IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Will · Post by **Will** » 12 May 2016 12:02

Don't blame the French ,blame our govt's for trying to pull the wool of everyone's eyes. This is an old trick. State the base cost of a product as a cheap price and then add everything at a later date which doubles and triples the price.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2016 14:33

Cain Marko wrote:$ 8 billion without weapons package? Holeee smokes batman, that is one swell deal..

Its $8 Billion with a 5 year support package as well. From a purely acquisition stand point its obviously expensive but one would know that going into a deal with french weapons systems. As a reference, the current year F-35 (Signed in FY17 for FY19 deliveries) deal would cost about the same for approximately double the number of aircraft (some are B's and C's so a true CTOL ratio would probably be > 2:1).

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 12 May 2016 15:14

This 10->5 yr service contract, bare bones platform with everything else in separate contracts echoes the T-90 sale way too much.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 12 May 2016 19:24

Screw the frogs and buy the SHornet. Here is an uverified image showing the result of the recent evaluation of Eurofighter, JSF and SHornet by Denmark.

Shornet looks like the most effective choice for India.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2016 19:39

They didn't release any information on the rafale and as per their requirements and consideration the shortnet finished dead last of the three with the typhoon being the most expensive.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2016 20:07

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:$ 8 billion without weapons package? Holeee smokes batman, that is one swell deal..
Its $8 Billion with a 5 year support package as well. From a purely acquisition stand point its obviously expensive but one would know that going into a deal with french weapons systems. As a reference, the current year F-35 (Signed in FY17 for FY19 deliveries) deal would cost about the same for approximately double the number of aircraft (some are B's and C's so a true CTOL ratio would probably be > 2:1).

And Rafale is no F35.

So French ze ripoff.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 12 May 2016 20:18

ramana wrote:...(brar_w) :As a reference, the current year F-35 (Signed in FY17 for FY19 deliveries) deal would cost about the same for approximately double the number of aircraft (some are B's and C's so a true CTOL ratio would probably be > 2:1.

And Rafale is no F35.

So French ze ripoff.

But it's not from those untrustworthy Americans

That alone should be worth paying twice as much for a plane that is half as capable.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 12 May 2016 20:32

Denmark to buy 27 F-35s for $ 3 billion

Thu, May 12, 2016, 12:05 PM EDT

The government expects to spend about 20 billion Danish crowns ($3.1 billion) on the purchase, Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen said on Thursday, or about 740 million crowns per plane

About $115 million per F35 vs $250 million for the watered down Rafale offer. But then who in India cares about sarkari paisa.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 12 May 2016 23:14

brar_w wrote:They didn't release any information on the rafale and as per their requirements and consideration the shortnet finished dead last of the three with the typhoon being the most expensive.

shornet was better or equal to the eurofighter when it came to some parameters such as mission effectiveness and survivability. What does the Rafale then bring that the shornet does not? I am not sure what 'candidate risk' criterion is..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 02:40

^ Overall the Shornet was judged to be the third out of the 3. That doesn't mean its crap, just that for their requirements the deemed the F-35 as the most capable, with Typhoon as the most expensive partly due to the F-35's, 8000 hour frame life while others would require a 2000 hr SLEP to get that or compensate for total fleet utilization targets by utilizing more aircraft.

What does the Rafale then bring that the shornet does not? I am not sure what 'candidate risk' criterion is..

There are naturally areas where the Rafale is better even though that is no where near the premium for it over the SHORNET. System maturity and risk in getting a higher end SHORNET operational is probably what goes against it. With the now watered down Advanced Super Hornet (that I had been advocating Boeing pursue for over a year) the difference would be practically ZERO but such a variant would naturally need to be put into service which it hasn't while the current standard rafale is operational with France and now Egypt. The biggest thing that the Rafale has going for it is that its not American, and not Russian - and as such it provides a viable and reliable western aircraft without the strategic concerns that would accompany US systems. Whether that is worth the premium is of course not clear.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 May 2016 03:38

ldev wrote:Denmark to buy 27 F-35s for $ 3 billion

Thu, May 12, 2016, 12:05 PM EDT

The government expects to spend about 20 billion Danish crowns ($3.1 billion) on the purchase, Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen said on Thursday, or about 740 million crowns per plane
About $115 million per F35 vs $250 million for the watered down Rafale offer. But then who in India cares about sarkari paisa.

Why is F-35 not being seriously considered instead of Rafale? Back in 2004, Rafale made sense but now in 2016 F-35 makes sense. If a foreign fighter is desired, go with JSF.

At $115 million/JSF, 126 units would come around $15 billion. Well within budget. ... Or get 36 Rafale for $8 billion. Which makes better sense?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 13 May 2016 04:20

srai wrote: About $115 million per F35 vs $250 million for the watered down Rafale offer. But then who in India cares about sarkari paisa.

Why is F-35 not being seriously considered instead of Rafale? Back in 2004, Rafale made sense but now in 2016 F-35 makes sense. If a foreign fighter is desired, go with JSF.

At $115 million/JSF, 126 units would come around $15 billion. Well within budget. ... Or get 36 Rafale for $8 billion. Which makes better sense?[/quote]

Since when has 'sense' been used in defense/technology related matters in India?

$250 million vs $115 million.. Those Rafales better be effing alien UFOs.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 May 2016 08:50

ldev wrote:Denmark to buy 27 F-35s for $ 3 billion

Thu, May 12, 2016, 12:05 PM EDT

The government expects to spend about 20 billion Danish crowns ($3.1 billion) on the purchase, Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen said on Thursday, or about 740 million crowns per plane
About $115 million per F35 vs $250 million for the watered down Rafale offer. But then who in India cares about sarkari paisa.

But you are forgetting there is a 50% Offset clause!

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 13 May 2016 11:01

Sorry but wasnt the cost in mmrca calculated as lifecycle cost? is $115mil the lcc in case of f35?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 13:50

adityadange wrote:Sorry but wasnt the cost in mmrca calculated as lifecycle cost? is $115mil the lcc in case of f35?

The current deal is for the aircraft and about 5 years worth of OEM support when it comes to parts (plus offsets). It is not Life Cycle Cost. At the risk of repeating myself on this very thread, Life Cycle Cost is the total cost of the weapons system, the cost of operating it in terms of parts, fuel, manpower (yes that comes into play when one system requires less manpower, or when you need less numbers of a particular system as the Denmark LCC analysis has revealed), Fuel and other expenses that generally come into the picture as you acquire, operate, upgrade and eventually retire the aircraft. You calculate Life Cycle Cost, but you don't pay it to the OEM. You pay the cost of procurement and whatever support contract (terms and duration) you wish to sign with it and then pay the remaining operational cost as it occurs.

Here is something that I have shared earlier as well. In the graphic, ignore the R&D phase since the IAF isn't developing the rafale but other components would obviously contribute to its LCC calculations

As I had mentioned the procurement cost of the F-35 is around 115 Million as estimated by Denmark. Its quite a bit lower if you go for a US purchase but that would obviously be the fly away cost, and for Denmark it would be the aircraft, plus all the infrastructure required to support it in their country. Its not an apples to apples cost to the rafale in the current G2G deal but the difference is so huge that even if you were to add those 'extras' to the F-35, at worst it would be at par with the rafale deal. When it comes to a weapons package, the US weapons are going to be quite lower in cost pretty much across the board.

There have been a few F-35 deals that have included a PBL component. Japan's 42 aircraft deal (4 from the US line + 38 from their own) was perhaps the first to involve a PBL, and it came in at $238 Million per aircraft. South Korea, also had a PBL component and their package put a unit price of $180 Million. Of course in the case of Japan and South Korea, the price estimates would be higher than what they would ultimately pay since in the case of Japan, the price estimates were supplied in 2012 (probably calculated in 2010 or 11) when the program's projected cost was higher, and even for ROKAF the eventual price would be lower. When the JPO supplies FMS estimates, it does so based on CAPE and GAO projected costs out into the future and the OEM or it can lower cost projections even though evidence points to them being the case. The last 3 contracts for the F-35 have been lower than what the cost projections were, and both Japan and Korea will probably play anywhere from 5% to 10% lower than what their FMS projections were at the time of release. Another point is that Japan's aircraft's at least the first half a dozen or so will be produced under Low Rate Production where costs are projected to be higher than the 2019 full rate production. The same will be the case of initial ROKAF F-35's.

Cost isn't an issue with the F-35 when comparing to the Rafale deal currently being negotiated. Geopolitical reasons however, are.

The FMS package includes the aircraft, Pratt & Whitney F135 engines - including five spares - electronic warfare systems and other equipment. It also includes logistical support, including software development and integration, spare parts, training and other elements.At $10 billion, the deal values each aircraft at roughly $238 million, although this number includes a lifetime of support.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

Edit:

The Denmark Evaluation has put the entire Danish Life Cycle Cost for the F-35's including procurement, support, 216,000 fleet hours of operation, manpower, fuel etc at $318.5 Million per aircraft, to be paid (obviously not to the OEM) between 2020 and 2050.

Overall, the program is expected to cost 56.4 billion Danish krone over the currently planned 30-year life of the program from 2020 to 2050.

Denmark’s fleet of F-35s will be one of the smallest in the world and will replace Denmark’s fleet of around 30 F-16 Fighting Falcons, many of which have been in service since the early 1980s. The Danes have followed a pattern set by fellow European F-16 operators The Netherlands and Norway, who have also selected the F-35; Belgium is now the last of the so-called European Participating Air Forces, who purchased the Fighting Falcon in the late 1970s, to decide how it may replace them.

In strategic terms, the F-35 was selected in part because the broad scope of the group of Joint Strike Fighter users would “foster both Denmark’s transatlantic ties and the country’s collaborative relations with a range of European partners,” the officials said.
Defense officials also looked favorably at the Typhoon in this respect.

But the Danish evaluation of the three types concluded that the F-35 had the lowest operating costs of the three types and they judged that only 27 aircraft would be needed for the tasks envisaged, as opposed to 34 Eurofighters and 38 Super Hornets, due to 6,000-hr. airframe limits on the latter two, compared to 8,000 hr. for the F-35.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/denmark ... -35-choice

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 13 May 2016 15:48

Sorry for looking at all Indian arms purchases with a jaundiced eye, but sometimes I feel that the politicians + brass + bureaucrats do everything possible to structure the highest possible unit price for imports, case in point being defining life cycle costs vs flyaway cost as the relevant price factor for the MMRCA. The only reason for such a definition, my jaundiced reasoning says, is that so that the bribes that they can demand as a percentage of the contract amount will also be higher. Beyond the flyaway cost, the remainder of the life cycle costs will be paid out over the expected service life of the aircraft which could be 25-30 years and as everybody should realize, the future value of money is less than the present value especially as you go further out in the future i.e. a 25-35 year service life. If you present value the future expected outflows beyond the flyaway cost, it will present a less frightening but also less lucrative figure for the politicians + bureaucrats + brass.

Oh, I had almost forgotten offsets, which will increase the already inflated life cycle unit cost by a a huge factor, maybe another 50%

Now you have a truly mouth watering unit cost for the babus to drool over. As to what real benefits will accrue to Indian industry with the so called TOT and offsets is really not clear. What is certainly clear is that it results in these obscene prices for the Rafale.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 May 2016 16:04

sudeepj wrote:...
Since when has 'sense' been used in defense/technology related matters in India?

$250 million vs $115 million.. Those Rafales better be effing alien UFOs.

Think of it as 'chankian' thinking. Sounds better.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 16:39

Sorry for looking at all Indian arms purchases with a jaundiced eye, but sometimes I feel that the politicians + brass + bureaucrats do everything possible to structure the highest possible unit price for imports, case in point being defining life cycle costs vs flyaway cost as the relevant price factor for the MMRCA. The only reason for such a definition, my jaundiced reasoning says, is that so that the bribes that they can demand as a percentage of the contract amount will also be higher. Beyond the flyaway cost, the remainder of the life cycle costs will be paid out over the expected service life of the aircraft which could be 25-30 years and as everybody should realize, the future value of money is less than the present value especially as you go further out in the future i.e. a 25-35 year service life. If you present value the future expected outflows beyond the flyaway cost, it will present a less frightening but also less lucrative figure for the politicians + bureaucrats + brass.

Forgetting how they are implemented fora second , acquisition decisions made using LCC as a guide are much better as they avoid the pitfalls associated with basing an acquisition decision purely on procurement cost or purely on performance. This is why LCCs are considered as an integral part of the Global acquisition system in defense and outside.

If you completely disregard operational and support costs you are risking yourself to a hollow force ie. one that has resources to buy something NOW but not long term capital allocation to support it. Hence overall cost that looks at the bulk of the cost clubbed under the O&S category is extremely important in determining the affordability of a system. There is a reason the IAF doesn't plan on operating 40 squadrons of MKIs and plans to have small and medium fighters as part of its fleet

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 13 May 2016 17:05

^^
True. But look at this specific case. Say you buy 126 F35s at a flyaway cost of $115 million/unit, and the LCC is $318 million/unit. The additional $203 million is going to be a cash outflow over say the next 30 years, taken out of the revenue budget, the way the IAF operates it's jets. That works out to about $7 million/unit, or a total of $882 million per annum for a 126 aircraft fleet. $882 while not small is a relatively small amount for a published current Indian defence budget of about $40-45 billion. Also 25 years into the future what will the relative value of $882 million be in say a $150 billion Indian defence budget? So I think that this concept of LCC while important, in the Indian context it could be used for motives which are not entirely altruistic.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 17:11

How much is the IAF share in the 40-45 billion and how much does readiness and procurement take out of it? Even if we attribute a 1/4 of the cost to manpower and exclude that from the roughly 866 million a year you are still left with a fair bit of cash required to support 126 aircraft on top of the other heavies and medium to light class fighters and other aircraft. There are LCC implications that you have to accommodate and we do that in personal finance as well. If you are embarked on an exercise to determine whether something is affordable or not you cannot neglect nearly two thirds of the system cost that falls in the O&S category. Otherwise nations around the world will buy systems based solely on procurement cost and performance and the IAF would have an all MKI fleet, the USAF an all f22 fleet etc...

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 13 May 2016 17:18

Back in 2014, the IAF got about 25% of the total defence budget. If we go by those percentage, it will be about $10-12 billion today. But a 126 fighter fleet which will increase the striking power of the entire force by a factor of 3x??, and will be inducted over say a 5-7 year period, can IMO justify a 10% revenue allocation of about $900 million per year. And that is in today's rupees/dollars. The future value of that will be lower with every passing year as will be percentage allocation out of the IAF revenue budget.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 May 2016 17:20

In what scenarios F-35s will be any useful?

* can't use against pakis due to (made in USA) global stregic thing not allowing something or the other wrt each country. Thereby allowing USA to set constraints on one border, and thereby the other side as consequence.
* China with its coast too far and India looking at mostly maritime surveillance right now.
* star wars infra need to be hired as well.
* what's the point in buying American gears if one of main reasons for MMRCA is to avoid total dependence on Russia ie more and not lesser dependence.
* Why not buy additional Mig 29Ks (around 68 or more naval ones) since Mig 29K can be swing role for almost all other requirements in parts(including shooting down drones), thereby reduce wear and tear of each ie extending life at least overall.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 13 May 2016 17:26

^^
FWIW, IMO, the more important front for India going forward is China. And on that front, the Russians for geopolitical reasons will provide China the same technology as India i.e. SU-30s, SU-35s and Mig 29s. That is the primary reason India should hedge it's bets vs Russia. And the historical IAF technological edge to offset the PLAAF numerical superiority may not be valid in the future if one depend's entirely on the Russians.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 17:26

ldev wrote:Back in 2014, the IAF got about 25% of the total defence budget. If we go by those percentage, it will be about $10-12 billion today. But a 126 fighter fleet which will increase the striking power of the entire force by a factor of 3x??, and will be inducted over say a 5-7 year period, can IMO justify a 10% revenue allocation of about $900 million per year. And that is in today's rupees/dollars. The future value of that will be lower with every passing year as will be percentage allocation out of the IAF revenue budget.

To do a quick and dirty analysis you would need -

- Current IAF slice of the pie
- How that slice gets divided into the various accounts
- How much is set aside for procurement
- What the current obligations are in terms of supporting the existing fleet at appropriate readiness levels

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/02/ ... t.html?m=1

The point wasnt to claim that the IAF can't or can afford the said aircraft but to advocate for a through cost analysis on affordability when buying something as the monetary impact of a decision extends over its service life.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 13 May 2016 21:17

Noob question but can we not use half of the amount being talked about here (half of 8 bil USD - 4 billion) to get more Sukhois & Mig-29UPG and invest some more in LCA and AMCA?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 May 2016 21:24

@"ldev"]^^

"FWIW, IMO, the more important front for India going forward is China."

--Check

"And on that front, the Russians for geopolitical reasons will provide China the same technology as India i.e. SU-30s, SU-35s and Mig 29s. That is the primary reason India should hedge it's bets vs Russia."

--Check

"And the historical IAF technological edge to offset the PLAAF numerical superiority may not be valid in the future if one depend's entirely on the Russians. "

India's military will not have the kind of technological edge over the PRC that Israel for example, has over the Arabs, nor the kind of edge that the US has over the PRC. Given our low expenditure levels and broken procurement, it's not a realistic goal for the foreseeable future. Not only are they ahead in local R&D but also what they lack locally, they will reverse engineer or steal. We either need a big dog on our side or resign ourselves to being Finlandized.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 13 May 2016 21:39

^^
Finlandized??

India is already Finlandized.

In 1959 the much maligned Jawaharlal Nehru gave asylum to the Dalai Lama in India who resides in India to this day.

In 2016, a nuclear armed India scuttled back on an already issued visit visa to Uighur leader Dolkun Isa.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 May 2016 23:08

JSF software/ALIS issues yet to be sorted out.Negotiating a sale to India would be the babus delight,strung out for years.On that score the Rafale chosen by the IAF earlier is why they're harping for it to save time and not enter into another round of laborious and years consuming negotiations for the same.Nevertheless,how was it selected? There are underlying suspicions that the requirements were made so sophisticated to keep more cost-effective aircraft out. Only the Raffy and Typhoon met these high stds and the Raffy's price was lower as they had already contrcted the uber-expensive M2K upgrades,at a cost which is simply scandalous.

Ideally,extra upgraded M-2000s or MIG-29s would have served the IAF well to keep numbers and sqds happy at far lower cost than the grandiose MMRCA requirement. As for Chinese air power,despite having Flankers in service,the Russians have always provided India with superior aircraft,subs,etc. than what they've given the Chinese. Why they chose India over China as PAK-FA/FGFA partner. Upgraded M2Ks and MIG-29s will make mincemeat out of the JF-17 which is to be the backbone of the PAF apart from its F-16s which shied away from the earlier MIG-29s at Kargil.

I agree that the manner in which the MOD structures foreign acquisitions with offsets,etc,.,etc. only pads the price and paves the way for huge kickbacks. The last 10 years of UPA/Cong rule were the worst ever. We now have the Fincantieri naval tanker scandal-allegations that merchant vessel steel was used instead of mil quality steel for the two tankers,the first while accompanying the Vik-A on her delivery run experienced cracks in the superstructure and had to put into Lisbon for repairs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 23:27

The JSF software development phase for the SDD build (Block 3F) is expected to end by Dec. 2017. By block 2b and 3i standards they will take around 6 months on top of that to debug it and get a stable sub-version in order to declare that software/block’s operational status. Block 3i stability improved by 3X in a little over 2 months debugging and testing. Let’s be pessimistic and say they’ll take 12 months, or let’s say they’ll take 18 months post Software development completion to completely debug block 3F. You are still looking at 2019 for full SDD capability with very mature 3I capability fielded in the interim.

For ALIS, you can simply go without its logistical features and do things the old way. The other remaining features that are essential are much more mature and have much improved reliability. There is no reason to believe that ALL OF ALIS won’t be fully finished by the time the pessimistic Block 3F timeline is met.

As I said, the problem with the JSF isn’t maturity, it isn’t software (you are looking at 15% or so testing that is remaining) and isn’t delivery of a mature system taking too long. The problem isn’t cost either. The problem is purely political and the lack of maturity in the G2G relationship to take such a giant leap of faith and adopt a front line American combat aircraft. That may change 10 years down the road but at the moment that will essentially rule out the F-35 from any alternative looked at by the IAF/MOD.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 May 2016 23:33

Philip wrote:JSF software/ALIS issues yet to be sorted out.Negotiating a sale to India would be the babus delight,strung out for years.

Software issues will be sorted within the next 18 months. Plus another 12 for the ALIS. Deliveries of the aircraft, if ordered will begin no earlier than 2020.

Negotiating an off-the-shelf order with the US through the FMS channel is also far simpler than with France, Israel or Russia .

As for Chinese air power,despite having Flankers in service,the Russians have always provided India with superior aircraft,subs,etc. than what they've given the Chinese. Why they chose India over China as PAK-FA/FGFA partner.

They 'chose' to partner with India, because Chinese military aviation industry is already well on its way to surpassing its Russian counterpart. The only segment where it trails the Russians is propulsion tech. In several other segments, its already ahead and the gap will just continue to grow given the massive disparity in the resources invested by each.

When the PAK FA finally enters service in 2020, it'll be the first Russian fighter jet to field an AESA, 7 years after China (8 years after France and 20 years after the US).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 07:14

If Chinese AESA was that great, they wouldn't bother with the Su-35 purchase.

FCR is not just hardware but software. GEC Marconi & Ferranti took decades to figure out great MPRF based radars, which went from the so so Foxhunter to the great Vixen and the final Captor. Saab has still been improving on PS/05 from Mk1 to Mk4. They haven't changed the power, just the processing.

Russia had a huge history in FCRs as well which stagnated but thanks to the Su-30 MKI program and the N011M, they got back in the race.

PRC will still be playing catchup.

In short, Russia has a lot of the basic experience to make high performing AESAs thanks to its experience with ESAs.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 May 2016 14:47

Better to buy 150 Su-30MKI or 36 JSF and stock up on spares instead of Rafale.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 15 May 2016 18:06

ldev wrote:^^
Finlandized?? India is already Finlandized.

In 1959 the much maligned Jawaharlal Nehru gave asylum to the Dalai Lama in India who resides in India to this day.

In 2016, a nuclear armed India scuttled back on an already issued visit visa to Uighur leader Dolkun Isa.

Wait till they demand (and get) a veto over our relationship with any 'hostile' states

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 May 2016 08:05

Gyan wrote:Better to buy 150 Su-30MKI or 36 JSF and stock up on spares instead of Rafale.

Better to buy 300 LCA and spares for 300 MKI.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 May 2016 12:04

We'll requie 3 prod lines at HAL's ro prod.Moreover the hundreds of LCAs are needed for MIG -21/27 replacements.
I think some fudging with costs is on the cards.We will eventually incrementally pay the $8B all found.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 16 May 2016 14:19

I think IAF should buy 200 Rafales without weapons and spares. This will use up all it's budget but Chinese Air Force pilots will still die.....due to excessive laughter. Mission achieved.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 17 May 2016 17:57

The latest in the never ending Rafale saga:

@reutersindia

Saab’s CEO says Sweden discussing Gripen fighters with India, declines further comment

5:40 AM - 17 May 2016

meanwhile Sputnik says the following (you know their agenda very well)

Stoic Silence: Dead End Looming Large for Rafale in India

12:43 17.05.2016(updated 12:44 17.05.2016)

India's stiff position on a lower price along with the negative impact of the AgustaWestland chopper scam are likely to be the nail in the coffin of the India-France Rafale deal.

NEW DELHI (Sputnik) — The alleged corruption in the scrapped AgustWestland helicopter deal and the obstinate position of both sides over the cost of the deal are threatening to send the protracted negotiations into cold storage forever.
Bharat Karnad, former member, India's National Security Council, confirms the conjecture, "The AgustaWestland corruption scandal has pretty much sunk the Rafale deal for fear that France's cultivation of interested parties over the past decade could end up tarring the ruling BJP regime in some way, considering a lot of the Indian Air Force brass and Ministry of Defense officials spanning the NDA and UPA governments may be implicated in any future investigation and who, in turn, may drag the relatively clean reputation of Narendra Modi & Co. through the mud."

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 May 2016 19:28

^^^

The UPA defense scandals seem like a boon for the current government. Now they have reasonable case to back-track from Rafale deal (without incurring penalties). MoD has already hinted that the original 126 MMRCA process involved corruption. So that's the way out. The French may get compensated in other ways though.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 18 May 2016 13:42

Why do we need to compensate the French? We paid through our nose for the Mirage 2000 upgrade. They're not exactly doing a great job with Scorpene and on top of that they tell the Aussies they will never share the latest tech with dark Indians. F**k France.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 19 May 2016 06:42

Why were we jumping up and down in joy when we used Mirage 2000's in Kargil conflict as performing superbly? Isn't the successful engagement of the ground targets is based on the capability of the launched weapon itself rather than the launch platform? Couldn't those LGBs be fired from our MiGs, Sukhois or Jaguars? I can understand the celebration at the time if there was aerial combat between our Mirages and Puki F-16s and our boys wasted some F-16s.