Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jun 2014 08:18

Tx. NR for that illuminating post!

The entire concept of maintenance is a national failing.Just look at any of our public buildings left to us by the British Raj.Rly. stations for example and how similar stations are maintained in Britain where millions use them as much as in India.
I have never ever seen a cleaner toilet than at a ferry station in Calais.The tiles sparkled,reflected,with urinals filled with ice cubes as it was a hot summer!

The entire issue of maintenance of defence eqpt. has been a bugbear with the armed forces for decades.A long time ago,a senior naval officer told me that there was an acute maintenance problem with the eastern fleet and almost immediately INS Andamans floundered during an exercise right under the nose of the command's chief,Adm.Ramdas ,who still made it as CNS.It was during his tenure that "we can do more with less" or some such statement emanated from him.That was part of the "lost decade" when the IN inducted no major warships whatsoever to the ridicule of the international naval community,where after having built Leander class FFs,we actually bought a second-hand one from the RN! The good admiral now spends his time in retirement pursuing anti-nuclear issues.The entire sub fleet suffers because no money was given to the IN for urgent spares like new batteries,,etc.

The MOD/AJ must now examine the entire state of combat readiness of the IAF,review the entire force planning holistically,and then take decisions.If we can for just about $1B get around 100 MKIs in fine fettle combat ready,we will have another $10B at the original estimates earmarked for the MMRCA to spend very wisely,with at least half going to accelerating and upgrading the LCA and domestic aviation programmes,with another $5B still in the kitty for essential foreign acquisitions like Trainers,IJTs,etc.,upgrades to Jags,more MKIs,MIG-29s,whatever to increase numbers,plus enough moolah to invest in the FGFA.

There is no use in simply buying expensive eqpt. and allowing it to rust in peace,bestowing upon them "hangar queen" status,and yet again importing more aircraft which true to current form will again suffer the same fate!

In fact,an MOD audit of the preparedness of the key combat eqpt. of the armed forces is necessary to clear the "fog of peace" that clouds the decisionmaking.There was a news item today saying that the US/BAe light howitzer deal is almost off for two reasons.No offset assurances and that the firang howitzers will cost twice as much as the desi Bofors,30cr. vs 15cr!

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 10:57

Cosmo_R wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Building toilets is not responsibility of government.
Building sewage systems and enforcing building codes for septic systems is a governmental responsibility.

India has not been a 'nanny' state. It has been a stepmother state. No governance. Monies in the rest of the world spent on basics, have been squandered on lifestyles of elected officials. The mice have seen little benefit.

You can't build a toilet by yourself. It takes a village, a nation.

Like I had previously mentioned - 1000 years of slavery has made us cold towards our own brethren.

Economic might is first, defense follows behind. Look at how US evolved in to a powerhouse economically before WWI and II. Military strength followed.

To be economically strong, we need hardworking and fit population. Malnourishment and lack of access to basic facilities is killing our economic dream, by making a large section of our population incapable of participating in the labor force.

member_27164 · Post by **member_27164** » 24 Jun 2014 11:02

from the article:

Yet a searching examination by Mr Jaitley would have discovered that a fraction of that expenditure - spent on improving the serviceability rate of the Sukhoi-30 MKI - could generate equivalent combat power. By 2019, the IAF will have 272 Sukhoi-30 MKIs; yet poor maintenance and inefficient spares management ensure that just 40 per cent of these fighters are combat-ready at any given time. Effectively, the IAF has just 109 combat-ready Sukhoi-30 MKIs; 272 is an illusory number. Raising serviceability to 75 per cent, which is up to par for any self-respecting air force, would add 95 fighters to the numbers operationally available. That is precisely the number of Rafales that would be operationally available from a 126-fighter fleet, given a 75 per cent serviceability rate.

if we do some calculations, 40% of 272 => 109. however this 272 number will be achieved by 2019. if IAF has 109 planes combat ready (now) how come fleet availability become 40%? according to posts in BRF we currently have fleet of around 160 - 180 MKIs. If 109 are available now out of 180 then availability rate of the aircraft becomes 68%. Yes it is lower than 75% but not as poor as only 40% as the author claims. Going by my calculations there will be ~185 planes available out of 272.

or i am misinterpreting the article? and author wants to say 40% availability of the fleet will translate to 109 planes will be available in 2019?

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 11:12

Sumeet wrote:
Because if it does either we are fools & haven't understood from our history that it's not just economy but equally powerful, effective & well equipped military that is needed for long term prosperity and well being of country or country's economy is in doldrum. If we can get back to 8-9 percent growth (which we can) most likely we will seeing budget increasing. And I am not even counting in money inflow that getting back at least 25% of 1.5 trillion dollars of black money stashed abroad would generate. A significant chunk of that can be routed towards our defense budget.

We should be spending at a minimum 3.5% of our GDP preferably 4% on defense.

8~9 % growth + 25% of 1.5 trillion in Swiss banks + 3.5% of GDP for defense - > every one of this like climbing Mt Everest. Now stack three Mt. Everest on top of each other and check for volunteers to scale this behemoth.

Our growth is hindered because of lack of investment in Infrastructure (look up on how much time it takes to get a box on to a ship in India versus China)

Investment means spending $ which need to be either borrowed or earned through taxes, but you want to squander away 25 % of black money in Swiss banks on 125 shiny jets, not ports or roads or railways or airports or power generation or a million things which need to be done....

3.5 % of GDP on defense is fine if we spend it internally, Importing is like giving away scarce resources. Domestic purchases is like re-investing in to our own economy. Our defense import bill is like paying 1% GDP, a big purse to ensure freedom to Goras. Not much different than how British set up their roots in India.

Need to get rid of this import addiction. Need to learn a few things from the Chinese.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Jun 2014 11:29

Cosmo_R wrote:
ashish raval wrote:Building toilets is not responsibility of government.
Building sewage systems and enforcing building codes for septic systems is a governmental responsibility.

Yet the irony is the very people building does not want toilets !! If it is public they will vandalise it and not make responsible use of it. Building sewage systems for those who pay house tax is the responsibility of government not the ones who live illegally on the encroached land. As far as I know there are sewage systems built in India right from Raj era and still done in most legal developments.

Cosmo_R wrote:India has not been a 'nanny' state. It has been a stepmother state. No governance. Monies in the rest of the world spent on basics, have been squandered on lifestyles of elected officials. The mice have seen little benefit.

Which money do you even know the income of these public departments. Their expenditure is 5x times their income. Now you tell me which department in united states of america is subsidised to that amount ? Those squandering lifestyle is prevalent in any other countries too like BBC squanders several millions on staff cover per year. But do you see they run out of money because of these ? No why people religiously pay TV licence.

Cosmo_R wrote: You can't build a toilet by yourself. It takes a village, a nation.

That is pretty weak. You are trying to convince someone who was born in village lived in town , grown up in city and now living in metro !!
My grandfather built compost toilet 50 years back by his own hands. And the good thing is there were successful precedents even before him too. Don't need extensive sewage systems like in city. People have known this for few decades now. It does not take village to built a toilet. If someone in the family wants it they can find a way out.

Cosmo_R wrote: The Rafales may have made sense once. No more at $18bn + and climbing.

There is just no money for a MMRCA that was to cost INR of 40 versus now (60) five years later.

Why buy any overseas weapons at all if country has no money ? In a country where inflation is ten percent and interest paid is nine percent, it is fair cost escalation. West has low interest rate and low inflation so their currency will remain strong vis a vis India. Defence of country is paramount.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 24 Jun 2014 11:59

nik wrote:
Like I had previously mentioned - 1000 years of slavery has made us cold towards our own brethren.

Economic might is first, defense follows behind. Look at how US evolved in to a powerhouse economically before WWI and II. Military strength followed.

To be economically strong, we need hardworking and fit population. Malnourishment and lack of access to basic facilities is killing our economic dream, by making a large section of our population incapable of participating in the labor force.

Agree partially. What happens if you are economically strong yet unable to defend your country. Take taiwan or south korea. They have to lean on west to guarantee status quo and peace. How long can it go on ? USA was militarily strong from days of George Washington and this was the reason they defeated colonists and became free world and fiercely defended it ever since.
Agree malnourishment is a big issue for strong generations and healthy workers to be produced and sustain growth. However, if they become healthy like Arabs do without work, then there is an issue. Being healthy with strong work ethic is good for nation not healthy with long siestas and sitting on backside watching soaps whole day.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2014 13:25

excerpt from Ajai shukla article in business std. you can find whole article in his blog.

Yet a searching examination by Mr Jaitley would have discovered that a fraction of that expenditure --- spent on improving the serviceability rate of the Sukhoi-30MKI --- could generate equivalent combat power. By 2019, the IAF will have 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs, yet poor maintenance and inefficient spares management ensures that just 40 per cent of these fighters are combat-ready at any given time. Effectively, the IAF has just 109 combat-ready Sukhoi-30MKIs; 272 is an illusory number. Raising serviceability to 75 per cent, which is par for any self-respecting air force, would add 95 fighters to the numbers operationally available. That is precisely the number of Rafales that would be operationally available from a 126-fighter fleet, given a 75 per cent serviceability rate.

This mind-boggling truth needs reiteration, since the IAF and the MoD gloss over it --- spending Rs 5,000 crore to boost Sukhoi-30MKI serviceability would “buy” as many additional fighters as the purchase of 126 Rafales for Rs 1,00,000 crore. The IAF lament of “dwindling squadron numbers” is a red herring; more important is the number of fighters available in each squadron.

Further, abandoning the Rafael would save money for a light fighter fleet, and also build an indigenous aerospace industry. The IAF’s obsolescent MiG-21 and MiG-27 fleets could be replaced economically with an improved (or Mark II) version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), its development and manufacture accelerated through a strategic alliance with Swedish company, Saab, which is close to completing the Gripen-E, a fighter very much like what the IAF wants the Tejas Mark II to be. With the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) cooperating with Saab, a world-class Tejas Mark II would start joining the IAF fleet by 2019 (assuming five years for development and testing); and a second aircraft manufacturing line would be established in India, complete with an airfield, to complement the HAL facilities at Bangalore. Further, a project like this would catalyse an entire aeronautical design and manufacturing eco-system, especially the small and medium firms that wither away when the government buys overseas, rather than innovates and produces domestically. Alongside this, aerospace engineering courses could be sponsored in selected technological institutes, which would feed into the indigenous design and manufacture of an advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), a project already under way. Finally, with the change left over from Rs 1,00,000 crore, New Delhi could press Stockholm hard to buy out Saab’s aerospace division. The Swedish government might resist, but its decision would eventually be driven by how much it wants a strategic alliance with an emerging superpower like India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jun 2014 14:29

By 2019, the IAF will have 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs, yet poor maintenance and inefficient spares management ensures that just 40 per cent of these fighters are combat-ready at any given time. Effectively, the IAF has just 109 combat-ready Sukhoi-30MKIs; 272 is an illusory number.

I wonder where Ajai Shuklaw has made those claims based on CAG or IAF official report ?

Else its just a canard he is spreading to cancel the Rafale deal , He has always been against MMRCA/Rafale and been advocating buying US Aircraft and his pet project JSF.

Had F-18 won the MMRCA contest he would be singing a different tune

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2014 16:23

The normal tendency, on BR, is to call anyone a fan-boy (whatever that means).

But, are those numbers correct is the question to be answered. It was the IAF that put out a global tender for the IL-76s and has complained about parts and support from Russia. Not any fan-boy.

On the flip side it is Boeing that has support for 80% up-time for their planes in the IAF.

I do not have any idea what the Rafale is at, but they should be able to meet the American numbers I would think.

chase those numbers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2014 16:26

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/rus ... in-trouble

Russians go slow, Sukhoi fleet in trouble
VISHAL THAPAR New Delhi | 15th Mar 2014

shocking 50% of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter fleet is on the ground due to unresolved servicing issues with the aircraft's Russian manufacturers. This has also eroded the combat capability of India's frontline long-range strike aircraft and compromised even that part of the fleet which is capable of being flown.

The IAF and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) have rung the alarm bells about the repeated mid-flight failure of the Su-30 mission computer and the blanking out of all cockpit displays. The Russians have not responded to the repeated SOS' from the Indians for over a year.

These disclosures have been made in leaked communications between HAL and Russian agencies. These are in exclusive possession of The Sunday Guardian.

The managing director of HAL's Nasik complex, which is tasked with assembly and repair of the IAF Sukhois, has, in vain, desperately flagged "multiple cases of repeated failure of Mission Computer-1 and blanking out of Head Up Displays (HUD) and all Multi-Function Displays (MFD) in flight" with earmarked representatives of both Rosboronexport — the Russian government's arms export agency — and Irkut, the original manufacturer of the Sukhoi-30.

"As the displays blanking off is a serious and critical issue affecting the exploitation of aircraft (it) needs corrective action/remedial measures on priority," he pleads in a letter dated 28 February this year, reminding the Russians that he's been raising the issue since 7 March 2013 but to no avail.

Failures of the mission computer and cockpit displays are critical. The entire sortie is programmed on the mission computer, which is vital for managing requirements of aerial combat. The "blanking off" of cockpit displays distracts pilots and diverts attention away from the mission. The IAF is worried at the spearhead of its fighter fleet being hit by these nagging snags. The IAF has planned a Sukhoi-30 fleet of 272 aircraft, of which an estimated 200 have been delivered.

Air Marshal Denzil Keelor, one of IAF's most decorated fighter pilots, is dismayed. "In-flight failures such as the ones being reported render a fighter aircraft vulnerable. When a fighter is being flown below optimum capability, it becomes more vulnerable to an adversary. No aircraft should be flown unless it performing to 100% capability," he warns.

What seems even more worrying is the Russian go-slow, which has severely hit the maintenance and availability of the fleet. Even five years after the signing of contract for the setting up of Su-30 repair and overhaul facilities in India at HAL, there's no progress despite "agreements" and assurances even at the level of the Defence Ministers of the two countries.

"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Even the revised deadlines committed the Russians to set up the repair-overhaul facility at HAL by December 2013, and overhaul the first aircraft by June 2014. This seems nowhere on the horizon.

Worse, Russia has put on hold the posting of its Sukhoi specialists to India for helping set up repair and maintenance capability. Documents available with The Sunday Guardian suggest that the two sides are haggling over price. This goes against an agreement that posting of Russian specialists would not be disrupted even if price negotiations were not concluded. In the absence of these specialists, HAL has been forced to fend on its own, as Aircraft on Ground (AOG) are piling up.

"Huge quantities of unserviceable aggregates (parts) are lying due for overhaul at various bases of IAF," HAL states, disclosing that the number of Su-30s being grounded for want of quick repair is increasing. The Russians have been informed that five Su-30MKI fighters are already parked at HAL for extensive overhaul, and another 15 will be due for overhaul in the current year. This number is equivalent to an entire squadron.

Lamenting the Russian delays, HAL expresses even more helplessness: "It appears that Rosboronexport and Irkut Corporation (the main parties to the contract) have limited control over other Russian companies (which provide vital parts like engines)." Supplies and deputation of specialists by other companies are even more erratic.

While warning that operating the fighters without conclusively sorting out the recurring snags could affect pilot confidence, Air Marshal P.S. Ahluwalia, who recently headed the IAF's Western Command, also questions the Ministry of Defence and HAL for the sorry state of affairs. "It's an issue of mismanagement of maintenance arrangements. The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence Production is responsible. They have failed to resolve the problems," he says.

As the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, Air Marshal Ahluwalia did not hesitate to ground the MiG-29 fleet for three months after suspicions of its airworthiness arose following a crash. He flew the fleet again only after the maintenance issue was nailed.

Figures reveal how serious the problem of availability of the IAF's Su-30MKI fleet is. Against the Sukhoi figure of just 50% aircraft fit for operational flying, statistics reveal just how much ground is to be covered. The availability rates of the IAF's French-origin Mirage-2000 and even the Russian-origin MiG-29 is about 75% . As India quibbles with Russia over maintenance arrangements, the larger question is: What good is a weapon if it cannot be used?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 16:50

Ajai Shukla seems to go bonkers at time.

The argument about serviceability rate of Sukhoi and linking it to purchase of Rafale is plain ridiculous and outright stupid. It is nobody's argument that IAF needs X number of planes at certain Y% of targeted serviceability. The fact that Sukhoi fleet is suffering from serviceability issues is not an argument against induction of a new weapon system. It needs both - numbers and good availability rate to ensure those numbers can be put in air.

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jun 2014 17:20

rohitvats wrote:Ajai Shukla seems to go bonkers at time.

The argument about serviceability rate of Sukhoi and linking it to purchase of Rafale is plain ridiculous and outright stupid. It is nobody's argument that IAF needs X number of planes at certain Y% of targeted serviceability. The fact that Sukhoi fleet is suffering from serviceability issues is not an argument against induction of a new weapon system. It needs both - numbers and good availability rate to ensure those numbers can be put in air.

Boss not really stupid at all. Ajai ji's comment on the Sukhoi is IMO a red herring. His real point, again IMO, is buried in the story:

Further, abandoning the Rafale would save money for a light fighter fleet and also build an indigenous aerospace industry. The IAF's obsolescent MiG-21 and MiG-27 fleets could be replaced economically with an improved (or Mark II) version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft; its development and manufacture accelerated through a strategic alliance with Swedish company Saab, which is close to completing the Gripen E - a fighter very much like what the IAF wants the Tejas Mark II to be.

Now recall that sometime ago we had this news item of how much cooler it would be to abandon the Raffy and go for a joint venture with Saab to make the Tejas Mark II in five years (????). Of course the small print, which Ajai ji seems to have forgotten, is that Saab would own 51 per cent of the joint venture.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Jun 2014 17:31

MOD Hat On:

Gentlemen, please keep the thread on track. If you feel the need to have guns versus bread discussion, please use appropriate forum. Thanks.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 19:57

Sumeet wrote:Because if it does either we are fools & haven't understood from our history that it's not just economy but equally powerful, effective & well equipped military that is needed for long term prosperity and well being of country or country's economy is in doldrum. If we can get back to 8-9 percent growth (which we can) most likely we will seeing budget increasing. And I am not even counting in money inflow that getting back at least 25% of 1.5 trillion dollars of black money stashed abroad would generate. A significant chunk of that can be routed towards our defense budget.

As much as the budget is increased it still won't come anywhere close to bridging the gap with the Chinese budget. The focus needs to be on maximizing value-for-money. Which the Rafale certainly doesn't deliver.

We should be spending at a minimum 3.5% of our GDP preferably 4% on defense.

The union budget equals about 15% of the GDP. So the increase that you propose would account for over 25% of the budget (as opposed to the 12% we've always spent).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 20:01

Austin wrote:Else its just a canard he is spreading to cancel the Rafale deal , He has always been against MMRCA/Rafale and been advocating buying US Aircraft and his pet project JSF.

Had F-18 won the MMRCA contest he would be singing a different tune

He favoured the Gripen-E rather than the F-16/F-18 for the MMRCA IIRC.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 24 Jun 2014 20:53

Every one of the Gora country comes with a colonist attitude. They (or that matter anyone else) will like to saddle us with a big bag of rocks, to keep the status quo.

China understands it better than anyone else, China and India were the true world superpowers until our enslavement. We got free but have paid a huge price - hands got chopped off aka dismemberment and a puny economy. Nothing to boast or be proud off for 1000 years.

US ploy is very clear - Huge bills to kill budget and limited numerical capability to go on offensive. They want to deliver missiles but limit number of launchers to 'CONTROL' us. This is ludicrous and stinks of MIGHTY WEST attitude.

France - Make money and sell to anyone to make money. Sell to pakis, Russians, Indians and very soon Chinese. Why do we entertain these fellows is beyond my comprehension.

Pardon me for the hard words but the fact is we continue been su*kers ! Chinese have their heads in place by going from strength to strength over last 30 years. We on the other hand have squandered away by our inherent advantages (akin to been on dope).

Export potential using our lower labor pool cost was something which was right in front and square. We on the other hand kept importing from Italian/European motherland and ...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Jun 2014 21:10

For nostalgia's sake, I feel like reposting my first post here from over five years ago

(I bolded some of the relevant parts)

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 80#p684187

(note: The following assumes that technology transfer and sovereignty issues are worked out. If they aren't then, none of this matters. But assuming it is . . .)

Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet

The 'NO DRAMA' Choice

In many ways, the SH is perfectly positioned for India's needs.

India already has the Su-30 MKI and it has the FGFA/PAK-FA/T-50 under development, so the high-end of the spectrum is taken care of.

What India needs now is a rugged, reliable, affordable, NO DRAMA workhorse that can provide the needed numbers easily and capably.

When going for a hi-lo mix, it's important to avoid gold-plating the lo part. It sort of defeats the point

Looking at all the fighter projects India has (LCA, MCA, FGFA), they have more than enough development working going on. The last thing they need is YET ANOTHER project draining resources that has development drag on for years. You want something that is available immediately with no fuss.

That said, let me breakdown some important points to consider.

1. NO DRAMA

The MiG-35 and Gripen-NG are just prototypes with a full development schedule ahead of them.

The EF and Rafale are further along, but still don't have all the required capability ready. I'm sure they'll promise to have everything ready by the time India is supposed to receive deliveries, but there are always delays and issues. The Rafale couldn't lase it's own targets in Afghanistan. Neither plane has an AESA radar integrated. The SH has had AESA since 2005.

Big picture, you could argue these aren't a big deal, but it's just one more uncertainty, one more delay and one more cost.

All of the features of the SH just work and have been proven in constant combat.

2. KINETICS

I know a lot people aren't happy with the SH's speed, acceleration, etc.

But the important point is, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Unless the airframe offers some game-changing capability (like stealth), whether it's a little bit faster or climbs a little bit higher or turns a little tighter doesn't matter.

Don't believe me? Let me point out a few examples:

a) Falklands

Dagger (aka IAI Nesher AKA Mirage 5) - Mach 2.2
Mirage III - Mach 2.2
Sea Harrier - 635 knots (< Mach 1)

Which one of these is the best fighter?

Obviously the plane which is over twice as slow as the others.

The subsonic Sea Harrier shot down 9 Daggers and 1.5 Mirage IIIs with no air-to-air losses in the Falklands.

You can argue that there were all sorts of extenuating circumstances.

I would respond 'Exactly!'

The situation + the electronics/armament are FAR FAR more important than the kinetics.

b) MiG-21 Bis

Your own MiG-21 Bis is a prime example of how modern electronics and armament can make even the oldest airframe a deadly opponent.

c) F-14 Tomcat

Look no further than the SH itself. The F-14 surpassed it in virtually every category (speed, range, payload), yet the USN couldn't dump it fast enough to move to the SH. That's because the USN realized that while specs are nice, reliability, maintainability and affordability are more important.

Besides, in BVR kinematics don't matter nearly as much as signature reduction (which the SH has) and WVR, the JHMCS+AIM-9X will be a very deadly combo for years to come.

Seriously, I don't want everyone trying to imagine corner cases where kinetics make the difference. Nine times out of ten, the engagement will be decided by factors other than kinetics: surprise, numbers, skill, intelligence, AWACS support, electronics, missiles, fuel load, etc. Nine times out of ten is good enough for the lo part of a hi-lo mix. If there are situations where you think kinetics will be that important, bring an FGFA.

Obviously if the SH was to be the premier fighter of the IAF, then that would be a different situation.

3. AFFORDABILITY

The SH is one of the cheapest to buy and the cheapest to run. It is fuel efficient and has low maintenance requirements.

I know all the others tout low maintenance costs, but the difference is that the SH has PROVEN low costs. The others are either still prototypes or putter around continental airbases in cool and (mostly) dry conditions. Only the Rafale has any sort of deployment experience, but its time in Afghanistan was rather limited and it hasn't been able to have much carrier time since the CdG is perpetually in drydock.

In contrast, the SH has been OPERATIONAL in the toughest environments in the world. From hot and high Afghanistan to the fine sand of Iraq to the heat and humidity and corrosive salt water of carriers, and it has PROVEN its ability to keep maintenance costs low.

The USN SH fleet is the single largest fleet of any of the competitors except the F-16, therefore they focus an extraordinary amount of effort on improving SH logistics and as such they have gotten SH maintenance down to a science. You see them funding efforts like the F414 EDE to enhance component durability and reduced ownership costs.

In a way it reminds me of the difference between buying enterprise level and consumer grade computer hardware. For the same price, you can get a faster consumer system. But enterprises have learned that speed isn't everything. Enterprise hardware comes with redundant power supplies, error-correcting memory, hot-swappable drives, features to allow easy management and is backed with round-the-clock on-site warranty service. These features don't make the computer faster, but are necessary both to reduce TCO (total cost of ownership) and to keep business-critical applications running.

When running 1000 servers, dealing with 'cheaper' consumer grade hardware is no bargain at all as it becomes impossible to maintain.

The SH is the 'enterprise' choice, with a world-class support organization behind it.

4. RELIABILITY

I sort of touched on this in the previous point, but what is the difference between operating at home and operating at war?

The engines on the V-22 get 1300 hours on-wing at home but only 380 flight hours in Iraq. That's what real-world deployments can do to your impressive low-maintenance statistics.

My point is, all the low maintenance claims for the others are probably true, in their safe, controlled environment. Put them in real combat and we have no idea what will happen.

The airframe of the SH is reinforced and stressed to absorb the tremendous impact of landing on carriers. Only the Rafale also has such a feature available, but it's not clear that that is the version being offered to India.

The SH has 2 engines unlike the Gripen NG and F-16 to help prevent the loss of plane or life if one dies.

The SH is a rugged, reliable plane that works no matter the conditions.

The SH is a mature airframe. As you may recall, in 2007 (12 years after initial production), a fatigue issue which would dramatically reduce airframe life was discovered. It was corrected in new builds, but an expensive retrofit for older models was required.

The other airframes (besides the F-16) haven't been around long enough to be thoroughly worked out. If you select one of them, you may be the one doing the 'expensive retrofit'.

India has had enough bad experiences being the 'pioneer' for reliability issues (MiG-21, even the Jaguar). Let the USN be the frontrunner in this case. They are absolutely FLOGGING the SH, running it at both a far higher tempo and far harsher conditions (carrier) than India will. And the USN will continue flying the SH until the wings fall off, taking it all the way to the end of its operational life. They will pay the price for any reliability issues and not India. Their pilots will die discovering any issues and not India's. They will pay to develop fixes and not India. Just another example of why the SH is NO DRAMA.

5. MULTI-ROLE

Multi-role is a term that gets bandied about quite a bit, but it definitely describes the SH.

It will perform EVERY task of your legacy fleet (Jaguar, MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Mirage 2000) better than any of them could with just one airframe.

The USN has committed to replacing EVERYTHING with the SH. It has taken on the roles of the F-14 fighter, the A-6 Intruder attack aircraft, the S-3 Viking sub-hunter, the KA-6D tanker and the EA-6B Prowler jammer.

And it has all those capabilities NOW, not some notional future capability that may or may not happen, NOW.

In addition to all the standard fighter/attack/CAS/recon roles, let me highlight a few others:

buddy refueling: afaik only the Rafale and MiG-35 offer this, and the MiG-35's payload is so much smaller it's laughable. This is quite a handy utility role that has synergistic effects with the rest of the fleet, such as giving the Su-30 truly massive range. Even with 'real' tankers, buddy refueling provides more operational flexibility and is especially important for carrier operations. Speaking of which . . .

carrier capability: Boeing has already confirmed that the SH will work off the ski-jump on Gorshkov/Vikramaditya with a 'significant' weapons load. Having a large fleet of carrier capable aircraft and not being tied to the MiG-29K is quite a nice bonus. The Rafale is the only other carrier capable plane, but it is not clear that it would work off of ski-jumps.

electronic warfare: the Growler is an absolutely unique capability that is definitely a force multiplier, for both stealth and non-stealth planes. And it is not something where you can simply dangle a pod from any old fighter later on, it requires extensive rewiring of the entire plane. I'm not sure what the export policy is, but you can order your SH prewired so there is no need to do a retrofit later on, and then when/if the jammers become available, they can be easily bolted on. (This is what Australia is doing.) And possibly if the US won't provide them, you/Israel/whoever could develop your own that interface with the system.

I know I've been focusing on 'it just works' and 'no drama', but this is such a unique and important capability that it deserves an exception.

6. WEAPONS

Getting the SH also means getting access to an absolutely stupendous variety of US weapons that are ALREADY INTEGRATED AND CERTIFIED. Harpoon, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM, HARM, AIM-9X, AMRAAM, etc.

You say 'But what about all those super-cool Russian weapons?'

Well, you still have them for Su-30MKI and FGFA and whatever else.

This way you have the best of both worlds.

US weapons are always going to be high-quality, and ensuring access to them for decades to come is a smart move.

7. FUTURE SUPPORT

For the MiG-35 and Gripen-NG, India would practically be the only user and thus have to fund all future upgrades itself.

The French are apparently committed to/stuck with the Rafale, but Dassault had to plead with/threaten/cajole the French government to fund AESA development to help its export chances. If the French didn't even want to fund a no-brainer like AESA, what does that say about the future?

The EF is an interesting case. You would think it would be well supported, but they had the worst time even getting the ground attack functionality funded. It was only the Singapore rejection that really kicked them into doing something about it. Again that doesn't bode well for future upgrades once they are done trying to get export sales.

The F-16 is a special case. There are a ton out there so you figure there will be lots of 3rd party (Israeli) upgrade packages available, but the biggest user (the USAF) is phasing it out ASAP. They can't wait to move on to the F-35. The last F-16 was delivered to the USAF in 2005 and they hope to remove all 1200 from service within 16 years. In other words, don't expect any major investments from them.

In contrast, the USN is COMMITTED to the SH. It will still be receiving SHs next year and is the last participant in the F-35 program to receive their planes. Even after the F-35 starts to arrive, the SH will be the backbone of the fleet for decades to come.

The USN has repeatedly shown that it is willing to spend the cash to keeps its SH fleet updated with any new technology that comes along. While EF and Rafale are still ditzing around with AESA, the SH had it 4 years ago plus they're planning to retrofit their entire fleet. Towed decoys? upgraded. JHMCS? added.

That sort of PROVEN COMMITMENT just isn't available anywhere else.

8. GROWTH POTENTIAL

An important part of remaining relevant into the future is growth potential. In my opinion the single-engined fighters and the MiG-35 are just too small/limited in this department.

The SH can lift a tremendous amount of junk, so whatever the latest gizmo or gadget is, there will be room for it.

The other part of growth potential is the SECOND SEAT. Whether it's just for making CAS easier now (which coincidentally is one of the most important jobs of fighters today) or for having a jammer operator or for controlling a flock of UAVs, having a second seat gives you flexibility.

The EF has a 2 seat version available, but it is only used as a trainer, not operationally. I'm sure it could be made operational, but only with a suitable investment of cash.

The Rafale has an operational 2 seat version, but not as a naval version.

Both the smaller planes (Gripen NG and MiG-35) offer a 2nd seat, but they lack the size for future growth.

So if you want BOTH growth potential AND a 2nd seat, the only other choice is Rafale, but then you throw away all naval/carrier capability!

9. POLITICAL

I could go on for a long time here, but I'm going to try to keep it brief and avoid any flame wars

The last thing India needs is another Russian fighter (MiG-35) in its fleet. Between the old MiGs and the new Sukhois and the future FGFA, it is dangerous to be so dependent on one country for your entire fleet.

I know a lot of you are concerned about past US sanctions, but honestly I do not see that as an issue ever again. The situation has changed, the world has changed. The US and India are natural friends (largest democracies) and are united by a common enemy (China).

And don't think the European nations won't ever impose embargoes. The EU has a weapons embargo on China for 'human rights abuses' (Tiananmen Square). On the hand, they won't sell to Taiwan either because they are scared of China. France used to supply Israel, but then the Arab countries made them an offer they couldn't refuse, so they slapped an arms embargo on Israel and even impounded ships that Israel had already bought. (The story of how Israel sneaked them out is epic BTW)

On Pakistan, yes the US supplies stuff to them, but all the more reason to be good friends, so you can influence them to supply 'not-so-good' stuff.

I would again direct you to the Falklands. Argentina was a client and Britain was a friend. When push came to shove, the US stood behind its friend.

While India may be more likely to have skirmishes with Pakistan, in my opinion its greatest strategic threat is China. The US is the only country with the balls and power to stand-up to them. None of the EU countries will sell to Taiwan. France is China's biggest cheerleader in the EU, trying to get them to drop the arms embargo. They would happily sell all the Rafale information to China if the price was right. The US would never do something like that.

(I know, I know, China pwns the US through all its debt, blah blah blah)

The US is a good friend to have, they will stick their neck out to help their friends. Witness Operation Nickel Grass. When Israel needed immediate assistance during the Yom Kippur War, most EU nations (except Portugal and the UK) wouldn't even allow US transports to fly over their territory for fear of angering the Arabs. The US didn't care, they supported their friend even though they knew they would have to pay a steep price with the resulting oil embargo.

Obviously US friendship does not depend on buying US aircraft for the MRCA, but it would be an important building-block in helping to build ties.

In summary, the Super Hornet is:
- affordable to buy
- affordable to fly
- durable, reliable and safe
- is the most 'ready now' choice
- unique capabilities
- good growth potential
- has the most proven future
- a good political choice
- NO DRAMA

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 22:02

GeorgeWelch wrote:For nostalgia's sake, I feel like reposting my first post here from over five years ago

(I bolded some of the relevant parts)

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 80#p684187

(note: The following assumes that technology transfer and sovereignty issues are worked out. If they aren't then, none of this matters. But assuming it is . . .)

Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet

The 'NO DRAMA' Choice

This is going to take us grossly off-topic but since this thread isn't going anywhere... may as well...

The Super Hornet would have been cheaper than Rafale and Eurofighter, but not by that much; it was after all going to be licensed produced by HAL. The financial crisis would likely have postponed the MMRCA even in the event of the SH's selection.

But then the question arises, why the Super Hornet over the Super Viper? Both have been tested in the same wide range of environments. The latter has better kinematics and comes with AESA, JHMCS, and the same arsenal. Costs arguably less to acquire and less to operate. Optional IRST. The only upside for the SH is the somewhat lower RCS and F414 commonality with the Tejas.

Which brings us to the second question why the Super Viper over the Gripen? Not as well tested perhaps but the latter has better kinematics and comes with AESA, Cobra HMS and the same arsenal. Both acquisition and operating costs are supposed lower than the cheapest-in-class C variant. Includes IRST and some sensor fusion. May have been in development back then but will have a pre-production variant flying anyday now. Fits in quite well with the IAF's delayed induction schedule and includes commonality with the Tejas.

Which brings us to the third question why the Gripen E over the Tejas? The USAF's F-15 and F-16 fleets are backed by an outstanding support fleet, which made the lack of a EF/Rafale grade sophistication less of an issue. Backed by AEW&C and refuelers the Tejas Mk1 can be inducted in greater numbers and get the job done. The Mk2 should be in the Gripen E class, broadly speaking. Again comfortably meeting the IAF's original MMRCA requirements.

The only US fighter worth consideration is the F-35 but down the road and not as a MMRCA option/replacement.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Jun 2014 22:25

Viv S wrote:The Super Hornet would have been cheaper than Rafale and Eurofighter, but not by that much;

Disagree, it's about half the price, especially when counting weapon systems (AMRAAM vs MICA).

Viv S wrote:But then the question arises, why the Super Hornet over the Super Viper?

- two seats
- growler
- tanker capability
- carrier capability
- USN is still investing in the SH while the USAF is not in the Viper

You can't just look at current costs, you have to look through-life costs, and the USN will be maintaining the SH fleet for a long, long time, which helps tremendously with funding future upgrades and ensuring an available source of supplies and support. (As all the recent discussion about the MKI fleet has pointed out, support is a key factor for any fleet)

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jun 2014 23:02

GeorgeWelch wrote:Disagree, it's about half the price, especially when counting weapon systems (AMRAAM vs MICA).

$65M flyaway for the Super Hornet. $80-85M for the Rafale. Weapons complement is an issue for the Rafale yes. The EF and Gripen however have the option of a US weapons complement.

Viv S wrote:But then the question arises, why the Super Hornet over the Super Viper?
- two seats
- growler
- tanker capability
- carrier capability
- USN is still investing in the SH while the USAF is not in the Viper

- Two seat SVs available.
- Growler.. maybe
- Tanker capability not required. (Lots of Su-30MKIs. Do the job better.)
- Carrier capability not required. IAC-2 to enter service earliest by 2022.
- Spares, support, overhaul capability to be created for HAL. Domestic MLU in 2030 still feasible (case in point: TAI).

You can't just look at current costs, you have to look through-life costs, and the USN will be maintaining the SH fleet for a long, long time, which helps tremendously with funding future upgrades and ensuring an available source of supplies and support. (As all the recent discussion about the MKI fleet has pointed out, support is a key factor for any fleet)

The SV and Gripen will have far lower life-cycle costs as well. Both will remain in service for another three decades, which means spares and support shouldn't be a significant issue. Also, HAL should be in a position to upgrade the aircraft itself when the time comes.

Contractual issues are par for the course in Russian dealings. Not really a benchmark here (except for the MiG-35).

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 24 Jun 2014 23:11

Viv S wrote:- Tanker capability not required. (Lots of Su-30MKIs. Do the job better.)

I would think you would have better uses for your MKIs . . .

SHs can enhance your MKI capability both as growler and escort tankers

Viv S wrote:- Carrier capability not required. IAC-2 to enter service earliest by 2022.

They could operate off Vik now, and then they'll be there in 2022 if you so desire.

Viv S wrote:- Spares, support, overhaul capability to be created for HAL. Domestic MLU in 2030 still feasible (case in point: TAI).

There is a lot of wishful thinking in those statements. Weren't MKIs supposed to be fully domestic?

Viv S wrote:The SV and Gripen will have far lower life-cycle costs as well. Both will remain in service for another three decades, which means spares and support shouldn't be a significant issue.

But who will be funding those upgrades? Not the USAF . . .

Viv S wrote:Also, HAL should be in a position to upgrade the aircraft itself when the time comes.

Again that would be nice, but what would be nicer would be able to pick an upgrade package off the shelf that has already been developed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 00:17

GeorgeWelch wrote:I would think you would have better uses for your MKIs . . .

SHs can enhance your MKI capability both as growler and escort tankers

Between the MKI and MMRCA, the former being a cheaper and more numerous aircraft would be more suitable for tanking roles (aside from the inherent advantage of a massive internal fuel load). You can also modify the MKI as a Growler-type aircraft with EL/L-8251 or Skyshield pods.

Viv S wrote:- Carrier capability not required. IAC-2 to enter service earliest by 2022.
They could operate off Vik now, and then they'll be there in 2022 if you so desire.

MiG-29Ks are sufficient for now. No significant near-term threat in the IOR. In 2022, the service would likely prefer a fifth generation aircraft for carrier ops.

Viv S wrote:- Spares, support, overhaul capability to be created for HAL. Domestic MLU in 2030 still feasible (case in point: TAI).
There is a lot of wishful thinking in those statements. Weren't MKIs supposed to be fully domestic?

If the spares can be manufactured in the US, they can be manufactured in India. They're available either way. Sanction for the Su-30MKI's MRO facilities was held up by contractual issues. Unless the MMRCA contract straitjacketed HAL/Indian industry in favour of the OEM, the same doesn't apply.

Viv S wrote:
The SV and Gripen will have far lower life-cycle costs as well. Both will remain in service for another three decades, which means spares and support shouldn't be a significant issue.
But who will be funding those upgrades? Not the USAF . . .

Spares and support. Distinct from upgrades.

Viv S wrote:Also, HAL should be in a position to upgrade the aircraft itself when the time comes.
Again that would be nice, but what would be nicer would be able to pick an upgrade package off the shelf that has already been developed.

That would be nicer, but it is not essential. The IAF could upgrade its MiG-21, MiG-27 and Jaguars long after they had gone out of production. Given how widespread the F-16 is, with production carrying on till 2018 if not later, they'd probably have the option of buying upgrade kits off-the-shelf as well.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jun 2014 01:30

Viv S wrote:Between the MKI and MMRCA, the former being a cheaper

The MKI is no longer cheaper

Viv S wrote:You can also modify the MKI as a Growler-type aircraft with EL/L-8251 or Skyshield pods.

Not as effectively

Viv S wrote:MiG-29Ks are sufficient for now. No significant near-term threat in the IOR. In 2022, the service would likely prefer a fifth generation aircraft for carrier ops.

What fifth gen carrier-capable plane will be in service in 2022? Your choices are F-35 and F-35.

Even if you do get F-35, the SH can still be a valuable component of the fleet mix, again performing the tanking and jamming roles.

And if you don't get the F-35 and want to wait another 10 years for AMCA or whatever, the SH will give a very credible capability.

That's the thing, you can say this airplane does this better or that better, but the SH does EVERYTHING, and that flexibility has tremendous value in its own right. Who knows what the next 30 years will bring, but the SH will find some way to be useful.

Viv S wrote:If the spares can be manufactured in the US, they can be manufactured in India.

True in a theoretical sense. Practically, not going to happen. It just doesn't make economic sense to recreate the manufacturing line for every valve and hose.

Viv S wrote:The SV and Gripen will have far lower life-cycle costs as well. Both will remain in service for another three decades, which means spares and support shouldn't be a significant issue.

I don't believe the SV will have lower life-cycle costs at all and the Gripen-NG is barely a prototype. You have enough development projects running right now, the whole idea of the MRCA was to get something off-the-shelf quickly with minimum fuss and effort.

Viv S wrote:That would be nicer, but it is not essential.

But that does factor into life-cycle costs, which is why I still think the SH will be cheaper.

Also, why isn't the IAF doing the Mirage upgrade? If you want an example of how a MLU can impact total life-cycle costs . . .

Viv S wrote:Given how widespread the F-16 is, with production carrying on till 2018 if not later, they'd probably have the option of buying upgrade kits off-the-shelf as well.

I wouldn't count on it. Again, who's going to be funding these upgrades? Most of the big users will be moving to something else and the small users won't be able to affording anything dramatic.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 25 Jun 2014 02:23

NRao wrote:It would have been nice if the Rafale cost less. France is actually conducting a lot of non-Rafale related research and it would be nice to keep in touch with them.

But nothing like to depend on self.

ONERA is in touch with indian research centers. Can't be more specific, sry, but has to do with plasma and high refractive ceramics.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Jun 2014 09:28

End of road for major howitzer deal with US

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 110071.cms?

Seems like the dressed up hag might not even make it inside the nightclub, much less fleece customers with her botox-enabled charms.

The howitzer need was not by any means deferrable, but still it got junked. Compared to this the Rafael deal is just a one-way trip to bankrupting LOTS of other purchases.

I guess the fanboys might have to satisfy themselves with their wet dreams.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 12:07

GeorgeWelch wrote:The MKI is no longer cheaper

Still cheaper. $75M vs $80M SH (more) vs higher for the EF/Rafale.

Not as effectively

Still worth the compromise. (Growlers are purpose built aircraft. A normal SH isn't any better than the Su-30 at that role.)

What fifth gen carrier-capable plane will be in service in 2022? Your choices are F-35 and F-35.

Better the F-35 than the SH.

That's the thing, you can say this airplane does this better or that better, but the SH does EVERYTHING, and that flexibility has tremendous value in its own right. Who knows what the next 30 years will bring, but the SH will find some way to be useful.

Every aircraft does everything nowadays. The F-16 has been doing everything for decades now. And does it all at a lower cost than the SH.

Viv S wrote:If the spares can be manufactured in the US, they can be manufactured in India.
True in a theoretical sense. Practically, not going to happen. It just doesn't make economic sense to recreate the manufacturing line for every valve and hose.

Its more economical still to buy it off-the-shelf. The MMRCA on the other hand aims to 'domesticate' the program. That said, imported items can be stockpiled for that last phase when type starts retiring abroad.

Viv S wrote:The SV and Gripen will have far lower life-cycle costs as well. Both will remain in service for another three decades, which means spares and support shouldn't be a significant issue.
I don't believe the SV will have lower life-cycle costs at all and the Gripen-NG is barely a prototype. You have enough development projects running right now, the whole idea of the MRCA was to get something off-the-shelf quickly with minimum fuss and effort.

The SV has a lower acquisition cost, lower operating cost and will most certainly have a lower lifecycle cost. Same for the Gripen-NG.

Idea behind the MRCA was never to get something off-the-shelf quickly. Even at its inception, the proposal was to license built Mirage 2000s.

But that does factor into life-cycle costs, which is why I still think the SH will be cheaper.

Also, why isn't the IAF doing the Mirage upgrade? If you want an example of how a MLU can impact total life-cycle costs . . .

It'll be significant compared to the Rafale MLU costs. Not for the SV.

French equipment has always been expensive. The Mirage upgrades don't have a bearing on SV upgrades. A Gripen MLU could have been spun off the Tejas program (in addition to what's available from Sweden).

I wouldn't count on it. Again, who's going to be funding these upgrades? Most of the big users will be moving to something else and the small users won't be able to affording anything dramatic.

Last SH will be delivered in 2016. EF deliveries will carry out till 2018 at least. Same for the F-16, possibly later. Rafale has confirmed orders upto 2019. The Gripen E will be produced upto 2023.

In 2035, the USN will be replacing the SH with the F/A-XX rather than carrying out MLUs for the existing SH fleet. Older MLU kits will be available, but for anything more modern it isn't going to be necessarily cheaper than the SV.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 25 Jun 2014 12:46

Actually the SH International would be far cheaper choice than the Rafale. We don't care about the fly away cost, what matters is life time cost including TOT where Rafale for 126 fighters is being negotiated for around 25 billion excluding weapons, this is obviously far more expensive. The SH for a 126 fighters will cost less than 20 Billion. Secondly, assured production orders till 2019 for Rafale is a joke, they make 12-14 fighters a year, Boeing is making the SH at over 42 aircraft a year, if they slowed down production to lets say the Rafale's pace, they too can keep the line open till well beyond 2020. Actually at the current pace of production they can deliver a couple of squadrons in by 2018, the same can't be said about the Rafale till confirmed orders.

Also, the SH International offers new & better F414 EPE (F414 happens to be about the most reliable fighter engine ever made) it should increase overall aircraft performance (engine commonality with eventually over 200 LCA mk-2s), large panel displays ( only the F-35 offers them) this alone brings in a lot more situational awareness possibilties than any other MRCA contender, new MAWS, IRST, CFT, further stealth optimization, Stealth pods..all in all the SH International looks far better.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/site/upload ... 9/3545.jpg

It should also make the Pilot's life easier due to the Large Panel display. SH also happens to be very easy aircraft to fly. It's flight control authority is robust and reliability of this bird is proven. It's a workhorse and IMO IAF should think of having a robust workhorse that can be used for a variety of tasks at reasonable costs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 13:50

The cost-balooning on the Rafale contract have occurred due to TOT agreements and transfer in the more than 500 meetings we have had with Dassault and co. TOT is a complex matter and there is absolutely no reason to believe that a deal with Boeing, Raytheon and co. would be less complicated to execute. These companies (Boeing and Dassault) have never done such a deal before, at this level and complexity. Then there is a question of transferring technology of cutting edge equipment and what each party considers is "fair-value" for their product. I'm talking about things such as the latest versions of the F414, Apg-79 etc. The problems of Boeing having to make guarantee for HAL deliveries would also be an issue. The only advantage the SH offers over the Rafale is the option to have a mix of Growlers especially post 2018-2020 or so when the GaN jammers go active. For everything else the Rafale is superior. The SH is at the end of the road, the international version includes some nice features especially in the engine enhancements, cockpits and the internal weapon pod. However, I do not see much of this being funded by the USN (CFT's and EWP is company funded) that now seems to be only interested in the Growler and the Next Gen Jammer. A lot was dependent on the Brazil deal and now depends on the Canadian decision due soon.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/163474043/Adv ... edia-Brief

The Rafale on the other hand is a fairly well upgraded product. Its slow to get the upgrades but its getting them slowly. I believe one squadron has had an AESA by now. Spectra is being upgraded and engine upgrades should come in the future as well. The main point is that the Rafale meets the IAFs high altitude requirement where the Super Hornet did not perform as well (its still a carrier driven aircraft meant to be cat launched). If the IAF is to see any of these fighters (MRCA) by 2017 or 2018 then the rafale is the only option. Lets conclude this deal, or cancel it if its too much and make plans for alternatives. I'd prefer we go ahead with the deal and provide the Warfighter's with the aircraft as soon as Dassault can deliver the first squadron. Its not cheap, but none of the other aircraft are (compared to LCA mk1 and mk2) and the biggest thing going for it is that we are deep into negotiations and there is no reason to scrap this deal and begin the process all over again with another vendor where the same issues are likely to come up again creating more delay.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 14:25

brar_w wrote:If the IAF is to see any of these fighters (MRCA) by 2017 or 2018 then the rafale is the only option.

Only one squadron is to be delivered in that time-frame. Most other manufacturers can match that if they had to.

I'd prefer we go ahead with the deal and provide the Warfighter's with the aircraft as soon as Dassault can deliver the first squadron.

One squadron is all that Dassault is to provide.

Its not cheap, but none of the other aircraft are (compared to LCA mk1 and mk2) and the biggest thing going for it is that we are deep into negotiations and there is no reason to scrap this deal and begin the process all over again with another vendor where the same issues are likely to come up again creating more delay.

Its not just 'not cheap', its damned expensive (like most of our French purchases). There are a host of other programs that this will kill off. At a time when the M777 purchase is being scrapped because $885M is too much (up by 33% over five years), the impact of a $20 billion purchase (up by 66% over the same period) is staggering.

Also, a cancellation of the deal doesn't mean the same process needs to be gone through again. They are plenty of hassle free stop-gap options to bridge the gap to a fifth generation fighter. Not to mention the massive boost the Tejas program will get as a result of some of that diverted funding.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 14:57

Only one squadron is to be delivered in that time-frame. Most other manufacturers can match that if they had to

One squadron is going to be delivered because that is what is being asked for. The rest of the aircrafts would be produced in house. If the "setting up of the home line" takes time the IAF can always ask for the delivered jets to be doubled etc

Secondly the problem is not with EADS, Boeing or Lockheed, SAAB delivering one squadron by 17-18, its getting the contracts worked out with those vendors by that time

. At the rate we are going its going to take years from down select to get Dassault to sign. No reason to believe that if we ditch the Rafale, and go to Boeing, EADS or SAAB the contract would be signed in any less time. The contract and agreements are very complex and these western companies have not had agreements and transfers of this magnitude before.

Also, a cancellation of the deal doesn't mean the same process needs to be gone through again.

There is no indication from any sources in the media or the Government that suggest that the MOD is having second thoughts on TOT and licensed production. In the absence of any such information we have to assume that any deal that gets negotiated in the event that the Rafale is cancelled would require the same level of technology transfer and agreements.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jun 2014 15:07

I agree that the SHs and F-16s are at the end of the road developmentwise.Had we been operating earlier versions of the type,as US allies do,it could've been a pragmatic affordable exercise,as an interim alternative to the JSF.In the Indian context,the only existing legacy type apart from the NMKIs in production is the MIG-29/35.About 60Ks are being acquired for the IN's carriers,and the upgrades of the existing 60+ are underway,engines already being manufactured at home.But let me emphasise,this is only an interim solution to keep numbers happy as the obsolete MIG-21s retire.LCA production has yet to arrive let alone stabilise,so we are in sh*t street as far as their replacements are concerned.Buying extra MIG-29/35s would be a simple matter.no delay in decisionmaking unlike a new aircraft to be inducted. They would also be far cheaper than acquiring more MKIs with the added cost of the extra pilot,etc.

If the Raffy deal is concluded with hard bargaining,modifications to the deal to reduce costs,like acquiring more off-the-shelf aircraft as was done with the entire M-2000 lot,re-evaluate the TOT menu,it will save time in looking for an alternative.We don't know what the evaluation of the IAF was of each type,but if the Raffy is unaffordable and costs are the deciding factor for a firang bird,the dark horse is the Gripen.Knowing the angst within the IAF for a quick decision as "ACM Browne put it; "no plan B",the force will do their utmost to seal the deal. The big Q is whether our very own Jet-Li,"Jait-Ley" is convinced of the cost/investment.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 15:16

brar_w wrote:One squadron is going to be delivered because that is what is being asked for. The rest of the aircrafts would be produced in house. If the "setting up of the home line" takes time the IAF can always ask for the delivered jets to be doubled etc

The contract doesn't have any options for any extras off-the-shelf deliveries. Those negotiations will have to be conducted separately on a non-competitive basis with Dassault (with predictable results). No quick-fire deliveries through that option.

The Rafale contract does not provide any immediate fillip to the IAF's squadron strength (beyond one squadron). So the apprehension of the IAF being adversary affected by any cancellation is misplaced.

Secondly the problem is not with EADS, Boeing or Lockheed, SAAB delivering one squadron by 17-18, its getting the contracts worked out with those vendors by that time .

Going to LM, Boeing or EADS is an option only if the Rafale is to be replaced by the EF/Gripen within the MMRCA contract. Not for an MMRCA cancellation.

Also, a cancellation of the deal doesn't mean the same process needs to be gone through again.
There is no indication from any sources in the media or the Government that suggest that the MOD is having second thoughts on TOT and licensed production. In the absence of any such information we have to assume that any deal that gets negotiated in the event that the Rafale is cancelled would require the same level of technology transfer and agreements.

Again an MMRCA replacement is not the same thing as a cancellation. There are sufficient stop-gap options to arrest the fall in squadron numbers or capability if the deal is scrapped.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 15:17

To be honest if the Rafale deal does not go through the best course of action would be to buy Mig-29's for the IAF in limited amounts and to double up on the MK2. Offload the Mig-29's once the Mk2 is @ full steam.

The contract doesn't have any options for any extras aside from the off-the-shelf deliveries. Those negotiations will have to be conducted separately on a non-competitive basis with Dassault (with predictable results). No quick-fire deliveries from that end either.

Whats holding the deal and what is likely to hold the deal is the guarantees issue, TOT and agreements. Negotiating a further squadron is hardly going to be cumbersome.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 25 Jun 2014 15:29

Checkout this Game-Bajau शेरनी in Heat:::::: piggy-backing her cub along with her MMRCA Felines during the 2014 Tiger Mating Sejun in Urop

checkout the headgear of the Gripen pilots

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 15:58

brar_w wrote:To be honest if the Rafale deal does not go through the best course of action would be to buy Mig-29's for the IAF in limited amounts and to double up on the MK2. Offload the Mig-29's once the Mk2 is @ full steam.

I doubt you could get MiG-29s at use-and-throw prices. Also options are there for Qatari/Emirati Mirages (all Dash 5+ standard). Plus additional Su-30s and Tejas Mk1s.

Whats holding the deal and what is likely to hold the deal is the guarantees issue, TOT and agreements. Negotiating a further squadron is hardly going to be cumbersome.

The MMRCA does not spell out different costs for off-the-shelf units, SKDs, CKDs etc. Any independent order of Rafales will need to be negotiated separately, which as the Mirage upgrade proved is easier said than done.

(In this respect dealing with US companies is much faster; fixed 'best' price, negotiated by the US DoD.)

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jun 2014 19:17

Viv S wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:The MKI is no longer cheaper
Still cheaper. $75M vs $80M SH (more) vs higher for the EF/Rafale.

SH is $49M

Every aircraft does everything nowadays. The F-16 has been doing everything for decades now. And does it all at a lower cost than the SH.

SV doesn't operate from carriers
SV doesn't operate as a tanker
SV doesn't have anything near as capable as the Growler

Viv S wrote:The SV has a lower acquisition cost, lower operating cost and will most certainly have a lower lifecycle cost.

I would not count on either aspect of that. Block 60 F-16s were MORE than the SH by a significant margin.

Viv S wrote:Idea behind the MRCA was never to get something off-the-shelf quickly. Even at its inception, the proposal was to license built Mirage 2000s.

License-built, yes (after the first batch), but off-the-shelf nonetheless. It was not intended to be a development program (like GNG).

Viv S wrote:
Also, why isn't the IAF doing the Mirage upgrade? If you want an example of how a MLU can impact total life-cycle costs . . .
It'll be significant compared to the Rafale MLU costs. Not for the SV.

The point I was making was that you claimed the IAF could do the MLU upgrade themselves. If that is true, why were they contracting out the Mirage upgrade to France?

If IAF can't do the MLU themselves, they'll be contracting it out to Lockmart, and as they will be bearing the entire cost of the program themselves, it will be very expensive.

Whereas if they piggyback on the USN it will be much more affordable.

Viv S wrote: Last SH will be delivered in 2016. EF deliveries will carry out till 2018 at least. Same for the F-16, possibly later. Rafale has confirmed orders upto 2019. The Gripen E will be produced upto 2023.

. . . which is irrelevant to how much will be invested in them in the future

Viv S wrote:In 2035, the USN will be replacing the SH with the F/A-XX

That is . . . unlikely

F-35 development started in 1996 and the F-35C IOC won't be until 2019, a gap of 23 years.

2035 is only 21 years away and there's no hint of F/A-XX starting anytime soon

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2014 19:35

2035 is only 21 years away and there's no hint of F/A-XX starting anytime soon

engines.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jun 2014 19:46

The F-35 is the wrong program to benchmark any new fighter development. Its aim, scope was much larger then what a potential F-18E/F replacement would be. The ATF ( F-22 program) would have gone from the RFI stage (RFI not RFP) To IOC in around 20 years, and with the delays and cold-war winding down and the defence shakeup that resulted meant that the timeframe was extended 24 years or so. The F-18E/F replacement RFI has already occurred, and as mentioned by Nrao the most challenging aspect of any fighter development aka propulsion is already being funded. Expect the F-18E/F replacement prototypes to be in the air by mid next decade or so and IOC in about 6-8 years post that.

The Naval fighters do not age as gracefully as CTOL fighters therefore the MLU's won't be as hard as they would be for a CTOL fighter (diminishing returns). While the F-18E/F will be kept flying well past 2035 the majority of the USN tactical fighter budget would move towards the F-35C, its acquisition and funding the various block improvements which the collection of "interested parties" just kick started last week. The other portion of the tactical fighter budget would go towards developing the Shornet replacement. Whatever is left out of the Shornet advancement budget is likely to find its way into the Growler. Post 2018 or so the US Navy will be going all speed with the Next Generation Jammer acquisition. I see the Growler being the aircraft of choice for investments since they are expected to be operational longer due to the acquisition plans and the fact that whatever replaces the shornet won't most likely be NGJ compatible from the start.

Comming to the cost. Show me one FMS F-18E/F that has been sold for under 50 million. We are talking about exports here and those prices are for huge USN bulk buys. Lets stay realistic.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2014 20:21

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Viv S wrote:Still cheaper. $75M vs $80M SH (more) vs higher for the EF/Rafale.
SH is $49M

$65M flyaway. $80M procurement. For the USN.

Cost to Australia was about $2.5 billion for 24 aircraft in 2007. About $110M in current day dollars. Follow on order for 24 aircraft (including 12 Growlers) was priced upto $155M/unit according to a 2013 DSCA release.

SV doesn't operate from carriers
SV doesn't operate as a tanker
SV doesn't have anything near as capable as the Growler

Don't need tankers or Growlers. Or rather would not want to pay extra for either capability in the MMRCA. Su-30 is adequate.

Carrier capability is even more superfluous. The IN is already set to operate two 4th gen fighters (MiG-29K, N-Tejas). The next fighter it inducts is bound to be fifth generation.

I would not count on either aspect of that. Block 60 F-16s were MORE than the SH by a significant margin.

Had the Emiratis opted for the SH that would have been equally ~~gold-plated~~ customized for them. The Gripen/F-16 have a lower lifecycle cost than the SH/Rafale/EF. That's a simple fact.

In any case, the comparison of the F-16IN would be with a SH Int variant, not with the units currently being delivered to the USN. A counterpart to the latter would be a Block 52+ with an AESA.

Viv S wrote:Idea behind the MRCA was never to get something off-the-shelf quickly. Even at its inception, the proposal was to license built Mirage 2000s.
License-built, yes (after the first batch), but off-the-shelf nonetheless. It was not intended to be a development program (like GNG).

License-built is the opposite of off-the-shelf and doesn't come quickly. And there was no proposal to involve India in developing the Gripen E.

The point I was making was that you claimed the IAF could do the MLU upgrade themselves. If that is true, why were they contracting out the Mirage upgrade to France? If IAF can't do the MLU themselves, they'll be contracting it out to Lockmart, and as they will be bearing the entire cost of the program themselves, it will be very expensive.

Whereas if they piggyback on the USN it will be much more affordable.

IAF doesn't do anything beyond depot maintenance. Also Mirage was never license-built by HAL (who's capabilities two decades from now will hardly be the same). In the Gripen's case there was the possibility of some pooling with the Tejas program.

And the size of the global F-16 fleet is such that plenty of MLU solutions will exist (the ROKAF has gone with BAE instead of LockMart for its MLUs).

That is . . . unlikely

F-35 development started in 1996 and the F-35C IOC won't be until 2019, a gap of 23 years.

2035 is only 21 years away and there's no hint of F/A-XX starting anytime soon

The F-35C could have been IOCed in 2016 as well if the USN wanted it so. If the F/A-XX is behind schedule they'll simply order more F-35Cs.

As far as the MMRCA is concerned there is about a decade's gap between the delivery of the last SH to the USN and the theoretical delivery of the last SH to the IAF.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jun 2014 21:24

Viv S wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:SH is $49M
$65M flyaway. $80M procurement. For the USN.

If you're going to start including other costs, then it's only fair to note that the last MKI batch was over $100 million each.

Viv S wrote: Don't need tankers or Growlers. Or rather would not want to pay extra for either capability in the MMRCA. Su-30 is adequate.

The MKI is supposed to be your topline fighter. I don't understand your eagerness to reduce it to a tanker or escort jammer.

Viv S wrote:Carrier capability is even more superfluous. The IN is already set to operate two 4th gen fighters (MiG-29K, N-Tejas). The next fighter it inducts is bound to be fifth generation.

N-LCA is rather dubious at the moment and LCA-MKII is a long ways away and naval 5th gen is basically a powerpoint slide.

That leaves MiG-29K as your ONLY carrier capable plane for potentially two decades or more. Like I said, SH provides flexibility and options.

Viv S wrote:License-built is the opposite of off-the-shelf and doesn't come quickly.

No on both counts. The opposite of off-the-shelf is custom development. That really has nothing to do with manufacturing location. The plan was to buy the initial batch straight from the manufacturer, after which it was supposed to switch to local manufacture with no delay. So yes, the plan was for it to come quickly

Viv S wrote:And there was no proposal to involve India in developing the Gripen E.

The point about development was TIME, whether India is actually involved in it or not is irrelevant from that perspective. The GNG is NOT a finished product and will require an extensive development cycle to be fully combat capable.

Viv S wrote:
The point I was making was that you claimed the IAF could do the MLU upgrade themselves. If that is true, why were they contracting out the Mirage upgrade to France? If IAF can't do the MLU themselves, they'll be contracting it out to Lockmart, and as they will be bearing the entire cost of the program themselves, it will be very expensive.

Whereas if they piggyback on the USN it will be much more affordable.
IAF doesn't do anything beyond depot maintenance.

You know what I meant.

Viv S wrote:Also Mirage was never license-built by HAL (who's capabilities two decades from now will hardly be the same).

At this point that comes across more like wishful thinking.

Viv S wrote:As far as the MMRCA is concerned there is about a decade's gap between the delivery of the last SH to the USN and the theoretical delivery of the last SH to the IAF.

But the key point is that the USN will be actively investing in the SH longer than any other participant.