAL should manufacture LCA MK-1, LCA MK-1A for IAF, LCA MK-2 for Navy which in itself are around 180 aircraft while LCA MK-2 IAF should be manufactured by second Pvt Sector production Line, say around 200 aircraft. Thereafter from 2025 onward HAL can manufacture LCA based AJT followed by AMCA from 2030 while Pvt Sector second line can manufacture UCAV and LCA Mk-3.

Having said this we need to look more closely at things like DIRCM, Towed decoys, Sat Comm for deployed across the board. There is absence of determined push in IAF to induct DIRCM, towed decoys and Sat Comm in the aircraft and Helos while there is so much interest in super costly Rafale and PAKFA. I strongly feel that this neglect will come to bite us in the @ss, similar to lack of across the board flare dispensers during Kargil.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Feb 2016 11:10

Maitya,tx for bringing up the LCA dev. assistance point.We've discussed before how a firang manufacturer can assist in dev/further dev. of the LCA as part of a deal.I've suggested it for the FGFA and surely Dassault can do so as part of an exchange for the Rafale.The Russians and French have no single-engined light fighter in their inventory,so just like EADS,who gave us the Typhoon,a JV between either Russia or France for expanding their portfolios and joint export of the Tejas could be an innovative way to move forward.
Imagine the poss. of even a stealth version of the Tejas. I don't know why the MOD/GOI/DM/HAL haven't thought of this before.It would be a win-win situ for all concerned. It would be invaluable too for setting up a second line of prod for the LCA,as firang tech brought in would give us a facility with greater annual production. look at how the same has been done with the auto industry,where we are producing cars for both domestic and export market in huge numbers.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 03 Feb 2016 19:14

maitya wrote: Why can't either of these manufactures (Boeing and Dassault) counter-offer to produce LCA, in a jointly-owned production-line with HAL? So create two lines, both jointly with HAL, to produce Rafale/F-18 in one and LCA in another - and thus have a share of the profits as well.

That'll never get discussed though, as all future sale options for these platforms are hinged upon ensnaring the numbers-meant-for-LCA (i.e. 120+ of Bisons + 70 for MiG-27s and plus for 100 more for the addn sqns to reach 42sqn dream etc) to their kitty (all in the name of this so-called fake Make-in-India concept - as fake as Su-30 glorified screw-drivergiri that we see).

And the "no-plan-B" service, is that wink-wink, acquiescent partner to this whole tamasha - after all if 3-tiered force-structure "need" can be manufactured to get these neither-here-nor-there platforms approx 12-13 years back, another modified 2-tiered force structure "doctrine" can similarly be manufactured quite easily really, obviating the need to fly around these non-glamorous light-fighters which happened to be indigenously designed/produced.

The over-arching need for this deal was strategic supplier-diversification - plus the secondary need/requirement was strategic-baksheesh for the support during post-1998-Shakti-II.

It's completely different issue and requires a completely different thinking level, to appreciate that these so-called strategic supplier-diversification etc need, comes to play only in the absence of an actively-supported indigenous-program (to create that "plan B", i.e. an indigenous aeronautical MIC with end-to-end design-and-execution capability) - but with only tactical-level institutional mindset available, such long-term strategic thinking can't be expected from this service atleast.

So all this whine about 200-250-300-350mil unit pricetag etc is non-sequitor really - after all, what is price for buying independence?

Thus this deal turning out to be quite a cheap deal really - come one, come all. All thanks to this "no plan B" services lack of any strategic thought process.
We are lucky!! Rejoice then ...

Nobody will just hand out their secrets to aerospace manufacturing. Most of this 'ToT' you hear about is just knowledge about production line and manufacturing, not actual technology on the plane itself. They will never offer to help setup LCA production lines in the joint-venture fashion. Nor do they need to if HAL can deliver on their factories that can deliver 8/year each, they just need more money from Tejas orders to setup more factory lines. No reason to believe they can't do 24/year from planned 16/year. The new assembly lines HAL is building right now are state-of-the-art.

No, the problem is that IAF wants a medium-type aircraft in the short-term, they will not wait for AMCA and invest the savings in indigenous capabilities in the meantime. They doctrinally want a Low-Med-High airforce with a minimum of 6 squads of Medium class modern aircraft. IAF does not feel that Tejas or Su-30MKI which are low and high type fighters is a replacement for their 6 medium class aircraft squads. They have stressed this over and over again in public statements, while taking a lax approach to their 'light' fighter class Tejas.

PMO on the other hand, desperately wants better relations with EU for trade. US is sealing themselves off with TPP which India will not join, and Europe is the largest market in the world for manufactured goods after North America. If G2G deal can solve Rafale, then France will help push for G2G EU-Indo FTA deal stuck since 2007, among others. France was one of the first countries to normalize relations after 1998, and they are the only Big 4 member of EU that could help relations go a step further. Italy, UK, and Germany will not do this. PMO is looking at the bigger picture here with regards to overall MII; from their perspective if this deal can help advance trade relations with EU, then +$7B donation to France is pennies to them. PMO is dreaming of +$1T in trade in 10 years.

Be thankful at least that this MoD has been able to get them to order 120 Tejas, something IAF should have done 10 years ago, a lost decade where indigenous aerospace engineering could have been developed. That is at least something, and much more than old MoD ever did for indigenous capabilities. Hope that AMCA, which is the only long-term solution, is on schedule and learns from all the mistakes of Tejas. Pray that we can see a prototype fly by Aero India 2017 or 2019. There is no other solution.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 03 Feb 2016 20:46

A game changer would be for Uncle Sam to offer deep TOT for the 414 engines. This will take the game away from the French. We will be otherwise paying $250 Million for a 4 Gen plane

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Feb 2016 21:13

Why can't either of these manufactures (Boeing and Dassault) counter-offer to produce LCA, in a jointly-owned production-line with HAL?

Boss, companies like Boeing have moved on. Does India *really* want to import a "line" of older techs or learn about the latest and greatest? Boeing is dabbling in a "6th Gen" plane and I bet new methods for manufacturing it.

Also, while improving on the LCA is a good thought, it also puts India into a loop that she will never get out of. 20-30% in LCA and the rest in latest techs is what India needs. Very nice to have a stealth version of the LCA (which is small even as is), but FAR better to get the AMCA out, certainly with a naval variant and even perhaps a single engined one too.

Need to move on.

A game changer would be for Uncle Sam to offer deep TOT for the 414 engines

check out the JWG on Jet Engines under DTTI. That is what India wanted/requested.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Feb 2016 21:32

"PMO on the other hand, desperately wants better relations with EU for trade. US is sealing themselves off with TPP which India will not join, and Europe is the largest market in the world for manufactured goods after North America. If G2G deal can solve Rafale, then France will help push for G2G EU-Indo FTA deal stuck since 2007" ^^^

The FTA is stuck because of (among other things) the EU desire to introduce India's domestic issues (religious freedom, caste, LGBT etc.) into the agreement while giving little on agricultural subsidies.

The IAF may be doctrinally disposed of towards a low/med/high mix but we are not the US and if they want 42 squadrons or whatever, they will have to live by budgetary considerations. The whole MMRCA comedy was to kick the can down the road because there was no money for CAPEX in the MoD.

India's military is very people intensive and that spells bad news when you factor in OROP and look at the cost of pensions and salaries.

You don't want Boeing/LM involved in the LCA because it then gets snared in ITAR. Even a Boeing consultancy on the LCA was shelved after people realized the implications.

There is no alternative to LCA Mk1a/MK2 and the AMCA. Even the FGFA is designed to drain resources away from the IAF which is why they are a bit (gun) shy.

If PMO wants to pay off the French, just buy more nukes from Areva. I don't know what more we owe the Russians.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 03 Feb 2016 21:39

Can expect minimum 54nos Rafale for IAF and another 54nos naval version for IN if it is selected for CATOBAR INS Vishal.

If only for IAF than 72nos @6/year can be expected by 2030.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Feb 2016 23:25

Philip wrote:The F-16 and F-18s are too old to be significantly upgraded in the future.They're in their last avatars.The MIG-29 with the 35 development TVC,etc. is a more cost-effective option.But the Q remains,apart from numbers for 45 sqds.,why spend huge amts of money on fighters that will not be able to match those arriving from 2020 onwards? Secondly,adding yet another type to the IAF's fleet defeats the purpose of simplicity and cost-effectiveness in training,maintenance,spares and support,etc. The MIG-29,MKIs,are already in service."Extras" would pose no problem. Even Jaguars if upgraded for the GA/clos support role.

Since the LCA is on the brink of entering IAF service,is brand new,very cost-effective ,desi designed and built and despite considerable firang input (engines,radars,weapons,etc.),will invigorate Indian defence industry where we will be less beholden to any firang manufacturer. Assuming that the Rafale's price is coming down,as the French have said in today's papers,then we will seal the deal. If it does not come down enough,then the option of another 80MKIs built in India for the same price would be a real steal! 4 sqds for the price of two,with money left over for the LCA's accelerated production.

But the MiG-35 is not..yeah right.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 04 Feb 2016 00:16

Cosmo_R wrote:"PMO on the other hand, desperately wants better relations with EU for trade. US is sealing themselves off with TPP which India will not join, and Europe is the largest market in the world for manufactured goods after North America. If G2G deal can solve Rafale, then France will help push for G2G EU-Indo FTA deal stuck since 2007" ^^^

The FTA is stuck because of (among other things) the EU desire to introduce India's domestic issues (religious freedom, caste, LGBT etc.) into the agreement while giving little on agricultural subsidies.

The IAF may be doctrinally disposed of towards a low/med/high mix but we are not the US and if they want 42 squadrons or whatever, they will have to live by budgetary considerations. The whole MMRCA comedy was to kick the can down the road because there was no money for CAPEX in the MoD.

India's military is very people intensive and that spells bad news when you factor in OROP and look at the cost of pensions and salaries.

You don't want Boeing/LM involved in the LCA because it then gets snared in ITAR. Even a Boeing consultancy on the LCA was shelved after people realized the implications.

There is no alternative to LCA Mk1a/MK2 and the AMCA. Even the FGFA is designed to drain resources away from the IAF which is why they are a bit (gun) shy.

If PMO wants to pay off the French, just buy more nukes from Areva. I don't know what more we owe the Russians.

Yes, there are obvious problems in the FTA deals. Hence why PMO wants to get closer to France and not Italy/UK/Germany who will just exacerbate the problems. They are the best mutual beneficiary in EU for India when it comes to making these deals. Clearing up an old deal like Rafale will do a lot of goodwill for future deals. Who knows what kinds of promises might have already been made, since Rafale G2G acquisition announcement came out of the blue during a foreign trip.

And I honestly don't believe IAF's main concern is about overall squadron numbers, else they would have at least ordered 12 squads of Tejas Mk1a instead of 6 to get HAL to build more factories and get them up to 24/year production. IAF just uses it as a buzzphrase to justify their pricey fighters when criticized. One can only hope that IAF is going to order +10 squads of Tejas Mk2, and support AMCA when they are ready. In the meantime, Rafale will probably be purchased in larger quantities beyond 36 (Which will be signed one way or another) unless Boeing makes an irresistible offer with perhaps engine ToT for F-18A/E 'Super Hornets'.

As for FGFA, I don't think it will see the light of day until late 2020s if at all, the new engines capable of super-cruise aren't even ready yet along with a number of other systems. And Su-30MKI are still new and being upgraded.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Feb 2016 03:00

squadron numbers are a total red herring
that number was devised in the days of MiG21FL's and Su7's and has persisted ever since.
1 Su30 == 12 MiG21's or maybe even more

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 04 Feb 2016 03:42

Thats what I dont get.. The USAF is a 55 sqd airforce with a 14T economy. How can we have a 42 sqd **imported** airforce with a 2T economy? Now that the cold war between industrialized economies is over, the age of thousands of fighter aircrafts being produced is over and most combat aircraft exist as boutique bespoke combat platforms (Rafale 150 airframes, Eurofighter 500 airframes, F22 ~200 airframes). Because so few are produced, the prices are really really high. Therefore, we cant expect to get cheap airframes that massive industrial complexes were churning out and must pay through the nose if we want some. The choice is not between LCA and some other uber aircraft. Its between the LCA and **nothing**. Even the 36 rafale deal is hanging fire. Its just as likely it would not happen.

member_29268 · Post by **member_29268** » 04 Feb 2016 05:02

^^ USAF alone has ~80 fighter squadrons , combine that with marines and navy the total goes to 120..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Feb 2016 05:16

khedar wrote:^^ USAF alone has ~80 fighter squadrons , combine that with marines and navy the total goes to 120..

See this :

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 04 Feb 2016 05:20

Sarcasm On -

Potential explanation to IAF's numerical versus qualitative requirements - when one takes to the skies, common sense is left on the ground.

so repeat the mantra three times every morning, afternoon and evening >> I want RAFALE, I want RAFALE, I want RAFALE .... and it will all start making 'full' sense

Sarcasm off!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Feb 2016 05:39

Crisis in aerospace in India,See how the DOSU's have been bulsh*tting us about the source of their profits.They collect huge advances from the GOI ,bank it and show the interest as profit! Their order books are so full ,enough for 10-15 yrs. and they deliver b*gger all! Full details in the DPSU td.

Defence PSUs: profiting on advances
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/d ... yndication

Just one xcpt. from the official report by AM Maheswaran.How is HAL going to manufacture the Rafale from this revelation? No wonder dassault was so skeptical all along.

“HAL is an engineering company in the aerospace sector. It should, by and large, make profits from manufacturing and sale of aeronautical products and allied services in MRO … HAL has very little incentive to create profits through quantity, quality and innovation,” the report says.

How it makes profit is an eye-opener. The HAL receives advance from the military, almost three times its annual turnover. In 2010-11, the financial turnover was a bit over Rs. 13,000 crore, but the order book was Rs. 68,265 crore, against which HAL took advance of Rs. 35,146 crore from its customers. On that advance, it earned an interest income of over Rs. 2,200 crore, and booked a profit after tax of Rs. 2,114 crore. That year, HAL paid the government, its majority shareholder, a dividend of Rs. 423.12 crore.

“HAL is not a financial institution that makes money from money; it is meant to be an aeronautics engineering company,” the Matheswaran report points out.