Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[NRao]

100,000 crore is $16.638 billion

conversion API: http://www.kshitij.com/utilities/LnCtoMnB.shtml

The IAF is mistaken

Doubly mistaken. We have been saying *all along* that the IAF takes care of the technical aspects and MoD/etc the financials.

First: It is strange and funny that the RM + FM actually asks the IAF for the cost. AJ should have asked that question to himself.

Second: That the IAF actually provides figures on finance.

[Viv S]

First: It is strange and funny that the RM + FM actually asks the IAF for the cost. AJ should have asked that question to himself.

Perhaps he wanted to hear the IAF's estimation of the deal's cost.

[NRao]

And how exactly are they supposed to estimate, when they are not expected to have access to numbers?

And, they seem to have provided a number at the lower range (If I am to believe that article).

Something is not right here. Someone seems to be playing games through the media.

[Viv S]

And how exactly are they supposed to estimate, when they are not expected to have access to numbers?

True, there would have to be guesswork involved. But its either that or admit that the costs aren't known, when asked by the RM (who may be aware of the actual figures).

And, they seem to have provided a number at the lower range (If I am to believe that article).

That sum's just enough to buy the aircraft off-the-shelf. The package is bound to cost much more.

Something is not right here. Someone seems to be playing games through the media.

Also a possibility.

[JohnTitor]

The F-35 is superior at every single role. And then its far superior at certain specific roles.

I won't say I know much to make a good case, but it seems you know something that Pierre Sprey doesn't.

According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.

He also says stealth is a scam btw. Every single stealth plane can be detected..using LFLW radars

[Viv S]

I won't say I know much to make a good case, but it seems you know something that Pierre Sprey doesn't.

Please don't rely on Youtube to learn about military equipment.

If nothing else, go through the last four or five pages particularly Brar_w's posts. You'll find everything one would to know about Pierre Sprey. As far as he's concerned the Su-30 is a lemon and all of its operators (particular export customers) are all chumps.

According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey.

This is the chap who was dead opposed to adding a radar the F-16. 'Co-designer' of the F-16 is just a lot of hot air.

Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.

You seem remarkable confident for a person who wouldn't say he knows enough to make a good case. For the record, every country that's buying the F-35 had the option of going for a F-15E, SH, EF, Rafale or Gripen. A dozen countries have signed up for the F-35 with at least half a dozen more waiting in the wings.

He also says stealth is a scam btw. Every single stealth plane can be detected..using LFLW radars

Curious isn't it that nearly every country has bought into the scam (China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Korea, Turkey, India...). It could be that the whole world is wrong and Sprey is right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

(BTW long wavelength radars have been around for decades.)

[Mihir]

Far too many assumptions in your post about the IAF going down merely because it has Rafales as versus JSFs. I'd submit the IAF knows far more about what it needs to do and has analyzed the topic and made its choice, with both FGFA & programs like AWACS-I intended to manage LO/VLO platforms.
Accept their choice for what it is & lets not even get into the Chinese will mass manufacture J-10/J-20 and we are doomed talk. Thats just plain wrong.

+1. That's a bold statement to make, since the F-35 hasn't even been trialled in India yet. Thankfully, with the quiet stripping away of capabilities and better program management, the F-35 appears to be turning a corner. But there is yet no guarantee that it will be available for late-comers like the IAF before 2025, leave alone any questions of trials in India. Given why we rejected the competition, it would not surprise me at all if the F-35 was unable to take off with a significant payload at high altitudes or fly well in the mountains.

A fourth-gen fighter that can actually be on station and fight is better than a fifth-gen flying brick that can't even take off. That is the bottom line.

[Karan M]

Far too many assumptions in your post about the IAF going down merely because it has Rafales as versus JSFs.

Not because of inducting the Rafales, but because it'll be hugely outnumbered. The Tejas or F-35 won't swing the result the other way, but they'll certainly go lot further in evening the odds.

I'd submit the IAF knows far more about what it needs to do and has analyzed the topic and made its choice, with both FGFA & programs like AWACS-I intended to manage LO/VLO platforms.

Question is, did the financial aspect come into the picture in the IAF's internal analysis? Did they foresee the rupee's fall, economy's slowdown and the cost of the deal more than doubling in less than five years?

I'd venture this deal is being driven by a different set of factors. The MMRCA has been delayed, the Mirage upgrade was delayed, the Jaguar upgrade has been delayed, the Tejas induction has been delayed, the Su-30 upgrade has been delayed. Quite simply, the IAF doesn't want to risk anymore delays on the MoD's part and that something is better than nothing.

However this is a very different govt, a different MoD and it can deliver on the alternatives without the delays and red tape. (Of course any change in ship's course, will need to be driven by the MoD and that's looking increasingly unlikely.)

Accept their choice for what it is & lets not even get into the Chinese will mass manufacture J-10/J-20 and we are doomed talk. Thats just plain wrong.

It'll overtake the US as the largest economy before the end of the year in PPP terms and before the end of the decade in nominal terms. The implications vis a vis its defence expenditure cannot be overemphasized.

As for whether they can emulate the US and pull off a large scale manufacturing, China is a manufacturing powerhouse, the world's workshop, with a govt famous for its get-it-done approach. They got their fourth gen designs operational and fielded fifth gen prototypes, long before they were projected to do so.

The J-10 production already stands at about 30 aircraft per year. Between that, the J-11 family and the J-20/J-31, we're looking at easily over 600 very modern aircraft added over the next ten years. And a correspondingly high number of force multipliers. Their achilles' heel is undeveloped/in-progress domestic propulsion technology and we can be sure the Russians will come through for them (with off-the-shelf deliveries) if they run into significant roadblocks.

Net net no clear evidence that the Chinese will be churning out fighters as you had initially postulated. They havent managed to do so with the much simpler J10 and nor with the more complex yet simpler to the J20, the J11.

Fact of the matter is that even with delays, thanks to the Rafale deal, the IAF will be a powerhouse with Su30s, Tejas, Rafale plus upgraded Fulcrums, Vajras and Shamshers. I dont see them being overwhelmed by the PLAAF anytime.

[Viv S]

But there is yet no guarantee that it will be available for late-comers like the IAF before 2025, leave alone any questions of trials in India.

The infrastructure is scaled for production of upto 200 aircraft per year. Right now its delivering just 35 units annually. By decade end that'll be over 120 units. There'll still be plenty of surplus capacity even at FRP.

Given why we rejected the competition, it would not surprise me at all if the F-35 was unable to take off with a significant payload at high altitudes or fly well in the mountains.

Flying well over mountains is no different from flying well over plains. And the IAF has just one high altitude base capable of fighter operations i.e. Leh airbase.

A fourth-gen fighter that can actually be on station and fight is better than a fifth-gen flying brick that can't even take off. That is the bottom line.

Even if (and that's big if) the F-35 cannot take take off from Leh with a significant external payload, so what? The vast majority of IAF operations will be conducted from the other two dozen airbases.

Air to air the F-35 beats the Rafale (and Rafale class fighters) hands down. (Better radar. Better EW suite. Better MMI. Better SA.) Air to ground, it operate in areas where the Rafale can't, and has a comparable (if not superior) payload-range equation when operating dirty. Plus a more cost-effective selection of weapons.

[JohnTitor]

You seem remarkable confident for a person who wouldn't say he knows enough to make a good case. For the record, every country that's buying the F-35 had the option of going for a F-15E, SH, EF, Rafale or Gripen. A dozen countries have signed up for the F-35 with at least half a dozen more waiting in the wings.

Should have put that text in quotes. Thats text from gizmodo, not my opinion. As I said, I am not in a position to argue either way which is why I thought Pierre knew what he was talking about.

Thanks for that. I will try to get information on Pierre. I will read Brar's posts.

[Cosmo_R]

@NRao ^^^ Old article but here are the relevant bits about MKIizing. It gets into quite a bit of detail:

"The avionic architecture of the F-35 solved this by introducing two separate integration levels. Customers can access the high level, introducing country-specific services, libraries or updates on their own, outside the aircraft software-upgrade cycles. The lower level is proprietary to the U.S. Joint Program Office and accessible only by Lockheed Martin. This level manages flight and mission-critical services, including flight controls, CNI and display, sensor management and self-protection. It also relates to the sensitive low-observable envelope of the F-35, an issue passionately guarded by the U.S.

Replacing core avionics with new systems at such a profound level of integration is unlikely, as it would require extensive testing by all F-35 operators with no obvious gain for the developer. The IAF is moving toward a different approach—the implementation of so-called integrated modular avionics (IMA). The concept has been in development under an Israeli Defense Research and Development Directorate program for several years and is currently being implemented under several pilot programs. "

http://aviationweek.com/awin/israel-us- ... 35-ew-work

Note the offsets in a FMS program. Israel gets to make the wings and to integrate its own HMDS

On related subject, Sweetman quotes Gen. Mike Hostage (where do they get these names from?):

"I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35."

http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

This is the question ^^^ I was asking re the JSF-Rafale.

How many Rafales does it take on day one versus JSFs to do the same work?

[NRao]

WRT Sperry one can visit some other threads, not worth wasting more bandwidth on him.

He also says stealth is a scam btw. Every single stealth plane can be detected..using LFLW radars

Yes.

Stealth has never meant that an object is undetectable. Just the opposite.

[Viv S]

Net net no clear evidence that the Chinese will be churning out fighters as you had initially postulated. They havent managed to do so with the much simpler J10 and nor with the more complex yet simpler to the J20, the J11.

Fact of the matter is that even with delays, thanks to the Rafale deal, the IAF will be a powerhouse with Su30s, Tejas, Rafale plus upgraded Fulcrums, Vajras and Shamshers. I dont see them being overwhelmed by the PLAAF anytime.

J-10 production is over 30 aircraft per year (some sources suggest a second production line has been opened up which would take the rate to 45+). For the J-11B, that's at least one regiment or about 25 aircraft annually and that too is being boosted (supposedly doubled).

Which means at the bare minimum they'll add nearly 600 aircraft from their current facilities over the next 10 years. The actual figure would be likely be closer to 800 fighters, potentially higher. And these aren't Fishbed type 'Peoples' fighters. All of them for example will be/are equipped with AESAs, modern EW suites, IRST, MAWS, the works.

Over the same period we'll induct 126 Rafales, 70 Su-30s and 80 Tejas (as per the current plan and I'm being optimistic). That's about one-third as many aircraft but with a minimal technological edge to compensate.

But the real kicker is, their fleet would not cost them that much more; the Pak J-10 deal was priced at $38M/unit in 2009 while the J-10B is reportedly $45-50M each today.

[brar_w]

This is the question ^^^ I was asking re the JSF-Rafale.

How many Rafales does it take on day one versus JSFs to do the same work?

This has been discussed in the JSF thread. Not much more to add other then the fact that the author of the article has taken what General Hostage said about a Primary F-22 capability and twisted it to apple to a secondary F-22 capability. In a CAP like mission the F-22 currently has greater supersonic range and more missiles (6 to 4), in such a mission you will need many more F-35's to do the same role as an F-22. In other missions it could be parity, and in yet another more F-22's will be required then F-35s. The author also takes a ringing endorsement of the F-35 from the top tactical fighter man in the USAF, calls it PR even accusing the distinguished author of the same then turns around and takes 2 lines from the article, twists them and writes a blog entry.

With respect to how many F-35's vs Rafales, I am afraid no one will be able to answer this with any degree of proof. From what we know the Rafale has a 800-1000 Element AESA, The Apg-81's AESA is 1500 TR+, The F-35 has a VLO aircraft with internal weapons. The Rafale hangs everything on the outside and with tanks and weapons its not going to be stealth from any angle The Rafale has around 10K-11K internal fuel while the F-35A has something like 18.5 K internal fuel. The rafale will most likely use tanks while the F-35 will usually not. The Rafale has demonstrated super cruise while the F-35 has not, although what effect weapons have on super cruise especially its tactical significance since most missions require EFT's remain to be seen. You are comparing a 5th gen capability to a 4.5 gen capability and that is unfair. The rafale is a safer option, its in production fully tested jet. 5th gen comes with 5th gen risk (no way around it) while the older designs are safer bets.

[Austin]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... herstories

The IAF's answer -- Rs 100,000 crore spread over 10 years

How much is that money in USD today ?

The IAF is mistaken. That's the aircraft's base cost. Production of 126 Rafales will cost about €11.5 billion or $16 billion to the French MoD delivered from the Merignac line. Slightly more for a F3R standard aircraft.

[Refer here. 126 x (€101.1M - 20% VAT + 1.5% inflation)]

The cost of whole package (incl ToT, licensing, training, infrastructure) can only be revealed by the MoD's CNC. Very likely in excess of $20 billion.

For that deal there will be discounts plus 50 % offset for Indian Industry besides all the TOT etc

So you cant calculate via sticker price or for other deals that dassult had in past.

[RKumar]

[There are better ways to argue your case against Rafale purchase than conspiracy theories and suggesting court-martial for IAF officers. The forum rule of keeping the debate civil also applies to how your address your criticism of the armed forces. Name calling is not one of them. Please keep that in mind henceforth. - rohitvats]

IAF may lose its traditional conventional edge against Pakistan if the contract to buy 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft or MMRCA is not clinched immediately, senior IAF officials told Defence Minister Arun Jaitley at an extensive briefing recently.

......................

But the IAF top brass is clear that the process to buy the MMRCA is irreversible, notwithstanding a view that the IAF must induct the HAL-made Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas instead of buying the expensive Rafale.

IAF officials point out that the Tejas is yet to receive final operational clearance despite the home-grown fighter aircraft being in the making for over 30 years. As per revised timelines, the first full Tejas squadron in the Initial Operational Clearance configuration will be in place only by 2016-2017.

"We have been hand-holding the LCA for a long time and will continue to support it. But it is not a replacement for a medium, multirole fighter aircraft. Its reach is barely 200 km while we need an aircraft with a reach of at least 1000-km if we have to pose any challenge in the Tibet Autonomous Region, where India expects a major threat to its air combat power in case of a conflict with China," said a top IAF officer.

[member_28476]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... herstories

The IAF's answer -- Rs 100,000 crore spread over 10 years

How much is that money in USD today ?

The IAF is mistaken. That's the aircraft's base cost. Production of 126 Rafales will cost about €11.5 billion or $16 billion to the French MoD delivered from the Merignac line. Slightly more for a F3R standard aircraft.

[Refer here. 126 x (€101.1M - 20% VAT + 1.5% inflation)]

The cost of whole package (incl ToT, licensing, training, infrastructure) can only be revealed by the MoD's CNC. Very likely in excess of $20 billion.

What you quote includes R&D...

b) Coût du programme

Avant prise en compte du projet de LPM, le coût total du programme pour l'Etat était de 45,9 Mds €2013. Le coût unitaire (hors coût de développement) de 74 M€2013 pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions) de 68,8 M€2013 pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et de 79 M€2011 pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions).

Including VAT
Source of the prices : http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html
so lets stick to Rafale B for example.

74/1.196 = 61,9 M€ or 84.5 M$ or 10.6 B$ for 126 Rafale B (in fact it should be less if india buys a mix of C and B ).

Of course that is only fly away cost...

[Sumeet]

Thanks Pagot for sharing that link with us. Any idea how much will Rafale F3R standard will cost ? I am asking for fly away cost. Also what about procurement cost ?

For Rafale to loose either Dassault/French MoD has to do something very stupid or Indian MoD & IAF to kill MMRCA which is extremely unlikely at this moment.

I hope we hear something substantial that brings this long pending issue to close. With new govt it will not be on burner for long. It will be decided either way soon.

[Austin]

b) Coût du programme

Avant prise en compte du projet de LPM, le coût total du programme pour l'Etat était de 45,9 Mds €2013. Le coût unitaire (hors coût de développement) de 74 M€2013 pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions) de 68,8 M€2013 pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et de 79 M€2011 pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions).

Including VAT
Source of the prices : http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html
so lets stick to Rafale B for example.

74/1.196 = 61,9 M€ or 84.5 M$ or 10.6 B$ for 126 Rafale B (in fact it should be less if india buys a mix of C and B ).

Of course that is only fly away cost...

I think the Indian price would be different and considering the number of aircraft involved 126 + option for 80 , the average price would be lower than sticker price including TOT , Ofset etc.

The ~ $17 billion price tag quoted from IAF sources over 10 years now makes sense , comes to roughly $1.7 Billion per year.

In the next 10 year MOD budget will easily cost $100 billion or will be close to around that triple digit figure

[member_20292]

Net net no clear evidence that the Chinese will be churning out fighters as you had initially postulated. They havent managed to do so with the much simpler J10 and nor with the more complex yet simpler to the J20, the J11.

Fact of the matter is that even with delays, thanks to the Rafale deal, the IAF will be a powerhouse with Su30s, Tejas, Rafale plus upgraded Fulcrums, Vajras and Shamshers. I dont see them being overwhelmed by the PLAAF anytime.

J-10 production is over 30 aircraft per year (some sources suggest a second production line has been opened up which would take the rate to 45+). For the J-11B, that's at least one regiment or about 25 aircraft annually and that too is being boosted (supposedly doubled).

Which means at the bare minimum they'll add nearly 600 aircraft from their current facilities over the next 10 years. The actual figure would be likely be closer to 800 fighters, potentially higher. And these aren't Fishbed type 'Peoples' fighters. All of them for example will be/are equipped with AESAs, modern EW suites, IRST, MAWS, the works.

Over the same period we'll induct 126 Rafales, 70 Su-30s and 80 Tejas (as per the current plan and I'm being optimistic). That's about one-third as many aircraft but with a minimal technological edge to compensate.

But the real kicker is, their fleet would not cost them that much more; the Pak J-10 deal was priced at $38M/unit in 2009 while the J-10B is reportedly $45-50M each today.

One of the ways we can counter them is with the JSF. JSF > Rafale here, in taking on unstealthy fighters.

[Cosmo_R]

@brar_w ^^^: "You are comparing a 5th gen capability to a 4.5 gen capability and that is unfair. The rafale is a safer option, its in production fully tested jet. 5th gen comes with 5th gen risk (no way around it) while the older designs are safer bets."

Actually, I am trying to figure out the equation of 5 gen enemy air defenses (s400) versus 4 gen a/c such as the Rafale. I realize it is impossible to compare the JSF and Rafale directly on paper so the questions that remain are: 1. Which is more survivable against the PRC and 2. which gives the bigger bang for the buck (and the buck be shrinking)

[deejay]

Viv S said:

Flying well over mountains is no different from flying well over plains.

Incorrect for fighters. A civil liner yes. A fighter no. Most A to A action and A 2 G action happen very close to ground. Above the Himalayas close to ground is rarefied atmosphere and hence poorer performance (handling wise). More load - more problems. IAF does training for hill flying. Above the Mountains all aircraft are not equal - equal. Jaguar performance and load carrying drops while Mirage 2K does better than Jags or penalty is lesser.

And the IAF has just one high altitude base capable of fighter operations i.e. Leh airbase.

AFAIK, incorrect again but more airfields will not impact the main argument being made by you. THOISE airfield is almost as high and has been tested / trialed for fighter Ops.

To those who think that IAF was wrong in their estimation just visualize the absolute gem that the NDTV report is about:

- The FM + RM who knows about the deal and its value asks the IAF who do not know about the value and the IAF informs the FM + RM about the value which is very high but controversial and all the FM + RM does is give a positive reaction. What positive reaction? Either the report was all in the air (lobby?) or the Minister and the Military were staging a deliberate act for the media.

Adding to my curiosity was the role of the Babus. I find this curious. They did nothing in this case. When did the FM start dealing on financial matters directly with the military. I believe the military does not even have a direct representation on the Pay Commission and now they are advising the FM on a massive import bill for themselves. Nice! (OT and in a lighter vein: Remember Sherlock Holmes, I feel like him here )

[Manish_Sharma]

For that deal there will be discounts plus 50 % offset for Indian Industry besides all the TOT etc

So you cant calculate via sticker price or for other deals that dassult had in past.

This is a very good point even if 10 billions are invested back here as 50% offset over next 10-15 years, it makes this deal golden, compared to off the shelf f-35s bought like C-17s.

Also couple of days back on NDTV Major (Retd.) Bakshi was giving interview about american artillery procurement and saying the FMS deals are not working, in practical terms getting the spares + maintenance is too much trouble, so in future there mayn't be anymore FMS deals.

[Yagnasri]

Raffy deal if it goes through will be a great surprise to me. Coming to F-35 we do not know anything about it other than what is being advertised. Raffy at least done some real time work in North Africa. Either way Raffy will be a major boost for our forces against China or Pakiland. The so called 5th Generation fighters of China most likely end up as paper tigers. I am not sure they could steal that much by their hacking.

[brar_w]

For that deal there will be discounts plus 50 % offset for Indian Industry besides all the TOT etc

So you cant calculate via sticker price or for other deals that dassult had in past.

This is a very good point even if 10 billions are invested back here as 50% offset over next 10-15 years, it makes this deal golden, compared to off the shelf f-35s bought like C-17s.

Also couple of days back on NDTV Major (Retd.) Bakshi was giving interview about american artillery procurement and saying the FMS deals are not working, in practical terms getting the spares + maintenance is too much trouble, so in future there mayn't be anymore FMS deals.

There is no deal for any off the shelf acquisition that does not involve offsets that are now fairly common on international deals all across the world. An off the shelf buy of the Rafale, F-35, Typhoon, F-16, F-18 would all come with an offset deal as per the GOI requirement. From the top of my head I can recall that the P-8 and C-17 deals involved a 30% offset investment by Boeing. Large contracts obviously give the buyer more freedom to ask more commitment from the vendors towards its own industry. I do not know of a single F-35 customer (FMS) that is not looking for an offset deal.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/seoul-e ... -f-35-deal

Edit

http://www.forceindia.net/IndustryMarch2013-25.aspx
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories450.htm

[Viv S]

For that deal there will be discounts plus 50 % offset for Indian Industry besides all the TOT etc

So you cant calculate via sticker price or for other deals that dassult had in past.

Is it possible for us to get a bigger discount on the Rafale than the French state (that has ordered 180 of them and funded its development) ?

Also, the cost of offsets is always passed on to the customer. For eg -

However, sources said, the C-17 offsets would cost India an additional 7-8 per cent in the total outgo on the purchase as the US has explained that it would be paying more for Indian offsets than it could have got the same services and products from other sources. (link).

This is a very good point even if 10 billions are invested back here as 50% offset over next 10-15 years, it makes this deal golden, compared to off the shelf f-35s bought like C-17s.

All our FMS deals include offsets. And the F-35 customers have gotten offset deals as well (offsets for the Canadian purchase equal 100% of contract value. 240% for Israel IIRC).

Also couple of days back on NDTV Major (Retd.) Bakshi was giving interview about american artillery procurement and saying the FMS deals are not working, in practical terms getting the spares + maintenance is too much trouble, so in future there mayn't be anymore FMS deals.

FMS deals have proven to be the most efficient means of acquisition and after sales support has been excellent. The only hurdle in an FMS deal is getting the offsets approved. This is how our commercially negotiated deals have proceeded (article by Mrinal Suman).

[Viv S]

What you quote includes R&D...

b) Coût du programme

Avant prise en compte du projet de LPM, le coût total du programme pour l'Etat était de 45,9 Mds €2013. Le coût unitaire (hors coût de développement) de 74 M€2013 pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions) de 68,8 M€2013 pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et de 79 M€2011 pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions).

Including VAT
Source of the prices : http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html
so lets stick to Rafale B for example.

74/1.196 = 61,9 M€ or 84.5 M$ or 10.6 B$ for 126 Rafale B (in fact it should be less if india buys a mix of C and B ).

Of course that is only fly away cost...

Cost including R&D is €160 million or $220 million each.

(Program cost: €46 billion Build size: 286 unit)

To reiterate:

Flyaway cost: €70 M
Production cost: €100 M
Program cost: €160 M (incl R&D)

(All incl. VAT)

Production cost appears roughly analogous to procurement cost in US parlance. After removing VAT -

Flyaway cost: $80 M
Procurement cost: $115 M
Program cost: $185 M

[rohitvats]

BTW - was this discussed:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/06/ ... ditch.html

Indian Newspaper Flies With MMRCA Ditch Story, Journalist Disowns

[Viv S]

Viv S said:

Flying well over mountains is no different from flying well over plains.

Incorrect for fighters. A civil liner yes. A fighter no. Most A to A action and A 2 G action happen very close to ground.

No most actions are conducted long way off from the ground.

Above the Himalayas close to ground is rarefied atmosphere and hence poorer performance (handling wise). More load - more problems. IAF does training for hill flying. Above the Mountains all aircraft are not equal - equal. Jaguar performance and load carrying drops while Mirage 2K does better than Jags or penalty is lesser.

Rarefied air exists at higher altitudes everywhere not just over mountains. The Jaguar will handle poorly at 30,000ft over Rajasthan as well.

And the IAF has just one high altitude base capable of fighter operations i.e. Leh airbase.

AFAIK, incorrect again but more airfields will not impact the main argument being made by you. THOISE airfield is almost as high and has been tested / trialed for fighter Ops.

Yes two air bases. Leh airfield is less than 10 min flight time from Avantipur. If you travel the Zojila pass, you'll realise what a huge chore it is to transport fuel and supplies across it. And assuming that a QRA flight stationed at Leh and/or Thoise was deemed necessary, one would hardly use the F-35 for that task.

To those who think that IAF was wrong in their estimation just visualize the absolute gem that the NDTV report is about:

- The FM + RM who knows about the deal and its value asks the IAF who do not know about the value and the IAF informs the FM + RM about the value which is very high but controversial and all the FM + RM does is give a positive reaction. What positive reaction? Either the report was all in the air (lobby?) or the Minister and the Military were staging a deliberate act for the media.

Well the RM certainly doesn't need to find out the financial aspect through the IAF. That said, its not that out-of-place a question even at an official briefing. For example, on the occasions that I've had to converse with someone from an IAF background about the Tejas, and been told that 'it just wouldn't do', I slip in a question about the costs involved. Not because I don't know the cost, but because I want to know what his perception/awareness of the cost is.

That said, its very much possible that its simply a media invention.

[NRao]

BTW - was this discussed:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/06/ ... ditch.html

Indian Newspaper Flies With MMRCA Ditch Story, Journalist Disowns

I could not find his statement on tweeter - his page was gone.

[Mihir]

Incorrect for fighters. A civil liner yes. A fighter no. Most A to A action and A 2 G action happen very close to ground.

No most actions are conducted long way off from the ground.

Most action in the context of a Western country conducting ops against weak enemies in the plains and at altitudes that co-operate with the design, etc. etc.

Also, I see a problem with that argument that "most missions" involve high-altitude operations. At what point does "most" begin to dictate what capabilities you can do away with? 70% of all missions? 80%? 90%? What about the remaining proportion of cases? Are we okay with aircraft being shot out of the sky?

Above the Himalayas close to ground is rarefied atmosphere and hence poorer performance (handling wise). More load - more problems. IAF does training for hill flying. Above the Mountains all aircraft are not equal - equal. Jaguar performance and load carrying drops while Mirage 2K does better than Jags or penalty is lesser.

Rarefied air exists at higher altitudes everywhere not just over mountains. The Jaguar will handle poorly at 30,000ft over Rajasthan as well.

Yes, but with two significant differences:

• When you're flying at lower altitude over the plains of Rajasthan/Punjab/Iraq/Germany, you can take full advantage of the dense air to throw your aircraft around the sky and realise every bit of its advertised performance. In the Himalayas, "low altitude" means flying at 15,000 feet or more, which imposes significant performance restrictions on your airframe. Funny you should mention the Jaguar. There were reports that Jags had a tough time fighting in Kargil because their high wing loading meant that pilots had to concentrate real hard on not flying smack into some godforsaken mountain. That's one of the main reason that Mirages assumed the primary strike role.
• 30,000 feet above the plains puts your aircraft well out of range of short-range air defences. 30,000 feet in the mountains exposes you to all kinds of attack from MANPADS, ack-ack, and medium range missiles. Combined with reduced aerodynamic performance, this makes fighting an air war against a capable, well equipped adversary a very nasty affair.

[Viv S]

Most action in the context of a Western country conducting ops against weak enemies in the plains and at altitudes that co-operate with the design, etc. etc.

The US military and in particular its East Asian allies train for war with a near-peer. The European countries face a smaller conventional threat but they too train for full scale war.

But your point is particularly relevant with regard to the 'battle-tested' epithet attributed to the Rafale.

Also, I see a problem with that argument that "most missions" involve high-altitude operations. At what point does "most" begin to dictate what capabilities you can do away with? 70% of all missions? 80%? 90%? What about the remaining proportion of cases? Are we okay with aircraft being shot out of the sky?

Anytime an aircraft comes it at low altitudes it puts itself in the AAA/SHORAD/MANPAD envelope. And that applies to every aircraft including the Rafale. Are we okay with aircraft being shot out of the sky?

When you're flying at lower altitude over the plains of Rajasthan/Punjab/Iraq/Germany, you can take full advantage of the dense air to throw your aircraft around the sky and take full advantage of its advertised performance. In the Himalayas, "low altitude" means flying at 15,000 feet or more, which imposes significant performance restrictions on your airframe. Funny you should mention the Jaguar. There were reports that Jags had a tough time fighting in Kargil because their high wing loading meant that pilots had to concentrate real hard on not flying smack into some godforsaken mountain. That's one of the primary reason that Mirages assumed the primary strike role.

Did you skip straight to my post or did you read the post I was replying to?

I didn't mention the Jaguar ops during Kargil, Deejay did, as an example of degraded performance at altitude. However, the aircraft in question performs poorly at high altitudes everywhere, not just over the Himalayas. And no, its not purely a function of wing loading either (the F-16 for eg has higher wing loading). The F-35 has no restrictions on its flight envelope.

30,000 feet above the plains puts your aircraft well out of range of short-range air defences. 30,000 feet in the mountains exposes you to all kinds of attack from MANPADS, ack-ack, and medium range missiles. Combined with reduced aerodynamic performance, this makes fighting an air war against a capable, well equipped adversary a very nasty affair.

Fly 40,000 ft. Again, its no different over the Himalayas than it is over the Pacific.

[RKumar]

It seems to me at least if IAF can't hold against PAF with Su-30, Mig-29, LCA and 2 IAC then God can only save us. So I don't accept IAF's opening argument.

I agree, that Paki will jump into war as soon there is something wrong on our eastern frontier with China. But then IAF argument should be that we need a fighter which can do deep strikes in China (their closing argument).

Simply, I don't know if it is f***ed up article by the journalist or IAF's bad presentation.

IAF may lose its traditional conventional edge against Pakistan if the contract to buy 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft or MMRCA is not clinched immediately, senior IAF officials told Defence Minister Arun Jaitley at an extensive briefing recently.

......................

But the IAF top brass is clear that the process to buy the MMRCA is irreversible, notwithstanding a view that the IAF must induct the HAL-made Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas instead of buying the expensive Rafale.

IAF officials point out that the Tejas is yet to receive final operational clearance despite the home-grown fighter aircraft being in the making for over 30 years. As per revised timelines, the first full Tejas squadron in the Initial Operational Clearance configuration will be in place only by 2016-2017.

"We have been hand-holding the LCA for a long time and will continue to support it. But it is not a replacement for a medium, multirole fighter aircraft. Its reach is barely 200 km while we need an aircraft with a reach of at least 1000-km if we have to pose any challenge in the Tibet Autonomous Region, where India expects a major threat to its air combat power in case of a conflict with China," said a top IAF officer.

[John]

France has very poor track record of keeping track of time and completing things in time. Construction of Scorpene submarine comes to find. They intentionally mismanaged the program and delayed several key components with inadequate planning. And more importantly mislead on the contract leaving out important components to fluctuate/escalate freely.

How did they mismanage the program when MDL was the one building it, it is SY that is executing the contract that is responsible for delivery of items and planning.

[Victor]

^ Who prepared, studied and signed the contract? Were there any loopholes in it that allowed the French to jerk us around? What, if any, were the penalties for such jerk-arounds? Unfortunately, it is Caveat Emptor subject to the terms of the contract. As buyers, it is solely and wholly our responsibility to not get screwed. Good faith has absolutely no place at such high-stakes contracts. The only thing we can do is blacklist the French like we have blacklisted everybody else due to our own stupidity.

[Cosmo_R]

The French are being asked to be responsible for delays/issues that might be caused by HAL.

Dassault argues that it should only be responsible for things within its control.

This puts it in an 'insurance' category. Which, simply means that the French up the price to compensate for any risk beyond their control.

Add the up charge for "transfer of technology" (we supply our own screwdriver) and you have a Rafale that's going to cost north of $20 billion.

If some think I am being cynical (and if the Ajay Shukla article is to be believed), then look at how a 'deep licensed' SU-30MKI which apparently (correct me if there has been refutation) has just a 40% availability due to lack of spares etc.

The French (or anyone else) will give a 100% no questions asked guarantee if the price is right.

Illustrative example: in the US, if you buy a tree, you get a 1 year guarantee no questions asked by your nursery. Business model: charge 2x for the tree and make a bundle.

Bottom line: if you buy foreign, buy it off the shelf at the price (plus inducements) the local government pays.

Use the buy until you can roll your own.

The MMRCA is an interim gap filler. Spend $20 billion on it and you'll always be buying to fill the gap.

BTW, the PAK/FA/DA/FGFA is a non starter.

LCA with production line technology supplied by India private companies who operate the lines and a clear focus on the AMCA is the only way open.

The MMRCA does not help us WRT to PRC and we don't need it against Pakistan.

JMHT

[John]

that's typical indian attitude of giving free pass to others and blame ourselves for all the problems.

the original manufacturer of the submarine knows what parts are needed, the lead time, critical path, when each and every item needs to be delivered. they are responsible for making sure all the supplies and contractors line up to support the local assembly.

Scorpene is joint venture between DCNS-Navantia (France-Spain). If MDL is too slow with procuring items, executing fabrication of parts and absorbing technology how exactly is it DCNS's fault. Buyer beware when DCNS started hiking $$$ we had more than enough time to walk away from this contract rather than throwing more $$ into it.

[Vipul]

France ‘happy with progress’ on Rafale fighter aircraft deal.

France has said it is “pretty optimistic” about the progress of the Rafale fighter aircraft deal.

Addressing a press conference here on Monday, visiting French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “things were developing smoothly.” In January 2012, French firm Dassault Aviation SA won the deal to supply 126 fighter jets to the Indian Air Force at a value of over $10 billion.

Laurent also pointed out that this contract could be the stepping stone to developing a strong partnership in the defence domain which besides Rafale can also include missiles and helicopters. “It will make it possible to have a complete partnership between Indian and French industry,” he added.

On the issue of delay in defence projects despite decisions having been taken, the Minister said “we should see with the new government, which is particularly keen about efficiency and implementation of administrative decisions, that (decisions) that have been taken are implemented rapidly.”

The visiting dignitary indicated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi could visit to Paris in September. Laurent said that he would be extending an invitation to Modi from French President Francois Hollande to pay an official visit to France at the earliest. He indicated that Modi might visit France on his way back from the United Nations General Assembly session in New York. The UNGA session takes place in September every year.

[Mort Walker]

Fabius has a nice smile on his face. I don't like this at all. The MMRCA originally started out as a replacement for Mig-21. Just get 300+ Tejas in the next 4-5 years and build India's own defense and manufacturing capability.

[Austin]

Is it possible for us to get a bigger discount on the Rafale than the French state (that has ordered 180 of them and funded its development) ?

Yes its possible to get bigger discount and better offset as this deal would mean a long term relationship between IAF and Dassault.

Think about it Rafale would serve IAF fleet for the next 30 years and most likely 40 years with regular upgrades etc , There is opportunity for Dassult long term contract for sale engines in thousand number over that 40 years , lic production cost , Weapons procured multiple times over in that period , then there would be atleast 2 major upgrade in that time frame so a lot of mutually benefitial relationship between HAL & Dassault.

Not to mention IAF might just increase Rafale numbers from 126 to 200 to 300 like they did for MKI or we may just end up having fleet of Rafale bigger than MKI 272 plus numbers.

So the current cost according to IAF $17 Billion for the deal is a small amount and Dassault can easily provide discounts to a larger degree they can give it to French AF.