Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 04 Jul 2014 01:40

Here's some comparative data on India's GDP and the cost of top-of-the-line French fighter aircraft

In 1982, India acquired 40 Mirage 2000 aircraft for $850m (as per this NYT report)

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/18/world ... plane.html

In 1982, India's GDP was US$204bn (according to World Bank data):

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY. ... ay=default

So, the cost of the 1982 Mirage 2000 order works out to 0.42% of GDP, or 0.01% of GDP per aircraft.

The reported cost of the potential 126 aircraft Rafale order appears to move around in a wide range. As per this report (published yesterday), its US$20bn:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mo ... ct-1999002

India's GDP in 2012-13 was INR101,132bn and in 2013-14 was INR113,204bn (11.9% year-on-year nominal growth).

http://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=publications

Maintaining that nominal growth trend, India's 2014-15 GDP could be forecast to be ca. INR126,700bn, or at a USD/INR of 59.7, ca. US$2,100bn.

So, US$20bn for 126 Rafale fighters comes to ca. 0.95% of 2014-15 GDP or 0.0076% of GDP per fighter.

So, these French fighters have always been nose-bleed expensive!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Jul 2014 01:51

In the 80s, they wanted M2Ks (French wine)
But they got MiG-29s (Russian Vodka)

In the 90s, they wanted M2Ks (French wine)
But they got Su-30MKIs (More powerful Russian Vodka)

In the 2000s, they wanted M2ks and Rafales (Especial French wine)
But they just might get Pakfa (Extra powerful Russian Vodka)

Don't see how GOI can sustain both pricey Rafales AND Pakfa/FGFA.

One realizes that there are numbers to be filled, but this can be achieved in numerous ways:
Buy 2nd hand Mirages where available
Buy MiG-29Ms (Syrian batch is readily available) or SMTs - smooth fit with IAF and IN fleets
Buy more MKI
Buy more Tejas
Buy limited quantities of Rafales
Buy any combination thereof

Basically, we just need to match exceed MRCA numbers till the end of this decade, i.e. ~ 40 birds optimistically. Can't see why above alternatives won't work. Remaining numbers (post 2020) can be made up with Pakfa and later FGFA. Even a direct buy of some initial Pakfa will be superior to Rafale, capability wise.

So far we have discussed N number of alternatives for MRCA, and the IAF itself had to juggle everything from Gripens to Shornets. Why not Pakfa, eh? Just sayin'

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 04 Jul 2014 02:10

Sry to disappoint some of you. Talked to a top executive industrial tonight. Downsizing order is pure BS.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 04 Jul 2014 02:12

Maybe downsizing to zero would be the best thing.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 04 Jul 2014 03:27

Cain Marko wrote:
Don't see how GOI can sustain both pricey Rafales AND Pakfa/FGFA.

Our growing economy should be able to sustain. It is not that all funding has to be given in few years. These will be spread throughout a long period of time. Doubt if FGFA induction will happen before 2024. By that time half of Rafale would already been paid off.

Guys please note this dip in our economy is for most part is only self inflicted wound. It isn't something we were destined to undergo.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 04 Jul 2014 03:36

Karan M wrote:The UPA govt led the IAF on a merry chase claiming there were funds. The IAF danced away in the expectation of the fanciest toys. And now here we are. There is no specific threat perception that only per se the Rafale satisfies. It is but the cheaper of the two best of the lot of five competitors. If it was purely driven by capabilities alone there would never have been two single engined types conpeting with the twin engined platforms. So yes, for facing threats the best would be better than the rest. But are the platform choices driven by deeper doctrine addressing specific threats, not really. Even the two best ranked as equivalent per reports are chalk and cheese. One, the EF is a hot rod AA type with limited multirole capabilities. The other the Rafale is a more versatile type with tradeoffs baked in. This assuming the MMRCA was a fair contest and the Rafale wasnt a secret pick.
Hard situation.
If the LCAs can do the bulk of the heavy lifting against Pak a stronger Flanker force against china is also possible. Dont see how Rafales would be that much better than an upgraded Flanker fleet.
16 Billion is a lot of money and lets face it, the claims it wilremain at that level are not accurate. Every deal we have had post purchase continues to rise as we add more bells and whistles. Factor in upgrade costs for the Rafale as well.

The main reason for the Rafale selection is supplier diversification. The Indian government remembers the situation in the 1990's well. If that weren't an issue, I think most people would be happy with 80 additional MKI's and 80 additional Tejas's instead of the 126 Rafale's.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 03:37

rohitvats wrote:If Rafale is too expensive, may be we need to look at more Su-30 MKI or Su-35 even. And Tejas is not an alternative to purchase of whatever constitutes MMRCA. For a simple reason it will not pack the capability (due to dimensions) required to fight the kind of threat we are going to face in near future and which MMRCA is expected to address.

The Tejas will deliver much greater capability per dollar than the Rafale. Simple fact is, you can acquire 4-5 Tejas for the cost of the each Rafale. Cumulatively, that's twice as much payload carried/delivered and at least three times as many sorties achieved in wartime. Supported by force multipliers, the numerical strength can be created without any qualitative compromise -

- The MKI can act both as a mini-AEW&C and an aerial refueler. Capability will increase further post upgrade.
- DRDO's ERJ-145 AEW&C is available and cheaper than the Rafale; Rs 600 crore each or $100 million. Round it out to $120M with inflation.
- A330s tankers are budgeted at about $330M per unit ($2 billion for six). Just twice that of each Rafale.

- MMRCA: 7 Squadrons - whatever type this is, this is required in parallel to Su-30 MKI to arrest the decline in falling Squadron numbers.
- Tejas: 9 Squadrons - to manage the transition of balance air force from Mig-21/27 series to a modern fighter.

'To manage the transition from MiG-21 to a modern fighter'?

For half the cost of the MMRCA, you could add at least another 12 squadrons of Mk2s, while retaining 9 squadrons of Mk1s.

If Tejas achieves FOC by end 2014, I'm assuming first full fledged squadron should be in service by 2017-18 time frame. And if the news reports are to be believed about Rafale, first squadrons should come from Dassault by same time frame. And HAL is expected to finish delivery of last Su-30 MKI by 2019-2020.

Just 'squadron'. Singular. If the contract is signed in 2015, contractually Dassault has to deliver one squadron between 2018 and 2019 (though those deliveries could be expedited).

But all the rest of the aircraft are to be delivered by HAL. And in the same time-frame as the Tejas Mk2 (equipped with AESA, IRST, integrated EW suite, sensor fusion, better endurance, payload and performance).

So, between MMRCA and Tejas, both are required as per some strict timeline to ensure that IAF can first make up for the loss in Squadron strength and then add some additional squadrons. Otherwise, the way things are, IAF will be reduced to something like 30 Squadrons towards latter part of second half of this decade. Su-30 MKI is the only one going as per plan but it alone will not be able to answer the requirement.

That's only assuming that they decide to do nothing. Because there are plenty of options to boost the squadron strength, without suffering debilitating costs:

- Mirages from Qatar & UAE.
- MiGs from Hungary & Russia
- Leased Gripen C/Ds from Sweden. Second hand from South Africa.
- Eurofighter T1s from UK and Austria (being retired early after just 15 years of service to cut costs).
- Additional Su-30MKIs (no Su-35s reqd; limited performance increment over the MKI)

All options in addition to a larger Tejas Mk1 build order.

This will address the immediate requirement of numbers of a/c and squadron and give room for Tejas Mk-2 program.

Which mission is it exactly that the IAF will have to compromise on in the event of an MMRCA cancellation?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 03:39

eklavya wrote:Here's some comparative data on India's GDP and the cost of top-of-the-line French fighter aircraft

In 1982, India acquired 40 Mirage 2000 aircraft for $850m (as per this NYT report)

The Mirage was a knee-jerk purchase in response to the PAF's F-16 acquisition.

Also, in 1982 we were less than 10 years away from bankruptcy. Food for thought.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Jul 2014 03:55

Pagot wrote:Sry to disappoint some of you. Talked to a top executive industrial tonight. Downsizing order is pure BS.

In all probability, yes. They will probably go ahead with 126 Rafales at this stage, but then this is like the old MRCA dhaga, and many are rightfully questioning what seems like an ever-increasing price. Jingos like Katrina, but she should not be such a snob, no? MSM articles proposing alternatives are always going to provide food for some discussion.

Sumeet wrote:Our growing economy should be able to sustain. It is not that all funding has to be given in few years. These will be spread throughout a long period of time. Doubt if FGFA induction will happen before 2024. By that time half of Rafale would already been paid off.

Guys please note this dip in our economy is for most part is only self inflicted wound. It isn't something we were destined to undergo.

Sumeet, let us hope what you say is correct, but there have been some noises all around suggesting that it might be FGFA vs. Rafale. Also, while FGFA induction might be a bit later; the Pakfa, which is a similar platform, should be available a lot earlier. A quick order of 50 odd airframes around 2020 ala pre MKI Su-27s would certainly boost numbers and capability.

More importantly, the decision on some new additions to the IAF is quite urgent, and the economy might take a while to turn around, doubt it will turn on a dime. There are other urgent requirements that demand attention as well - Tankers, AEW, Subs, Artillery, Minesweepers etc., etc.. GOI will have to work out a deal whereby the cost is flexibly distributed over a large period of time, perhaps a staggered payment system, with low initial costs.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 03:59

Sumeet wrote:Our growing economy should be able to sustain. It is not that all funding has to be given in few years. These will be spread throughout a long period of time. Doubt if FGFA induction will happen before 2024. By that time half of Rafale would already been paid off.

The Rafale payments will start at contract signing and they are significant. $3 billion lump sum upfront. At a time when the IAC construction has been held up due to a lack of funds.

Guys please note this dip in our economy is for most part is only self inflicted wound. It isn't something we were destined to undergo.

Perhaps. But there's still an economic crisis, here and now.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had earlier warned of tough measures to improve country's financial health in comments interpreted to mean the government will raise fuel prices, cut subsidies and reduce wasteful spending. Fiscal deficit in first two months of the current fiscal year has reached 45.6% of budget estimates, indicating that the government has a tough task on its hand if it is to better the 4.5% of GDP deficit level achieved in FY14 and find funds to step up investments. - Economic Times

You can defer the Rafale acquisition but its utility (unlike its cost) is just going to continue shrinking (keep in mind it entered service back in 2000).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 04:17

French FM offers India 1 bn to fund projects, as Rafale talks stall

By RFI

On visit to New Delhi, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, offered to give India up to 1 billion euros in credit to fund its sustainable infrastructure and urban development projects. This, as talks on a $12 billion (8 billion euro) Rafale deal stalled.

The 1 billion euro credit line will be distributed through the French development agency over a three-year period, said Laurent Fabius on Tuesday.

India, which has said it needs $1 trillion of investment by 2017 to upgrade its infrastructure, is keen to attract foreign development agencies and companies to help finance new roads, railways and cities.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who took office in May, wants to reinforce India's status as a regional power, and has whetted the appetite of Western powers, who are all scrambling for a piece of its economic pie.

Fabius said he was confident that French aviation company Dassault would be able to supply New Delhi with 126 Rafale fighter jets worth 12 billion dollars (8 billion euros). But on Tuesday he sounded less upbeat after a meeting with Modi.

"The next step is for Dassault and the (Indian) government to discuss the details which have not yet been discussed and hopefully to reach a conclusion," he told news agency reporters. "For us, the earlier the better ... but it's a normal negotiation and the way it must be."

The contract has been under negotiation for two years. And rival countries like Britain see this as a potential opportunity to sideline the French and push forward their own Eurofighter jets.

However, extending a credit line to the Indians, could allow France to boost it ties with the South Asian nation, and gain an early link to the country's future infrastructure schemes, if it it fails to conquer its aviation industry.

- Radio France Internationale

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2014 04:22

Our growing economy should be able to sustain. It is not that all funding has to be given in few years. These will be spread throughout a long period of time. Doubt if FGFA induction will happen before 2024. By that time half of Rafale would already been paid off.

Guys please note this dip in our economy is for most part is only self inflicted wound. It isn't something we were destined to undergo.

The question is is India willing to pay 1.5 times.

It is not a question of affordability. It is about a fair price.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Jul 2014 04:30

@Viv S ^^^: "The Tejas will deliver much greater capability per dollar than the Rafale. Simple fact is, you can acquire 4-5 Tejas for the cost of the each Rafale. "

Thank you for answering the question I asked from the very beginning. If 4-5 = 1 Rafale monetarily and the 4-5 LCAs can together deliver more capability than 1 Rafale, then you get more bang for the buck.

Plus, quantity is another form of quality.

Even if you factor in 4-5 pilots vs 1 (BTW compensated for by the number of hours any individual can fly during a given period), and parts and logistics (partially compensated for by the domestic inputs), the Rafale (or any MMRCA) is not a screaming buy.

That's the quantity versus quality argument. OTOH, we have supposedly, 2 F-22s = 8 F-35s in Mike Hostage's example.

Remaining question is how many Rafales = 1 F-35.

LCA - low end

5 Gen- high end

Get SU30MKI availability up from (Shukla?) 40% to 75% norm in the interim.

The how much is the Rafale cost in GDP terms is silly. It's the budget. Once you realize that the defense budget where the allocated funds were mostly never used and went back into the general budget, was not inefficiency but a strategy to cover for populist spending, you see how scarce defense resources really are.

Why is AJ both the DM/FM? They are trying to figure out a realistic way out of the morass that INC has plowed us into.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jul 2014 07:37

AWST issue July 7-14th has a special report on the European fighter upgrades,involving the Rafale,Typhoon and Gripen. The various tech upgrades of each.There is a table showing all 3 fighters with key characteristics. Radar,weaponry,EW,etc. are all dissected in detail. The most cost-effective bird still remains the Gripen,but whether it fits our bill is the Q.If we were prepared to do with more M-2000s earlier and want alternatives to solely Russian tech,then it should be seriously considered.Karan however has shown why the IAF were led up the garden path by the UPA,as if we were billionaires able to afford the most expensive birds,but in reality with big holes in our pockets. To me the Gripen and LCA can co-exist,as we have several hundreds of MIG series aircraft to be replaced aaprt from the jaguars whose upgrades are now in trouble according to reports.

If as an above post says that the French Min. was less upbeat after meeting the PM,then the IAF should immediately start working on "PLan B",or "PLan C" options. The FM/DM is the best man on the spot to see how much he can set aside for the defence budget and how much each service must get.All 3 services have very urgent requirements for new acquisitions. Therefore a holistic masterplan has to be adopted,for the short,med.,and long term. It would be very unlikely in the current circumstances that one service will be given a "super-luxury" acquisition at the expense of the others.Unless the French come down on the price and offer large financial assistance,the deal might not arrive or at the best be drastically modified.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 04 Jul 2014 09:57

shiv wrote:Prediction. The Rafale will come and form a deep part of IAF for the next 30 years. One of the things I will say about my fellow SDREs is that they may be slow. But they are not stupid. A deal like this one has enough fine detail that really must not be concluded in a hurry - especially when both sides are trying to get the best possible deal for themselves.

Ok, here is my prediction. Rafale will come and form a deep part of the IAF for the next 30 years. But the benefits of technology will not come. Benefits for which we are paying top money. The French will not part with it and weasel out and we will be left ruing the fact that had we put in the same money into local R&D we would have got the required industrial base to finally be free of looking towards foreign aircraft for our fighter needs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2014 11:53

+1 Merlin.
the semi-starvation of domestic projects forced to work on shoestring budgets will continue.
given the FMS / Rafale kind of money, entire DRDO could improve the salary structure of key scientific grades to very attractive levels.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 04 Jul 2014 12:24

Singha wrote:+1 Merlin.
the semi-starvation of domestic projects forced to work on shoestring budgets will continue.
given the FMS / Rafale kind of money, entire DRDO could improve the salary structure of key scientific grades to very attractive levels.

singha, has DRDO/ADA/HAL blamed a a lack of financial resources for the delays in the LCA? Any links / quotes from project managers would be appreciated.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 04 Jul 2014 12:29

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Here's some comparative data on India's GDP and the cost of top-of-the-line French fighter aircraft

In 1982, India acquired 40 Mirage 2000 aircraft for $850m (as per this NYT report)
The Mirage was a knee-jerk purchase in response to the PAF's F-16 acquisition.

Also, in 1982 we were less than 10 years away from bankruptcy. Food for thought.

Are you suggesting that GoI should not have acquired the Mirage 2000, and that the expenditure of 0.4% of GDP spread out over 4 years (1982-86) caused the 1991 financial crisis?

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 04 Jul 2014 13:05

- MMRCA: 7 Squadrons - whatever type this is, this is required in parallel to Su-30 MKI to arrest the decline in falling Squadron numbers.
- Tejas: 9 Squadrons - to manage the transition of balance air force from Mig-21/27 series to a modern fighter.

1. The decline in falling squadron numbers cannot be arrested by the Rafale due to its long delivery timelines-
2. The first 18 are due to come from Dassault and the next 108 from HAL - the delays present in LCA Tejas delivery will also be present in the Rafale delivery. There will be a significant amount of fixed asset capital outlay.

Which mission is it exactly that the IAF will have to compromise on in the event of an MMRCA cancellation?

Most of us jingos better start thinking in terms of mission profiles done by the weapons rather than the weapon models themselves. This is an important paradigm change.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 04 Jul 2014 13:09

Avarachan wrote: The main reason for the Rafale selection is supplier diversification. The Indian government remembers the situation in the 1990's well. If that weren't an issue, I think most people would be happy with 80 additional MKI's and 80 additional Tejas's instead of the 126 Rafale's.

There is no supplier diversification.

HAL builds the Su 30s in Nasik, builds LCAs in Bangalore and will build the Rafales as well.

If I wanted to improve HAL productivity (and a lot of IAF, IA people reserve VERY poor language for DRDO, HAL, etc. ) I would do an IPO , get in private investors.

ToT will not give me manufacturing excellence, which is what is required in HAL. The processes, the Toyota Way!

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 04 Jul 2014 13:12

Sumeet wrote:Reminds me of 90s when we didn't have funds to buy anything great.

that reminds me ---- Mulayaham never got into trouble for his bribe taking for the Su30MKI deal...?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 Jul 2014 14:26

On a different note and without malice and because this discussion is becoming impossible to reason with:

Viv S wrote:
'To manage the transition from MiG-21 to a modern fighter'?

For half the cost of the MMRCA, you could add at least another 12 squadrons of Mk2s, while retaining 9 squadrons of Mk1s.

That's only assuming that they decide to do nothing. Because there are plenty of options to boost the squadron strength, without suffering debilitating costs:

- Mirages from Qatar & UAE.
- MiGs from Hungary & Russia
- Leased Gripen C/Ds from Sweden. Second hand from South Africa.
- Eurofighter T1s from UK and Austria (being retired early after just 15 years of service to cut costs).
- Additional Su-30MKIs (no Su-35s reqd; limited performance increment over the MKI)

Viv S are you serious? You were writing from an Indian perspective, right? I know our economy could be better but are we in such a bad shape? If we are in so bad shape, why buy any fighters? Stop buying. I am sure the IAF can make do with what they have.

BTW, the same PM who is preparing us for tightened belts wants us to talk eye to eye.

Viv S wrote:All options in addition to a larger Tejas Mk1 build order.

Don't you think that if we have in time the LCA MK II then the very scarce money should be for more of MK II sqns and not MK I sqns. Or is adding better machines against the grain of present discussion? If cost be the only factor and the Indian economy in absolutely bad shape, why keep the IAF operational. Better, the GOI should put the money for MMRCA in Fixed Deposits @ x%. Imagine, the gains.

Viv S wrote:This will address the immediate requirement of numbers of a/c and squadron and give room for Tejas Mk-2 program.

The IAF is planning only 45 sqns, right? We can sell some of our MKI's and make room for MKIIs, that way we will fund the acquisition of MK II partly through our MKI sale. Additionally, we could also sell some Indian land to our neighbours and make a lot of money there too. Plus it will mean a smaller country to defend, hence more savings. Imagine the savings on fuel alone if our borders were nearer to Oil Refineries. And then we could reduce our sqn strength too. Give away the Mountain areas. They are an absolute headache to defend because of the cost, no?

Viv S wrote:Which[/i] mission is it exactly that the IAF will have to compromise on in the event of an MMRCA cancellation?

From an economist POV, there is just no mission that a HJT - 16 cannot do at what ... 1/10th cost of anything else. So not just the MMRCA, we can do without all other very expensive equipment. In emergency, we can sequester the Boeing 737, 747, Airbus 320 etc from the civil airlines and imagine the savings. Our economy is in such shitty situation that the IAF should work on Plan AWOL and not Plan A, B, C, D,.....

I apologies for being rude in advance because I am sure you are a great a guy in person, but yours is an argument which would have cut a lot of ice with the UPA II dispensation. These UPA types just couldn't see us in a position of strength. I am not in favour of any particular machine as long as we move ahead. Arguments like yours have caused a lot of delay and increased the price by some factors in all defence programme.

Mods, you can hang me now.

P.S. Can somebody reach MOD / FINMIN sources for the real news?

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 04 Jul 2014 14:40

Qn. is deejay, are you serious?

Do you or do you not agree that a great power like India will make its own aircraft and encourage its own mil-industrial complex?

Do you not see that the effort that is taken by oneself to master critical technologies, will serve it better in the long run?

Does ISRO run on the backs of large amounts of imported technology? Or are they globally competitive and well respected for the RnD that they have themselves done?

Ergo, I would like 20 bn$ spent on the LCA and other Indian designs, rather than the Rafale. There are other defence programs - artillery, IAC that need the funding too.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 Jul 2014 14:47

^^^^ Sir, I am not arguing against LCA development. I am all for it. Pls read my post Sir. You will get the drift.

On a different note and without malice and because this discussion is becoming impossible to reason with:

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 16:46

deejay wrote:On a different note and without malice and because this discussion is becoming impossible to reason with:

Viv S are you serious? You were writing from an Indian perspective, right? I know our economy could be better but are we in such a bad shape? If we are in so bad shape, why buy any fighters? Stop buying. I am sure the IAF can make do with what they have.

What do you mean 'are we in such bad shape'? Just when exactly did we become too uppity for second hand gear or leases? And that too just for a stop-gap acquisition.

Don't you think that if we have in time the LCA MK II then the very scarce money should be for more of MK II sqns and not MK I sqns. Or is adding better machines against the grain of present discussion? If cost be the only factor and the Indian economy in absolutely bad shape, why keep the IAF operational. Better, the GOI should put the money for MMRCA in Fixed Deposits @ x%. Imagine, the gains.

Mk2 production will start at the end of the decade. The Mk1 is available is available here and now.

From an economist POV, there is just no mission that a HJT - 16 cannot do at what ... 1/10th cost of anything else.

That's where you're wrong. The HJT-16 cannot do the job regardless of the numbers acquired.

I apologies for being rude in advance because I am sure you are a great a guy in person, but yours is an argument which would have cut a lot of ice with the UPA II dispensation. These UPA types just couldn't see us in a position of strength. I am not in favour of any particular machine as long as we move ahead. Arguments like yours have caused a lot of delay and increased the price by some factors in all defence programme.

Sir, I am not arguing against LCA development. I am all for it. Pls read my post Sir. You will get the drift.

Unfortunately, you haven't gotten the point at all vis a vis the Tejas' cost effectiveness. It isn't to cut down spending, its to maximize combat capability delivered for the same budget. To reiterate the point about the 'quality of quantity' -

CAS/Strike Role - 5 x Tejas will deliver a far greater net payload than 1 x Rafale. And can attack a widely dispersed target more efficiently.

CAP/Air Superiority - 1 x Super-30 + 2 x Tejas, with the former working as a mini-AEW&C/command post and the latter flying radar-silent ahead, can comfortably hold their own against a Rafale if not dominate it in a straight fight.

Air Defence - 1 x ERJ-145 AEW&C + 5 x Tejas wins against an ingressing fighter pair i.e 2 x Rafale. Every time.

Where the Rafale does have an advantage is at long range/deep strike, ISR and SEAD/DEAD missions, all three of which are a dicey proposition against a foe as formidable as the PLAAF and better suited to a fifth generation aircraft. Preferably the F-35, the PAK FA if not.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 04 Jul 2014 17:11

Statements like 'the LCA will form the backbone if IAF', 'more LCAs will be ordered as and when it "matures"' while supporting the MRCA buy reminds me of claim by a certain member whose nickname is 'maharaja' in the armoured vehicles thread that 3000 Arjun tanks will be eventually be bought (apart from 3000 T-90 for which he was rooting for).

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 04 Jul 2014 17:31

Viv S wrote:Just when exactly did we become too uppity for second hand gear or leases?

Sir right now we are a third world country but we definitely have first world ambition but not with second hand gear.
India being poor ...poor etc have been hearing for ever and honestly I don't believe that we are a poor country. Right now may be our economic growth rate is down but we are definitely not out. The Rafale deal money will be spread across years and 5-7 years down the line situation will be very different.
We made a mistake in 80's with not having Mirage production line due to cost, India did not become rich with that, we had economic crisis with or without Mirage production line, but now on the hindsight most will agree that it was not a very smart decision and now we are paying 100 times more.

Viv S wrote:Mk2 production will start at the end of the decade. The Mk1 is available is available here and now.

Yes I am eager to see the MK1 in service and more enthusiastic about the MK.2 which I genuinely wish beat the Gripen E hands down.
But Sorry right now I don't see either of them.

Viv S wrote:CAS/Strike Role - 5 x Tejas will deliver a far greater net payload than 1 x Rafale. And can attack a widely dispersed target more efficiently.

CAP/Air Superiority - 1 x Super-30 + 2 x Tejas, with the former working as a mini-AEW&C/command post and the latter flying radar-silent ahead, can comfortably hold their own against a Rafale if not dominate it in a straight fight.

Air Defence - 1 x ERJ-145 AEW&C + 5 x Tejas wins against an ingressing fighter pair i.e 2 x Rafale. Every time.

Can you please provide some link which provides some details about how the above conclusion has been reached.
If the above is true then HAL is doing a great disservice by not producing the first 20 Tejas ASAP.

Viv S wrote:all three of which are a dicey proposition against a foe as formidable as the PLAAF and better suited to a fifth generation aircraft

BTW just heard that all the F 35's are grounded.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2014 18:04

other a better and more integrated EW suite, I am not sure what exactly the Rafale brings to the table over the Super30 in the DPSA role.
the Super30 is faster, carries a heavier payload, has no need for draggy drop tanks wasting the strongest pylons and comes readymade with a WSO station.

sure the meteor is great if we can afford the porsche cayenne turbo-S type price tag. which we cant.
the astra mk1 and mk2 are coming along, so is the replacement for R77 hence no urgent need for Mica.

AASM is probably the trump card for rafale, but again very expensive compared to american munitions like JDAM, Paveway and SDB. if at all we need smart munitions of that nature, FMS deal can be sought. they have been widely sold and should not be a hurdle to get.

the french cannot teach us how to build a AMCA or IOC Kaveri even if they wanted to because that knowledge is data banks(no can share) and peopleware(who wants indian passport, not even indians want indian passport)

it will be the biggest license making honey pot for HAL to feed on a grow lazy again, rather than actually using their creativity on the Tejas production and climbing the curve.

treatment for kids addicted to crack/gaming is not more of it , but a spell of detox and pushing into more productive work.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 18:26

dhiraj wrote:Sir right now we are a third world country but we definitely have first world ambition but not with second hand gear.

And just what's wrong with second hand gear? We aren't talking about a rusted out jalopy. These are aircraft operated and maintained by professional air forces that are being retired very early or have been near grounded, for reasons of cost.

The Rafale deal money will be spread across years and 5-7 years down the line situation will be very different.

And 5-7 years down the line we can enter the luxury market again. The Chinese on the other hand will continue to induct cost effective aircraft.

We made a mistake in 80's with not having Mirage production line due to cost, India did not become rich with that, we had economic crisis with or without Mirage production line, but now on the hindsight most will agree that it was not a very smart decision and now we are paying 100 times more.

Would the Mirage acquired in strength have sufficed for our current requirements? As if so, how exactly is the Tejas Mk1 lacking in comparison?

Also, for the record the monumental blunders started with the HF-24 not with the Mirage 2000, which was a very expensive purchase even in the 80s.

Viv S wrote:Mk2 production will start at the end of the decade. The Mk1 is available is available here and now.
Yes I am eager to see the MK1 in service and more enthusiastic about the MK.2 which I genuinely wish beat the Gripen E hands down.
But Sorry right now I don't see either of them.

Did you not see the Mk1 at Live Wire? Its achieved its IOC and will have FOC cleared by year end. Its a lot less illusory than the Rafale, which is many years away from induction (at least half decade for a HAL delivered fighter).

Can you please provide some link which provides some details about how the above conclusion has been reached.
If the above is true then HAL is doing a great disservice by not producing the first 20 Tejas ASAP.

Information is all available open source. You'll find most of it in the LCA thread.

- The Tejas' payload and load capacity is known. Multiple by it by five.
- The Super-30's radar range can be guessed at (comparable or better than the Su-35's Irbis-E). Thoroughly outranging the Rafale's RBE-2AA in either case.
- Here's a pic of the Su-30 acting as an air-to-air refueler. With plenty of surplus fuel, it can operate as a mothership for supporting Tejas fighters.
- The ERJ-145 AEW&C predictably has a long sensor range, a comprehensive EW suite and costs less (approx $120M) than the Rafale ($140M+).

Viv S wrote:all three of which are a dicey proposition against a foe as formidable as the PLAAF and better suited to a fifth generation aircraft
BTW just heard that all the F 35's are grounded.

The F135 engine has safely flown over 30,000 hours but they're clearly not taking any chances.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 04 Jul 2014 19:35

Viv S wrote:- The Tejas' payload and load capacity is known. Multiple by it by five

OK, I was not aware that we calculate an aircraft's cost efficiency and effectiveness this way.

Viv S wrote:The Super-30's radar range can be guessed at

When is the Super - 30 coming and what will be the cost ?

Viv S wrote:The Chinese on the other hand will continue to induct cost effective aircraft.

?
Who cares what the Chinese do. They are sending humans to space.

Viv S wrote:As if so, how exactly is the Tejas Mk1 lacking in comparison?

No one answers my question as to what is preventing MK.1 production right now.Yes it will be a good aircraft but Rafale is in no way replacing Tejas, nor did the Su 30's. All of them have their own role and usage. Jags and Mig 27 did not replace the Mig 21 right ?

Viv S wrote:Would the Mirage acquired in strength have sufficed for our current requirements?

Yes , it would have given a jump start to the aviation industry in the 80's. Please check the link that I had provided in an earlier post about what was on offer by the French then. It would have helped Tejas and probably we would have been rolling out AMCA now.

Off the shelf F 35 will not make us independent in aviation tech for sure, but Rafale deal with the TOT promise could be helpful. However would add if after spending such a big amount for Rafale if we don't exploit the deal to our best interest then it is all our fault and blunder continues.....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jul 2014 19:49

Who cares what the Chinese do

Errr........

{Indian Army is raising an entire Corps, an attack one nonetheless. May be you should inform the FinMin and get it cancelled?}

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 04 Jul 2014 19:55

NRao wrote:Quote:
Who cares what the Chinese do

Errr........

{Indian Army is raising an entire Corps, an attack one nonetheless. May be you should inform the FinMin and get it cancelled?}

Ok, what i meant was that if Chinese are inducting one type of plane does not mean we induct same type/capability. We induct the type which we think meets our defensive/offensive requirement vis-a-vis others capabilities.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jul 2014 20:05

M-2000 upgrades are hideously expensive.Almost the cost of a single new MIG-29K! The cost of the M-2000UG is $2.4B for just approx. 50 aircraft. This works out to almost $50M per aircraft.The cost of the MIG-29UG is just $900M for 69 aircraft to UPG std.,the most advanced MIG-29 variant.Some have already been delivered.This works out to just under $15M.In other words,we can upgrade 3 MIG-29s for the cost of just one M-2000 .The cost of the MIG-29Ks for the IN also came in at only $32M per aircraft. One can imagine the escalation costs of the Rafale and the cost of upgrades to it in the future taking a cue from the cost of an M-2000 upgrade.plumped for Gripens.
Brazil which almost signed on for the Rafale finally gave it up becos of the cost factor and have [lumped for the Gripen.Let'ss see what the new dispensation does.

Here is a not too old a piece on the same issue,cost of the Rafale.Of course its sales talk but makes some very pertinent points.

With the MiG-29 on steroids, who needs the Rafale
September 3, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
With the air defence MiG-29s being upgraded to an advanced multirole aircraft, the Indian Air Force could save more than $10 billion by scratching the Rafale.

More than a year after the French Rafale won the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) dogfight, a contract is nowhere in sight – forget the delivery date. Not only is it the usual drawn-out drama that comes with India’s defence acquisitions, it is also clear the French have overpromised on the technology transfer provisions and now want to welch out.

The delay in the signing of the MMRCA contract, along with the high-octane upgrade of the Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-29 Fulcrum and the advanced state of gestation of India’s fifth generation fighter, the Sukhoi PAK-FA, are creating a situation where the Rafale seems superfluous to India’s defence requirements.

The biggest game changer is the ongoing upgrade to the IAF’s Fulcrum fleet which will convert them to the MiG-29SMT. This means these aircraft will now be on a par with the advanced MiG-29M. “The MiG-29SMT upgrade will represent a major step forward for the aircraft on multiple fronts,” says Air Force Technology.
Military
Read section:
Defence and Security

Most Indian Fulcrums are MiG-29Bs, downgraded by removing Russian IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) and datalink equipment, and a subpar radar. (This is standard practice by all manufacturing nations which reserve the most advanced versions for their own defence forces while exporting stepped down models.)

The IAF has speeded up the MiG-29B upgrade programme because of two factors.

One, an impending fighter crunch. Hundreds of MiG-21 interceptors and MiG-23 interceptors and fighter bombers have been retired, and the long-serving MiG-27 ground attack fighter won’t be around very long. The 118 British Jaguars – which have been highly accident prone – may also have to be withdrawn from their deep penetration roles in view of the improvement in air defences in India’s neighbourhood.

Secondly, India’s Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, which was to have filled the void created by the MiG-21’s exit, remains flight shy. The three-decade long programme is suffering from all sorts of problems, leaving India with a huge gap in its light interceptor fleet.

MiG-29 on steroids

Defense Industry Daily (DID) reports the 62 upgraded MiG-29s – 54 single-seat fighters and 8 trainers – will join the Mirage-2000 fleet in the IAF’s multirole middle-tier category. This is a category that is above the MiG-21s/27s and below the Sukhoi-30 MKIs. The upgrade will change their role from air-superiority planes to full multirole fighters with modern air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

The planes will be fitted with upgraded weapons and a new avionics suite, including the Phazatron Zhuk-ME radar. The Zhuk-ME’s acquisition range has increased 1.5 times. It also adds terrain following mode, and ground target acquisition including high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to obtain a better picture than is possible with conventional radar.

After the $964 million upgrade, the Fulcrums are expected to remain in service for 10-15 more years, with their safe flight-hour lifetimes extended from 25 years/2,500 hours to 40 years/3,500 hours.

The IAF is also bulking up its middle tier by upgrading its 51 Mirage 2000s to a standard similar to the latest Mirage 2000-5. Flying with new radar and new weapons, the upgraded fighters can be expected to serve until around 2030.

Including aircraft under order, India’s Sukhoi-30 MKI fleet is currently pegged at 272. It is an impressive number for such a high-end and expensive weapons platform. This shows a keen sense of judgement by the IAF, which realizes that 100 percent fleet utilisation is impossible and having a large number of aircraft around is the key to getting the job done.

“These aircraft will be the high end of India’s air power, and can be expected to remain in the force past 2030, and are competitive with or superior to top-end European fighters and American F-15 variants,” says DID.

Even allowing for the inevitable delays – with India insisting on various customisations – Sukhoi’s fifth generation stealth fighter will be entering service well before 2030. Under these circumstances, the Rafale is too late to the party.

Rafale: Reasons for buying

To be sure, the primary reason for selecting a Western aircraft – ahead of more potent Russian alternatives – is to reduce dependence on one vendor country.

The other objective is to acquire the full technology suite of a modern aircraft for local production. French technology is being pitched as the magic potion that will save the Tejas programme, while also providing a large boost to aerospace and defence electronics industries in India. Basically, it will allow India to move up from screwdriver technology to building entire fighter aircraft from scratch.

But will Dassault, which builds the Rafale, oblige? The French newspaper L’Usine Nouvelle cites complex electronics, and especially the Thales AESA radar, as being difficult to transfer. The Delhi-based Daily Pioneer predicts a “stream of news reports that we’ve already heard a thousand times before will come out telling us how unprepared our institutions are to receive this technology”.

There is no reason for the IAF to accept a downgraded Rafale. In view of the massive fall in living standards in the West in general and mass unemployment in France in particular, it is France, not India that has to compromise. The alternative for Dassault is the closure of its Rafale plant. Someone should sit with the French and show them the mirror.

The IAF is clear that it does not want to repeat the story of the HF-24 Marut fighter – the first Indian supersonic aircraft – which was developed in the 1960s by HAL and the freelancing German aerospace engineer Kurt Tank. Like the Tejas, the Marut too was an underpowered aircraft that was quietly retired.

If the French do not deliver the technology, there is no point spending billions on sterile imports – unless someone in the vicinity of South Block is seriously committed to kickbacks.

Rafale’s costs may defy gravity

Another problem with the Rafale is the ballooning cost. The MMRCA was a requirement of the 2000s but the extended competition has inflated costs to stratospheric levels – from $10 billion a decade ago to around $20 billion, according to the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies & Analysis (IDSA). Plus, nobody reckoned with the falling rupee, which has also increased the cost per plane.

DID believes the 100 or so Rafales would offer some compatibilities with the upgraded Mirage 2000s, but will come at about twice the Sukhoi-30 MKI’s price. “If budget pressures intervene and Tejas continues to lag, India could be forced to buy a less expensive mid-tier plane instead,” it says.

Assembly of MiG-29K naval fighters (video)

That plane could well be the MiG-29SMT. Its variant, the MiG-35 could easily replace the Rafale if India scratches the MMRCA and opts for a government to government deal instead.

Need for spending wisely

Acquiring the Rafale at such a prohibitive cost is extravagance which India cannot afford at a time when economic growth has hit an embarrassing 5 percent and the rupee is in free fall. “While it was presumed a few years ago that funds for defence would not be a constraint in the future, a slowing economy has led to these funds being curtailed,” says the IDSA. “The writing on the wall is clear: resource constraints are looming for the armed forces.”

When advanced Russian aircraft are available for less than half the price of the Rafale, it would be prudent to wait before signing on the line that is dotted. The money can be better spent on beefing up the Tejas programme. For the kind of cash we are talking, there is a hell of a lot of red hot technology that cash strapped defence companies in the West will part with.

Related articles

India celebrates ‘Golden Jubilee’ of MiG-21’s association with the IAF
Russia to supply 10 military aircraft to India and Vietnam this year
MiG-29 service centre to open in India in 2015

Tags
rafale mig-29 indian air forces
Sukhoi-30MKI is India’s fallback fighter

Faced with a serious fighter crunch, the Indian Air Force is opting for more numbers of its proven war bird, the Flanker, to maintain air dominance

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 20:09

dhiraj wrote:OK, I was not aware that we calculate an aircraft's cost efficiency and effectiveness this way.

Five aircraft will carry five times the payload, nothing complex about it.

When is the Super - 30 coming and what will be the cost ?

If sanctioned now, they can get it before the HAL built Rafales.

Who cares what the Chinese do. They are sending humans to space.

The MoD cares. BRFites cares (why do you think we have a 'China Military Watch' thread?). The world cares. I care and you should too.

Every development in the military sphere in China has an impact on Indian defence. If they're maximizing cost effectiveness through domestic products, then given their already larger budgets that's a doubly serious situation for India.

No one answers my question as to what is preventing MK.1 production right now.

What's holding up Mk1 production is a lack of orders, without which investment in scaled up production capacity isn't feasible.

Yes it will be a good aircraft but Rafale is in no way replacing Tejas, nor did the Su 30's. All of them have their own role and usage. Jags and Mig 27 did not replace the Mig 21 right ?

I see. And which aircraft is the Rafale replacing that the Tejas can't?

Viv S wrote:Would the Mirage acquired in strength have sufficed for our current requirements?
Yes , it would have given a jump start to the aviation industry in the 80's. Please check the link that I had provided in an earlier post about what was on offer by the French then. It would have helped Tejas and probably we would have been rolling out AMCA now.

If the Mirage 2000 can suffice, so can the Tejas. 'Rolling out AMCA by now' is completely absurd statement. License building the Jaguars and MiG-27s for years didn't expedite the Tejas program. Nor would license producing the Mirage have brought us closer to the AMCA (its no more sophisticated than the Su-30MKI that we do build).

Off the shelf F 35 will not make us independent in aviation tech for sure, but Rafale deal with the TOT promise could be helpful. However would add if after spending such a big amount for Rafale if we don't exploit the deal to our best interest then it is all our fault and blunder continues.....

The nodal agency for the Tejas and AMCA is ADA supported by labs like LRDE, DARE, ADE, NAL etc. Expecting development in that sector to be propelled by ToT-enabled license manufacturing at HAL, BEL, Reliance & Co. will indeed be a colossal blunder.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 04 Jul 2014 20:28

Viv S wrote:Five aircraft will carry five times the payload, nothing complex about it.

Did you really believe that I agreed with your formula

Viv S wrote:The MoD cares. BRFites cares (why do you think we have a 'China Military Watch' thread?). The world cares. I care and you should too.

Every development in the military sphere in China has an impact on Indian defence.

Already clarified in my previous post.

Viv S wrote:What's holding up Mk1 production is a lack of orders, without which investment in scaled up production capacity isn't feasible.

Really

, I heard HAL is a DPSU and does things on government orders so where does investment and feasibility comes into picture.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jul 2014 20:55

dhiraj wrote:Did you really believe that I agreed with your formula

What 'formula'? Its simple addition. Or do you actually think that a single Rafale can deliver more payload than five Tejas aircraft.

Already clarified in my previous post.

Clarification duly incorporated in my previous post.

Really , I heard HAL is a DPSU and does things on government orders so where does investment and feasibility comes into picture.

HAL has orders for 20 Tejas Mk1 and a commitment for 20 more. Has the govt ordered it to deliver all 40 in four years? If the govt specifically asks them to HAL up capacity, it'll scale up capacity and deliver them faster.

And once deliveries are complete the infrastructure can sit and collect dust the way the Arjun's production line is Avadi is doing.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Jul 2014 21:45

The concern at the moment is not so much numbers as diversification and secondarily, top-notch performance it seems. Otherwise, there are plenty of options available at a fraction of the cost. Remember, at the current rate it is very unlikely for the IAF to get more than 40 Rafales before the end of the decade. This number can be achieved quite easily - It would be good if the IAF picked up the new build MiG-29Ms available via Syria along with some M-2000s and SMTs. Or to keep matters simple, order another 40 or so MKI, btw the latter, I think, is IAF's plan B - a quick emergency buy of another 40MKIs). At the moment, the lure of the Rafale is enough for IAF to hold off.

After this decade, the Tejas mk2 should be available and so should the Pakfa (if not the FGFA). On another note, while the Tejas Mk1 may not be considered a substitute for the MRCA (lacks payload, endurance); the Bisons will be retiring post 2018, and the Mk1 should be set up as replacement at that time if not earlier - don't see why an additional order of 40 frames post FOC is not possible.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 Jul 2014 21:57

Viv S,

Firstly appreciate your sane reply to my stupid post.

Next I have a few questions based on what your post said:

The Tejas' payload and load capacity is known. Multiple by it by five.

a) In the above do you mean to say that 01 x Rafale mission will be handled by 05 x LCA Mk I's?
b) 126 MMRCA to be replaced by 126 LCA MK I's or 126 x 5 LCA MK I's?
c) Will the LCA MK I's in (b) above be over and above the planned / rumored induction of 200 (approx) LCA Mk I's & LCA Mk II's?
d) The SU 30 MKI as an IFR will refuel how many LCA MK I on a single mission of say twice the range of LCA MK I ?

TIA.

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Jul 2014 21:57

Four years ago, the new Sukhoi cost was pegged at $100 million per plane. From http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=64452. I'm using the conversion rate of that time - around INR50 for 1 USD.

The Defence Acquisition Council has accepted a proposal for the procurement of 42 Sukhoi-30 MKI aircraft from M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, India. The proposal is being further progressed for submitting to the Cabinet Committee on Security. The estimated cost of the project is Rs. 20107.40 crores and the aircraft is planned to be delivered during 2014-2018. The proposal is being progressed as a repeat order from M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, India under the Defence Procurement Procedure-2008.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri Asaduddin Owaisi in Lok Sabha today.

So - if now a Rafale costs $120M per plane (let us assume TOT standard is that of Sukhoi), the argument that Sukhoi is cheaper than Rafale as far as capital expense goes, is no longer valid.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jul 2014 23:21

Well, it seems we're back to building castles in the air with arguments like 4 Tejas for 1 Rafale! Sure, 4 Tejas a/c will do a relay to deliver the payload across the Himalayan ridge line if need is required.

- The way force is structured today and the projected squadron strength, there is a certain number of squadrons which will be filled by Tejas Mk1 and Mk2. Between 9-10 squadrons.

- It is a convenient statement to make that decline in numbers can be arrested by purchase of Mig-29 variants or second hand mirages from Gulf nation(s) w/o getting into long term ramification of this decision. Whatever fighter gets inducted over next couple of years will need to serve the IAF for next 25 years at the minimum. Which of these 'interim' purchases have the capability to evolve over next 25 years and stay relevant?

- And the induction of this 'interim' measure of 7 odd squadrons would have an impact on generational rollover of fighters in coming years and force structure - So, while older generation Su-30 MKI may get replaced by FGFA towards latter half of coming decade, M2K/Mig-29 will become the new Mig-21 of IAF. And while I don't use the word obsolete for weapons that easily, they'd still be at evolutionary dead end before they even started out.

Long story short - whatever gets inducted into IAF now under MMRCA category, has to stay relevant for next 2 decades minimum (with upgrades, of course) + help in arresting the number decline + provide the per unit technological advantage to fight the dragon and two front war - if required.