IAF Rafale News and Discussions - 26 May 2015

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 01 Sep 2015 23:02

Defence Ministry body gives go ahead for purchase of 36 Rafale jets from France.

The Defence Acquisition Council on Tuesday gave the go ahead to further negotiations

for purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France talks for which had got stalled, reviving hopes of the deal going through.

The defence ministry's top acquisition council, which met here this evening under the chairmanship of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, also cleared a Rs 6,966 crore deal for the purchase of 48 Mi17-V5 helicopters from Russia. The hardy, medium-lift choppers have been a huge asset for the air force.

Approval was also granted for the purchase of seven additional squadrons of Akash missiles for the air force and eight Chetak helicopters for the navy.

However, the DAC did not take a decision on the navy's proposal to acquire over 100 utility helicopters. Neither did it take a decision on going ahead with P75I submarine tenders worth over Rs 60,000 crore.

"The negotiating committee apprised the DAC about the progress made so far. The DAC asked it to go ahead and proceed," defence ministry sources said about what transpired at the meeting with regard to Rafale aircraft.

Defence sources said this means that the deadlock has been broken. India's insistence on 50 per cent off-set clause, tweaking of weaponry technology and plans to set up two bases for Rafale fighter jets were some of the issues which had cropped up during the recent talks that began after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the decision to acquire 36 Rafales during his trip to France in April.

If things proceed smoothly, a government-to-government agreement between India and France could be signed soon, paving the way for the final contract for the purchase of the fighter jets. Meanwhile, the trip of French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who was expected to arrive tonight, has been delayed. Though defence ministry officials were tight-lipped about the reason for deferment of the visit, sources said he would arrive soon.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 01 Sep 2015 23:11

Meanwhile, French Mindef officialy submitted an offer for 18 rafales to Malaysia with attractive loan conditions and this offer is currently being investigated by Malaysia.

http://www.europe1.fr/economie/le-drian ... ie-2508261
http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/en-malaisie ... 987_24.php

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2015 01:56

Austin wrote:Excellent News on Rafale , Persistence Pays

For Dassault perhaps.

Austin wrote:Karan , With reduction of Rafale numbe to 36r , they are better off spending more money on Tejas and MKI , Add 4-5 more squadrons of Tejas Mk2/Mk1 and 2 Squadron of Super MKI

I think 6 Squadron of Tejas/MKI would still cost lower then 3 Squadron of Rafale plus Make in India built into it.

Increasing the number of types be it JSF or Gripen will only add logistical complexity and behold we are back to 80's with 40 of each type.

Streamlining the number of fighter types and Weapons standardisation would go a long way in reducing the cost and complexity of maintaining them

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Sep 2015 05:00

Wonder which base will house the 2 Rafale squadrons? 36 airframes.
Hope we order at least two more now that this is a done deal, to rationalize the numbers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Sep 2015 05:04

Avarachan wrote:2) France desperately needed a launch customer for the Rafale. In my opinion, it's not an accident that after India's selection, there was renewed interest in the Rafale from multiple countries. The IAF is globally respected.

Yup, the IAF MMRCA decision was savvily used by the french. We got nothing out of it. Thats how it is.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2015 05:09

Is the price at $8 billion or less?

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 05:19

Karan M wrote:Wonder which base will house the 2 Rafale squadrons? 36 airframes.
Hope we order at least two more now that this is a done deal, to rationalize the numbers.

This was the original plan:
IAF fighter deal: Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon; govt rules out review

...
IAF has already identified Ambala and Jodhpur airbases in the western sector, followed by Hashimara in the eastern sector, to house the first MMRCA squadrons.
...

My guess would be one in the Western sector (Ambala) and if second base provision then one in the Eastern sector (Hashimara).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2015 07:26

pandyan wrote:What is logic behind two bases throwing a spanner during negotiations? why would dassault care if there is one base or three bases?

Not sure if I was the one who raised this bases bogey on BRF. But the Rafale, like the Mirage 2000 requires some very specialised ground support equipment to be placed in a base of its own with personnel trained to use that equipment and possibly some data collection that helps the manufacturer keep a steady supply of parts and support. Duplicating all that in more than one base is going to cost more - even if the Air Force has only 2 Rafales.

Mind you there is some guesswork here on my part but things have changed a lot in recent years. For example I read that the C-17 has a computer that calculates the best approach for a particular landing so that the least possible stress is placed on the airframe, thus prolonging airframe life. I can well imagine that the Rafale may have electronics that keep a tab on stresses and temperatures etc to decide when the next inspection of some gizmo or other is required. But that data only gets collected in the main maintenance base.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 Sep 2015 08:10

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Excellent News on Rafale , Persistence Pays
For Dassault perhaps.

Austin wrote:Karan , With reduction of Rafale numbe to 36r , they are better off spending more money on Tejas and MKI , Add 4-5 more squadrons of Tejas Mk2/Mk1 and 2 Squadron of Super MKI

I think 6 Squadron of Tejas/MKI would still cost lower then 3 Squadron of Rafale plus Make in India built into it.

Increasing the number of types be it JSF or Gripen will only add logistical complexity and behold we are back to 80's with 40 of each type.

Streamlining the number of fighter types and Weapons standardisation would go a long way in reducing the cost and complexity of maintaining them

We just cant seem to hit that manufacturing sweet spot. Frustrating. It'll probably go up to 90. Sigh, at least it's over now. Like Karan said, I doubt we'll get anything for this uber expensive pos but hey, at least our IAF guys will have their beamer to show off to the Pakis when the look up. LGB release with style

.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 08:53

pandyan wrote:What is logic behind two bases throwing a spanner during negotiations? why would dassault care if there is one base or three bases?

Dassault wouldn't care if money was no limit. Indians want setup of two airbases included in that Modi's handshake deal for 36 Rafales for around $8 billion. Basically, French want more money and India does not want to pay more.

Rafale deal: Pricing issues, India's insistence on 50% local spending lead to missing of July target

...
Defence minister Manohar Parrikar, however, has been insisting on 50% offset (he told ET this in an interview published on May 11) and Indian negotiators have been asking for this as well. The French have argued 50% offset obligation will not allow them to sell the jets at the price agreed upon in Paris in April. The deal size — less than $8 billion, as agreed during Modi's France visit — will also go up, officials say, if the Indian Air Force plan to create two bases for Rafale jets is accepted. Two bases will require separate, high-cost infrastructure as well as two sets of maintenance, training and armaments storage facilities.

There's also the issue of integrating third country weapon systems in French-made Indian Rafale jets. This integration will also drive up costs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 09:15

Regarding customizations, wise words from Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj, Deputy Project Director of the N-LCA program, with whom Kartik spoke at AeroIndia 2013:

...
- Said how the LCA is designed as per the Test Pilot’s recommendations- whatever they want, ADA/HAL give it to them. He said let the IAF get the Rafale and then ask for these small changes and then they’ll figure out just how hard it is to get anything they want. On the N-LCA, we can integrate whatever we want, and for the entire lifetime of the fighter. Easier upgrades will be available since everything is known about the aircraft to the designers
...

And then behold French stance when it comes to integrating 3rd-party weapons. Maybe ... but will cost you lot extra! For the entire life of Rafale, India will need to pay exorbitant amount to the French to do any modifications.

Rafale deal: Pricing issues, India's insistence on 50% local spending lead to missing of July target

...
There's also the issue of integrating third country weapon systems in French-made Indian Rafale jets. This integration will also drive up costs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Sep 2015 10:00

if at all its going to be one base, better invest in enlarging hashimara and use that. the only faint justification for this to deal with cheen and hashimara occupies a strategic position at bottom of chicken neck.

look east . act east.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2015 10:05

Karan M wrote:Wonder which base will house the 2 Rafale squadrons? 36 airframes.
Hope we order at least two more now that this is a done deal, to rationalize the numbers.

I suspect the IAF insistence on having at least 2 bases to house the Rafales is being done with an eye on exactly that- a possible growth in the fleet size to around 4 squadrons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 10:09

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:Excellent News on Rafale , Persistence Pays
For Dassault perhaps.

Austin wrote:Karan , With reduction of Rafale numbe to 36r , they are better off spending more money on Tejas and MKI , Add 4-5 more squadrons of Tejas Mk2/Mk1 and 2 Squadron of Super MKI

I think 6 Squadron of Tejas/MKI would still cost lower then 3 Squadron of Rafale plus Make in India built into it.

Increasing the number of types be it JSF or Gripen will only add logistical complexity and behold we are back to 80's with 40 of each type.

Streamlining the number of fighter types and Weapons standardisation would go a long way in reducing the cost and complexity of maintaining them

For every body , a progress is better than stalemate and since all parties are interested to get this done......

You are more than happy to criticize any deal with french and russia on some or the other grounds but then more than happy to Justify any US deals

I am sure if this was F-18/F-16 the tone of many here would have been much different

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 10:14

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:Wonder which base will house the 2 Rafale squadrons? 36 airframes.
Hope we order at least two more now that this is a done deal, to rationalize the numbers.
I suspect the IAF insistence on having at least 2 bases to house the Rafales is being done with an eye on exactly that- a possible growth in the fleet size to around 4 squadrons.

May be something to do with M2K experience , IAF has has Gwalior base as the only base housing M2K.

But during crisies they can always deploy on FAB , like they did during Kargil.

Mostly has to do with BRD type facilities built in these bases to get the aircraft operational in shortest time and facilities to manage weapons/maintenance etc , Though as with past deals I am sure Rafale number will eventually grow as IAF makes it operational

member_29151 · Post by **member_29151** » 02 Sep 2015 10:58

finally! Some News !!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 12:32

Rafale Fighter Jet Deal Takes Big Step Forward

NDTV has learnt that the French government may now have indicated to the government of India its willingness to set up a third line to manufacture Rafale fighters in future. This, the French argue, will go towards meeting its mandatory offset requirements in the deal in the future.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2015 13:58

Austin wrote:For every body , a progress is better than stalemate and since all parties are interested to get this done......

You are more than happy to criticize any deal with french and russia on some or the other grounds but then more than happy to Justify any US deals

I'm just repeating your criticism of the deal boss. A justified criticism at that. And only an entrenched bureaucracy would welcome a bad deal as a symbol of progress/achievement.

Also, deals with France and Russia are more than welcome as long as what they're offering is the best combination of reliability & value available in the market, and just as importantly, do not impinge upon a domestic program. The deal for Mi-17s, for example, is an excellent decision, as would be one for follow-on Scorpenes from MDL.

I am sure if this was F-18/F-16 the tone of many here would have been much different

It wouldn't, by and large. Well... not for these two aircraft at least.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2015 14:05

Austin wrote:Rafale Fighter Jet Deal Takes Big Step Forward

NDTV has learnt that the French government may now have indicated to the government of India its willingness to set up a third line to manufacture Rafale fighters in future. This, the French argue, will go towards meeting its mandatory offset requirements in the deal in the future.

:groan:

So the French govt has indicated its willingness to reconstruct the scrapped MMRCA deal. I don't think this decision would have required much introspection or debate on their part. I don't see the MoD accepting the 'offer' as an acceptable offset, given that it will inevitably require India to place substantial follow-on orders at a somewhat higher price or agree to a sign the current order at a hugely higher price.

On a different note, the news suggests that the 50% offset situation has not been resolved yet.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 02 Sep 2015 14:21

My problem was never with the aircraft but with the people pushing it, seems like they have been told to get in line else loose the deal, well glad that at least IAF gets something out of it. Agree with Karan, a 36 aircraft deal is hardly scratching the surface, the deal size should be at least 90 (remaining 3 under make in India). 5 Squads would make sense, 1 squad at Eastern Air command/Hasimara (facing China) & 2nd at Ambala (Western Air command, with Easy access to both Pak & China) 3rd squad should be at Bareilly, housing one of Asia's largest underground aircraft hardened shelters (central air command) & 4th Squad at Jodhpur (South Western Air command) & 5th squad at Thanjavur or Car Nicobar (Southern Air Command).

Till Astra Mk-2 gets ready, I Derby-ER, Python-5 should be integrated on it along with the Israeli HMD, perhaps the latest Litening Pods. Surdarshan LGB, Griffin Mk-3 Kits and most importantly the CBU-105 SFW need to be integrated on it. Eventually Brahmos-M too along side home made ARM.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Sep 2015 14:36

Integrating a lot or even some of those weapons is going to cost a lot of time and money with the french since this deal has little to no tech transfer. At least the deal has or will soon go through and we can put the speculation to rest. The IAF has to now manage and devise tactics and operating concepts to get the most impact with a much smaller fleet. At least its out of the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 14:36

Viv S wrote:You are more than happy to criticize any deal with french and russia on some or the other grounds but then more than happy to Justify any US deals

I'm just repeating your criticism of the deal boss. A justified criticism at that. And only an entrenched bureaucracy would welcome a bad deal as a symbol of progress/achievement.[/quote]

I am not criticizing the Rafale deal , I wished they got 126 but then if GOI thinks 36 for then as MOD Parrikar said it they will use it to buy Tejas and MKI

Though I dont think 36 would be the last number for Rafale , lets see.

I am sure if this was F-18/F-16 the tone of many here would have been much different

It wouldn't, by and large. Well... not for these two aircraft at least.[/quote]

Oh come on , only the teens were part of MMRCA ........JSF is not even in the picture by a mile

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Sep 2015 14:45

At the prices being thrown around 126 Aircraft would not have made any sense. At the original $12 Billion sure, but as we will soon learn getting 126 @ $12 Billion with TOT is going to be impossible when 36 Come at around $5.5-$8 Billion (without TOT or local production) or thereabouts. If the MMRCA set out to achieve an affordable acquisition of 126 fighters (which $12 billion for 126 western fighters with TOT and production essentially is) than the cost should have been a part of the trade space alongside capability. Since it wasn't, the IAF picked the 2 best aircraft and based on the cost submitted one was chosen to carry the negotiations forward. The entire MMRCA (crafted by the previous govt.) was unrealistic to begin with. The only aircraft you could possibly get with full TOT and local products for $12 Billion are the F-16 and perhaps the Gripen, both of which did not meet the technical parameters of the IAF. Global military acquisition practices have evolved over the last few decades with more and more militaries pitting cost (and some even Life cycle Cost) right alongside the performance when it comes to large-scale acquisition programs, as opposed to doing it in stages where first they pick based on technical parameters and then look at which investment costs less. I believe the previous government and the MOD did analyze life-cycle-cost but from what I can gather they did not manage to accurately assess the cost of buying technology, and setting everything up for local production which would vary greatly when one compares a modern 4.5 generation Rafale or typhoon to a much older F-16 for example.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 15:00

MMRCA never started with some fixed money in mind to buy xyz types , it just started as competition to buy a medium aircraft based on internal tender.

The whole $12 to 20 billion price tag came at a later stage of the very delayed deal . Delayed because IAF expressed medium aircraft purchase in 1999 after Kargil and more specifically asked for M2K

But after a decade and half when every thing was settled down the GOI realised it didnt have that kind of money to buy the aircraft in numbers that IAF originally demanded , so they just went for 2nd best option to buy 36 outright with the funding that allowed them to buy it.

Had the MMRCA tendering process was done by says 2003 and selection done by 2004-5 the money spent on it would have been much different compared to 10 years later

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2015 16:30

I think that the idea that we could have had 270 MKI, 126 Rafale, 40 Mirage 2000, 60 (??) MiG 29, 80 (??) Jaguar and 200 LCA for a 45 squadron Air Force was a delusion from the outset. With MKI and Rafale in large numbers the LCA would simply have been squeezed out.

36 Rafale and a possible later order of another squadron will put some pressure on al parties concerned to get the LCA and any follow up aircraft like Mark 1.25, 1.27, 1.36, 1,5, and Mark 2 into squadron service and giving indigenous industry a chance to enter the rough and tumble of military aircraft production

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Sep 2015 16:38

Austin wrote:I am not criticizing the Rafale deal , I wished they got 126 but then if GOI thinks 36 for then as MOD Parrikar said it they will use it to buy Tejas and MKI

Though I dont think 36 would be the last number for Rafale , lets see.

The current deal for 36 aircraft delivered off-the-shelf will cost $8-9 billion according to our own Vishnu Som.

Unofficial estimates indicate the deal for 36 jets could cost the exchequer $8 to $9 billion. - NDTV

So in your opinion, what would a 126 Rafale deal with full ToT, progressive indigenization and local production cost?

Also, the theoretical 'savings' that will go towards buying Tejas and MKIs by hugely downsizing the order still leaves your original criticism (albeit directed at the F-35/Gripen) intact - the introduction of limited numbers of an entirely new type of aircraft will be a further logistical headache for an already absurdly diverse IAF fighter fleet.

Oh come on , only the teens were part of MMRCA ........JSF is not even in the picture by a mile

The MMRCA is dead. Folks are looking at an entirely different picture today. One where the F-35 is already operational and less than 24 months away from maturity.

(If you mean "what if the F-16/SH had been selected in 2012 and found itself in Rafale's shoes today" - I believe criticism on the forum would have been just as vehement, save for a few individuals like George Welch.)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Sep 2015 16:53

Austin wrote:MMRCA never started with some fixed money in mind to buy xyz types , it just started as competition to buy a medium aircraft based on internal tender.

The whole $12 to 20 billion price tag came at a later stage of the very delayed deal . Delayed because IAF expressed medium aircraft purchase in 1999 after Kargil and more specifically asked for M2K

But after a decade and half when every thing was settled down the GOI realised it didnt have that kind of money to buy the aircraft in numbers that IAF originally demanded , so they just went for 2nd best option to buy 36 outright with the funding that allowed them to buy it.

Had the MMRCA tendering process was done by says 2003 and selection done by 2004-5 the money spent on it would have been much different compared to 10 years later

Fixed price is not the same as affordability. The MMRCA's objective was to buy 126 advanced 4+ generation fighters with domestic production and full or extensive transfer of technology. Affordability is and was always going to be a factor even though a fixed price was never under consideration. If you can't pay $25 Billion for 126 fighters with full TOT (or $20 for that matter) there isn't really a point in talking about it..hence the entire deal got cancelled in favor of a G2G deal with little to no tech transfer and no domestic production.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 17:11

Viv S wrote:So in your opinion, what would a 126 Rafale deal with full ToT, progressive indigenization and local production cost?

Also, the theoretical 'savings' that will go towards buying Tejas and MKIs by hugely downsizing the order still leaves your original criticism (albeit directed at the F-35/Gripen) intact - the introduction of limited numbers of an entirely new type of aircraft will be a further logistical headache for an already absurdly diverse IAF fighter fleet.

I dont think Rafale deal will be limited to 36 , the IAF is already loooking for 20 More as per TOI report

The MMRCA is dead. Folks are looking at an entirely different picture today. One where the F-35 is already operational and less than 24 months away from maturity.

(If you mean "what if the F-16/SH had been selected in 2012 and found itself in Rafale's shoes today" - I believe criticism on the forum would have been just as vehement, save for a few individuals like George Welch.)

MMRCA is not dead because the winner of MMRCA is also the winner of G2G deal , its not that GOI has over turned MMRCA winner and went for something else. What has changed is the numbers and perhaps even TOT or Offset .....we dont really know of the latter till deal is signed.

If there a reason why IAF/GOI stood will Rafale gives me good reason to believe its the best best for IAF.

IF they really wanted JSF or something else they would have just chosen the other MMRCA contender but the stood with Rafale

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Sep 2015 17:14

brar_w wrote:Fixed price is not the same as affordability. The MMRCA's objective was to buy 126 advanced 4+ generation fighters with domestic production and full or extensive transfer of technology. Affordability is and was always going to be a factor even though a fixed price was never under consideration. If you can't pay $25 Billion for 126 fighters with full TOT (or $20 for that matter) there isn't really a point in talking about it..hence the entire deal got cancelled in favor of a G2G deal with little to no tech transfer and no domestic production.

No one is talking of any fixed price or any thing like that , its just that GOI did not have enough money for the 126 Number when our coffers are not big to support the signed agreement or even the others that is under negotiation.

Had the MMRCA deal done during 2005 then the economic factor and price would have been different then what it is now 10 years later

May be in the future when times are better they can order more Rafale , looking at past purchases that 36 number wont be the last

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2015 17:24

Seems to me, at $8 billion, we are where we were.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 02 Sep 2015 17:29

The Rafale deal is indicative that India is not ready for the big league. The armed forces are not mature enough to trust themselves and their testing capabilities in partnering to develop world class weapon systems. Therefore imports are an easy way out.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 02 Sep 2015 17:35

Indeed, 36 won't be the last, I think another 36 or more will be ordered in the future when money is found. Actually makes no sense to have 36 only, get 90 i.e. 1 squadron of 18 for every one of the 5 air commands and be done with it. However, weapons integration is probably agreed it upon, probably cheaper to pay for local weapons integration than to buy French weapons. Looking at the price it sure looks like it, between 8-9 billion for 36 aircraft makes it between 222-250 million per bird, sure is a ridiculous number. Not counting around 4 billion for MLU eventually. WOW.

For such prices, personally, I would keep the aircraft in a weather sealed, temp. controlled shelter and store them as a strategic reserve till a conflict actually starts. Pilots can hone their skills on simulators.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2015 17:36

big league

Which one? There are multiple "big league"s.

The problem is bigger than that and does not seem visible from within. OT for this thread.

However, IF 36 Rafale cost $8 billion, what was wrong with $20 billion for 126 (with "ToT", etc?)? This kick-the-can mentality needs correction. It is too predictable.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Sep 2015 18:28

The MMRCA and the way it was developed (program) has been killed. It would be foolish to go down that road. TOT negotiation along with full production has proven to be a poor direction from a cost perspective. It is logical to assume that a further order will come sometime in the next decade when the current deliveries are concluded..How much, when and at what cost remains to be seen. As it competed with an MKI , LCA alternative now, that investment would have to compete with the LCA MKII and AMCA options down the road.

However, IF 36 Rafale cost $8 billion, what was wrong with $20 billion for 126 (with "ToT", etc?)? This kick-the-can mentality needs correction. It is too predictable.

Getting into some speculation here, but If i were to guess it would be that the deal was going well north of that amount. Even if we assume that the first 36 will cover cost of induction and the logistics and assume that it would cost half per unit (contract divided by total) from aircraft 37 to 126 then you are still in that $15-20 Billion range without any local production agreement or transfer of technology.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2015 18:38

What is alive or dead really does not matter. Everything is alive even if declared dead, some aspects at least.

What matters is the cost and what one gets in it.

So, at the simplest level, 126 were estimated to cost $20 billion. Now 36 are expected to cost around $8 billion. So, what gives? It makes no sense. France is win-win. India has lost either way.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2015 18:45

^^^

It was more than $20 billion. Probably over $30 billion given that 36 @ $250 million/Rafale (without ToT/Offsets) was said to be cheaper than what was being negotiated for 126 MMRCA (as per news report).

Original estimate when MMRCA tenders were floated was $10 billion FWIW.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2015 19:10

Hmmmmm......

Do not recall seeing a $30 billion number. Could have missed it.

But, I would feel far better if they had said $40 billion. At 8 the 36 would be a steal. Make it 72 and we would be in heaven.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 02 Sep 2015 19:15

Done deal and all.

But one question I have for Dassault and France is," It's one thing to say the Rafale performed brilliantly doing strikes in places like Mali, Libya and Iraq where there was virtually no opposition. What about China? Will France feel as confident fielding the Rafale standalone without any US support against China (because that is the war that India will be fighting, all alone without any "coalition support") and hundreds of J-10s and J-11s (for now), maybe the J-20 and J-31 in the future, armed with PL-12 missiles and its extensive ground based defence system including the S-400 and the China/Pakistan combination?". What will be Rafale survivability in such a scenario?"

I sincerely hope the IAF/MOD has thought all this through. For $250 million a pop it better survive in the China scenario, otherwise its money down the drain.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 02 Sep 2015 20:33

Now question is, is there money or the will left over to buy another 3-4 sqds of super Mki? What would be the earliest possible delivery timeline if deal is done this week. Can we hope for some quick deliveries like Egypt or do we need to wait 2-3 years for the 1st ones.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 02 Sep 2015 21:22

^^^Based on Dassault's orders and HAL's capabilities, I wouldn't expect more than 8-9 per year for the 1st year, and then 12 per year after that.