Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by NRao »

So the fifth batch will be at minimum 50 aircrafts without attrition...you should understand that there are no other option than rafale in france which makes a fifth batch certain. Even the current socialist mindef is already pushing for it...Not to mention France is investing 1.1 billion euros for this tranche in development which is another indicator that a fifth tranche is firmly on its way.
1) How much of this is to influence export markets?
2) How much of the funding is dependent on exports? (What is the consensus within France on what is the impact of exports?)

and

3) Do the numbers in the White Paper ever change or are they cast in stone?

Thx.
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

The 5th tranche is positive for exports because it means the program is still on which is better than the contrary. Funding is not dependent on export as 1.1 billion in development has already been granted to cover all the specs of this new standard.

White books number can change but it is highly unlikely France would go bellow the 225 jets figure. The fact that a left wing mindef confirmed this tranche will be ordered and that already 1.1 billion is allocated to its development are good stamps of support.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Generally the article is against Rafale, but some gems from Retd. air chiefs Fali Major and Naik:

http://www.bureaucracytoday.com/mustrea ... aspx?id=23
Downplaying France’s inability to sell the Rafale to other countries, former Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major tells Bureaucracy Today, “That is a completely different matter. It would have happened due to the relation of France with other countries. It should not be the criteria for selection. The IAF concern is selecting the right weapon that meets its requirements. Definitely the Rafale is best for the IAF.

After evaluating all the six jet fighters, the Rafale was shortlisted. And in the IAF during evaluation there is no ranking. The IAF just figures out planes which meet its needs. Suppose, three planes meet IAF requirements during evaluation, it lets the Ministry know that these aircraft have been shortlisted by the IAF.

And from there it’s the work of the Ministry to lock the deal with any of the companies after cost negotiations.”

In December last year, Brazil rejected France’s USD 4 billion proposal for 36 Rafale fighter jets for cost reasons and went for the Swedish Saab instead. However, downplaying the Brazilian rejection, former Air Chief Marshal Tyagi tells Bureaucracy Today, “If Brazil has rejected the Rafale, it is because it has different requirements than India.

In fact, the Saab is a cheaper fighter but it does not suit the IAF requirement.”

DOES INDIA REALLY NEED RAFALE?
Former Maj-General Bakshi tells Bureaucracy Today, “India needs new fourth generation fighter jets. And apart from the aircraft we wanted the complete Transfer of Technology with source codes and all…IAF was extremely happy with the earlier Mirage 2000.

In fact, the IAF wanted to buy more Mirages but the Mirage factory has been shut down. In the meantime the French developed the Rafale and they offered it to us.

Before finalizing the Rafale, the IAF did a very professional analysis of fighter jets. Practically the best in the results was the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Rafale was number two, but we went in for the Rafale as it was twin engine and best suited to fly at a low altitude even when there is any bird hit as at a low altitude the chances of a bird hitting are most and in such conditions the fighter falls like a stone.

There was a series of factors that were looked into and the Rafale was found the best. Another reason to select the Rafale was that the serviceability of the aircraft is easier due to the modular replacement of the parts that can be changed instantly and hence making it to fly for much longer time during its service.”

He further says, “Air power is important as it gives the edge over the enemy. But currently the condition of the IAF is critical. And if you are weak in air then you are prone to lose the battle on the ground.

The current bench strength of the IAF is down to 29 squadrons from its actual 45 squadrons. For going in a war, the IAF currently needs 60 squadrons but it never got that strength. When we look at the Chinese Air Force, they have now not only the quantitive fleet but also got the qualitative advantage above us.

Today China has 913 fourth generation aircraft, whereas India has just 322. Earlier, the Chinese were only bigger but now they are better than us by three times and if China maintains the same speed to modernize its Air Force, then by 2020 they would be four times bigger than us with 1,300 plus fourth generation aircraft.”

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

Reiterating better infrastructure at airfields, former Air Chief Marshal PV Naik tells Bureaucracy Today, “We need indigenisation but it cannot be done suddenly. It has to be planned over, let's say, 10 years.

It starts with restructuring of the DRDO, making it lean and mean and more responsive to the users' needs. PSUs also need to be ruthlessly restructured and made more accountable. The Ordnance Factory Board also needs a kick.

The private sector needs to be encouraged to participate.” Insisting on a more budget for research, he says by the time we develop our own defence equipment the Government should “go in for a planned reduction in the foreign content”.

Local production is the backbone of any advanced aircraft industry. Defence observers opine that MK-II Tejas can meet the medium-range interdiction and strike role of the MMRCA.

Bharat Karnad, a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, writes in his column, “A viable alternative is available in the Mark-II version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) — its design fits the bill of an MMRCA…at its heart lies a ready-to-use AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed in collaboration with Israel that is comparable to that on the Rafale.”

Defence experts believe the MK-II will be superior to the Rafale in manoeuvrability with a better angle of attack and a heavier payload capacity than what the Rafale can manage. It has a similar range, about 600 km, and can be inducted into service in less time than the Rafale.

“Since MK-II are locally built, there will be capacity to hike production to meet any spike in demand for spares,” Karnad says.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

arthuro wrote:Wrong again. 4th batch will be executed entirely and a fifth batch ordered. Official sources hereabove or and reposted below (mindef and white book)

With the retirement of mirages, rafale is the only option available to make up the 225 figure. Hence the mindef confirmed that a 5th batch will be ordered which will make up the 225 figure with an homogeneous fleet of rafale.
I think we've already established that the Mirages aren't being retired anytime soon. Which means the 225 figure (assuming it is valid beyond 2018) includes the Mirage 2000D.
Jean-Yves Le Drian brightens the future of the Rafale for Dassault Aviation and its subcontractors[/b]Modernization contract for more than a billion euros, confirmation of a 5th tranche of national order, launching of a demonstration program for a Rafale successor ... Jean-Yves Le Drian, Defence Minister, gave Dassault Aviation and its partners guarantees for the future of the French fighter aircraft.

They are far the threatening words of Gérard Longuet in 2011, then Minister of Defence, suggesting a possible stop of the Rafale manufacturing after repeated failures to sell abroad. Now the future of the French fighter aircraft appears cleared for many years. January 10 , Merignac (Gironde), in the assembly hall of the comba(t aircraft , the current defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian reiterated the importance of this strategic sector [....]
For good measure, the Minister did not come empty-handed in Aquitaine . He gave the contract to upgrade the Rafale for 1.1 billion euros (studies and work already started included) to Eric Trappier, CEO of Dassault Aviation before the main actors of the Rafale industry [...]
Jean-Yves Le Drian also wanted to provide guarantees for the supply chain of the Rafale whose production mobilizes 7,000 people and 500 firms, some weakened by the low rates of production. [...] He said that France would continue to order Rafale. "The future of domestic production is assured [...]. Not only the 4th tranche will be achieved but there will be also a 5th tranche.Icing on the cake, he even spoke after the Rafale! Its successor is expected to enter service for 2030 and would be the result of cooperation with the British. The launch of a demonstration program could take place this year. "This program will lead to the development, on the beginning of the 2020's, of the future operational system that will enter service for 2030," said the minister
4th tranche will be achieved and a 5th tranche ordered. Nothing like your minus 40 for export fantasy.
It was not me but the French MoD which said that the French state would only purchase 26 Rafales over the next 6 years and the remaining 40 should be exported. Which would leave the total domestic orders at 185.

If anything's a fantasy its your claim about a 6th production tranche.

Now lets quote the white book direc]tly...
So the fifth batch will be at minimum 50 aircrafts without attrition...you should understand that there are no other option than rafale in france which makes a fifth batch certain. Even the current socialist mindef is already pushing for it...Not to mention France is investing 1.1 billion euros for this tranche in development which is another indicator that a fifth tranche is firmly on its way.
But why stop there, why not say orders for the full 286 Rafales is certain because of these same set of reasons?
The only remaining question is will French Mindef gamble on export will hold otherwise it will have to found ressources to respect its commitments towards Dassault and the white book.
Exports orders can hardly determine where 185 or 225 Rafales are needed by the AdlA and MN.
LakshO
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by LakshO »

Some questions from a newbie.

1. If/when we decide to get Rafale in numbers (126-190), we pay $12-20 billion. This is not down payment, right? We pay for first 18 aircraft for off-the-shelf delivery and for the rest of the locally manufactured aircraft at HAL, we pay as we take delivery, right?
2. Does the above price of $12-20 billion, include the assembly line(s) at HAL? Or, will that infrastructure be extra?
3. Will HAL be allowed to export the aircraft to other countries? Fulfilling IAF's requirement will be HAL's top priority but anything excess HAL produces, can they sell it (with French approval, of course)? For each aircraft sold, HAL can pay Dassault some royalty.

If these were discussed in the earlier avatar of the thread, sorry for repitition.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

Dhananjay wrote:Generally the article is against Rafale, but some gems from Retd. air chiefs Fali Major and Naik:

http://www.bureaucracytoday.com/mustrea ... aspx?id=23
Already posted when the article came out in June.

From the article -

A Defence Ministry insider tells Bureaucracy Today, “The cost has now escalated by 100 per cent. Now a Rafale fighter jet could cost USD 120 million (Rs 746 crore). It means that the deal would now cost India approximately $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore), making it a suicidal choice now.”
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

Mirage 2000D are not being upgraded and would be obsolete by 2020. Even the white book anticipate their retirement around 2020. Besides 225 is a notional figure and nothing prevent an overlap of capabilities for sone years.

As already dicussed and proven, the 4th batch will be achieved entirely which was confirmed by french mindef. Deliveries will be postoponed in case of export but not cancelled. If exports do not occur, france will guarantee a production of 11 aircraft per year and take the fourth batch deliveries earlier. Just that the current budget assumption bet on an export order, but France is formely commited to the Fourth batch.

From reuters:
Under the draft budget, the military will slow the pace at which it takes delivery of Rafale jets ordered from Dassault Aviation, only taking 26 of the planes over the six years, down from some 11 planes a year.

The government hopes foreign orders will absorb some of the planes being rolled out by partly state-owned Dassault, which has yet to sell one of its flagship Rafales abroad but says it has to produce at least 11 a year to operate efficiently.The move will delay promised payments for the planes, worth roughly $120 million apiece, easing pressure on state coffers.

Relying on elusive export deals to sustain Rafale production is a gamble that could misfire and lead to Paris having to revise its own order upwards in the future. In all, France has made commitments to buy 180 Rafales, a third of which have yet to be budgeted for.
About the article it is worth mentioning IAF operational are favorable to the rafale but not the so called experts and other unamed sources.
member_28397
BRFite
Posts: 234
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by member_28397 »

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Generally the article is against Rafale, but some gems from Retd. air chiefs Fali Major and Naik:

http://www.bureaucracytoday.com/mustrea ... aspx?id=23
Already posted when the article came out in June.

From the article -

A Defence Ministry insider tells Bureaucracy Today, “The cost has now escalated by 100 per cent. Now a Rafale fighter jet could cost USD 120 million (Rs 746 crore). It means that the deal would now cost India approximately $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore), making it a suicidal choice now.”
$28-30 billion :eek: thats around $90 billion in PPP, India could build a 1000 feel tall wall all around its frontiers with 1000 feet wide minefield and 24X7 armed to teeth BSF, its indeed suicidal nothing french is worth that much.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by NRao »

Someone else said that one could buy Dassault for that price.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

arthuro wrote:Mirage 2000D are not being upgraded and would be obsolete by 2020.
Oh dear. Gosh this is awkward. To rebut that I'll unfortunately be forced to quote a well informed BRFite, namely yourself.

This is what you said on 28th Dec 2011 -
arthuro on 28th Dec 2011 wrote:France will retire some of its mirage but that has nothing to do with airframe fatigue. France cannot afford acquiring the rafale and modernizing its large mirage 2000 fleet at the same time and as a consequence older mirage are of little operational interest. We are talking here of the mirage 2000C RDI and the Mirage 2000N.

The mirage 2000-5 and 2000 D will remain into service till early 2030’s…And while the 2000D are more recent airframes the 2000-5 are the first operational mirage ever manufactured: they are even older than Indian ones.
^^ Link

Even the white book anticipate their retirement around 2020. Besides 225 is a notional figure and nothing prevent an overlap of capabilities for sone years.
So 225 is merely a notional figure? Okay.
As already dicussed and proven, the 4th batch will be achieved entirely which was confirmed by french mindef.

The 4th tranche will complete its full production run. No dispute there.
About the article it is worth mentioning IAF operational are favorable to the rafale but not the so called experts and other unamed sources.
You mean the chap from the MoD calling the deal 'financial suicide'? Because the IAF commentators are always concerned only with the operational aspect, and rarely the cost. Unfortunately, the cost is as important as the aircraft's performance.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by abhik »

LakshO wrote:Some questions from a newbie.

1. If/when we decide to get Rafale in numbers (126-190), we pay $12-20 billion. This is not down payment, right? We pay for first 18 aircraft for off-the-shelf delivery and for the rest of the locally manufactured aircraft at HAL, we pay as we take delivery, right?
The payment will be staggered as per the delivery schedule, but usually a certain % of the deal value (say 15%) is paid at contract signing.
2. Does the above price of $12-20 billion, include the assembly line(s) at HAL? Or, will that infrastructure be extra?
I would think its all inclusive.
3. Will HAL be allowed to export the aircraft to other countries? Fulfilling IAF's requirement will be HAL's top priority but anything excess HAL produces, can they sell it (with French approval, of course)? For each aircraft sold, HAL can pay Dassault some royalty.
The Rafales made in HAL are likely to be more expensive than the ones made in France and by the time the HAL is in a position to export the multiple next generation fighters from US, Russia and China will be available market. France has failed to get a single Export order till now without having to compete with 5-gen fighters, why would we be more successful in selling even more expensive version of a previous gen fighter?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Generally the article is against Rafale, but some gems from Retd. air chiefs Fali Major and Naik:

http://www.bureaucracytoday.com/mustrea ... aspx?id=23
Already posted when the article came out in June.

From the article -

A Defence Ministry insider tells Bureaucracy Today, “The cost has now escalated by 100 per cent. Now a Rafale fighter jet could cost USD 120 million (Rs 746 crore). It means that the deal would now cost India approximately $28-30 billion (Rs1.75 lakh crore-Rs1.86 lakh crore), making it a suicidal choice now.”
Yeah we wasted too much money stupidly on purchases like 10 C-17 for billions of dollars, though funny too see that those same posters were fighting on behalf of US deal chiding people for saying that paying billions for 10 C-17 was no problem.

Now same posters are going through muharram season all kinds of hai-tauba seeing the IAF paying to french. All is worth and cheap if the money goes to uncle sam. :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------

Captain Gilles and Sanku ji tried their best but stupid us got to enamoured by american posters campaign.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 20#p976841
Bloody idiot Dhananjay you don't understand paying 850 million $ per C-17 is nothing, we're blessed that uncle sam has deigned to do this day time robbery on us. Strategic partenership and all that.........

That IAF is down to 29 squadrons means nothing, buy some jsf with ToT. Although ToT means nothing, but somehow uncle sam is really miserly constipated and tight assed about it!
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

Dhananjay wrote:Yeah we wasted too much money stupidly on purchases like 10 C-17 for billions of dollars, though funny too see that those same posters were fighting on behalf of US deal chiding people for saying that paying billions for 10 C-17 was no problem.
At the time the C-17 was the only heavy lift aircraft in production. And its competitive with the Il-476 after factoring in life-cycle cost, operational availability and tonnage.
Now same posters are going through muharram season all kinds of hai-tauba seeing the IAF paying to french.
No one had a problem with the Rafale at $12 billion. At a package cost of $20-30 billion with deliveries beginning in 2018, its not worth it.
All is worth and cheap if the money goes to uncle sam. :wink:
I take it you haven't visited the Indian Military Aviation thread lately.
Captain Gilles and Sanku ji tried their best but stupid us got to enamoured by american posters campaign.
On the other hand, Sankuji's opinion when it comes to imports from Russia are well known. Russian tanks always welcome, even at the cost of a first rate domestic MBT.
Bloody idiot Dhananjay you don't understand paying 850 million $ per C-17 is nothing, we're blessed that uncle sam has deigned to do this day time robbery on us. Strategic partenership and all that.........
We're paying $410 million per C-17 including the aircraft, spare parts, spare engines, training, long term support contracts etc. Not $850 million.
That IAF is down to 29 squadrons means nothing, buy some jsf with ToT. Although ToT means nothing, but somehow uncle sam is really miserly constipated and tight assed about it!
The IAF is down to 29 squadrons so buy Tejas Mk1, expedite the Tejas Mk2 and scrap the MMRCA. You want the ability to carry out high threat ISR, SEAD/DEAD or strike missions in Chinese airspace, get 2-3 squadrons of F-35s.

Want to develop domestic tech base, invest in domestic R&D. We pay extra for ToT and through a long and storied history of ToT deals, its unfortunately proven not to be a shortcut to the top for India.
Last edited by Viv S on 13 Aug 2014 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Are we going to compare strategic lift with a tactical fighter? What is a fair cost of heavy lifting over the lifecycle of the airframe that includes acquisition and CPFH?
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

In 2011 the mirage 2000D was supposed to be upgraded which will not be the case finally (white book is from 2013). The process of retiring the mirage 2000 fleet will start around 2020 as described in the 2013 white book but it will not be a one shot process. To anticipate the mirage 2000 retirement a fifth rafale batch will be ordered as written in the white book and as confirned by french mindef. Already 1,1 billion is invested in development for this batch.

The entire fourth batch will be honoured and delivered to french forces, schedule of deliveries will depend on export.

To sumarize, France is already commited for 180 rafale + the fifth batch that will eventually bring the number of rafale to 225 for french forces.

On the article, half of it is bollocks like the tejas mk2 with superior payload etc...Those so called expertd and unsmed sources do not look very credible. At least operationals speak with their reputation at stake
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

Double post
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by NRao »

arthuro,

Q: Assuming France gets VLO/LO techs, is there a plan to develop a "5th Gen" (or a next gen) Plane? Why would France upgrade the Rafael to a NG (although I could not find any info - so far - on this NG)?

Next:

I am not going to post the entire articles (have done so many a times), but, in recent past, there is a pattern WRT France's ability to pay for the Rafale:

France To Cut Rafale Order; Betting on Exports
Under the draft defense estimates put before the cabinet Friday, the left-wing government will acquire only 26 of the planes during the next six years.

Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said June 11 that from 2016, Dassault Aviation would have to count on exports to underpin production of the plane, which is able to fulfil several types of missions.

On Friday, the minister said on Europe 1 radio: “There are countries which today are really interested in buying the Rafale; I am thinking particularly of India, Qatar, of other countries, and I am very confident of the chances of exporting the Rafale in coming months.”

France was in exclusive negotiations to sell 126 Rafale planes to India, “and I have high hopes that this will be successful,” he said.

Sources close to the minister said the estimates were based in part on a hypothesis that at least one country among other potential buyers would place an order before the end of 2019
Here is another article that is even more graphic about the French financial crisis:

France Adjusts Fighter Programs To Meet Funding
The French defense ministry announced contracts on Jan. 10 for €1 billion ($1.4 billion) in planned upgrades to the Dassault Aviation combat jet. Yet budget pressures have forced drastic reductions in the total number of Rafale aircraft and next-generation weapon systems the ministry plans to buy over the next six years, prompting new spending for renovation of Mirage 2000D fighters and further extending the service life of aging Mirage 2000-5s.

Pressure on the nation's €190 billion six-year defense spending plan is so great that the air force wants to purchase new Swiss turboprop aircraft and associated combat jet simulators as part of an unprecedented change in the way France trains its fighter pilots.
The bolded below is all over the place!!
Despite the fact that financial pressure is reducing the defense ministry's Rafale orders to 26 from 66 through 2019, France is investing in a new F3-R-standard software upgrade that will enable full integration of new weapons and a next-generation laser targeting pod, improvements that will make the aircraft more appealing to export customers.
If reduction in planes are not enough:
To date, Dassault has delivered seven Rafales from the fourth production tranche, each equipped with the AESA radar, including six to the air force and one to the navy, according to French defense procurement agency DGA. “As part of the F3-R standard, its formal integration has started and will be fully qualified in 2018,” the DGA says, although budget constraints are again to blame for a reduction in the number of missiles ordered through 2019, to just 100 from 200.
and, then .............
The new standard will also see Thales develop, test and integrate the New Generation Laser Designation Pod (PDL-NG) under a separate €120 million development contract that follows last year's €55 million risk-reduction phase.

The pod is expected to provide new day/night imaging and engagement capabilities in complex theaters of operations, and it is designed for integration with both the Rafale and Mirage 2000D. Due to budget constraints, however, a previously planned purchase of 45 next-generation pods was cut to just 20, according to the LPM
Dependence on export:
As a result, the sale to India has become all the more urgent, particularly since Brazil announced plans in December to purchase Swedish Gripen fighters instead of Rafales or other contenders. Still, if negotiations with India drag on and export contracts with the UAE, Qatar and Malaysia fail to materialize, Dassault will not be left holding the bag. Thanks to a so-called review clause inserted into the current LPM, the defense ministry could be asked to reconsider its reduced Rafale buy starting in 2016.
And, more accounting jugglery:
“Because of the stretching out of the orders of Rafale, we will maintain for longer than expected the Mirage 2000-5, which is a plane whose radar is at a high level of performance but whose cockpit was designed for 5,000 hours of flight,” Mercier says. “We have already gone to 7,000 hours of flight. So we need to verify whether we can continue up to 9,000 hours.”

For the Mirage 2000D, the planned upgrade will address the obsolescence of the radar, add a gun to the targeting pod and integrate MICA missiles in place of Magic missiles, Mercier says. In addition, Thales is adapting the Astac tactical reconnaissance pod to perform missions currently assigned to the Mirage F1CR.
So, that about completes the financial picture from a French PoV.

Not very appetizing, *unless* the Indian MMRCA deal goes through. We can argue that orders have been placed, upgrades will be made, production lines will me buzy, etc.............. but the fact remains that all this dependent on a very shaky financial backbone.

They are kicking that can as far as they can.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

arthuro wrote:In 2011 the mirage 2000D was supposed to be upgraded which will not be the case finally (white book is from 2013). The process of retiring the mirage 2000 fleet will start around 2020 as described in the 2013 white book but it will not be a one shot process.
Upgrade proposal for the Mirages was too expensive? :mrgreen:
On the article, half of it is bollocks like the tejas mk2 with superior payload etc...Those so called expertd and unsmed sources do not look very credible. At least operationals speak with their reputation at stake
The magazine's name is Bureaucracy Today. Its not DID and its not Aviation Week. You will however find it on coffee tables and waiting rooms in South Block (MoD building). As far as access to the MoD officials, I'd expect it to do better than most. Besides its not the first time we're hearing a figure well in excess of $20 billion in the media. Or even the tenth time for that matter.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

brar_w wrote:Are we going to compare strategic lift with a tactical fighter? What is a fair cost of heavy lifting over the lifecycle of the airframe that includes acquisition and CPFH?
Boss just the way american platform supporters are getting dizzy seeing MMRCA cost, the other posters specially a Canadian Pilot who has flown C-17 and others were objecting to its high price. Much much cheaper aircrafts like Il-76 and Il-476 were available at much much cheaper price. But no! 5 billions for 10 aircrafts hell its peanuts man. Imagine all sorts of strategic partnership and all that.

I say here if 10 billions for 10 amreeka mfgd aircrafts is ok, then rafale with 50% offset & ToT mfd in bharat for 40 billion dollars is ok too.

As it gets dishonestly propogated by american supporters here that ToT is useless, THEN WHY USA HAS PROBLEM IN GIVING IT 100%? :wink:
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

Mirage 2000D upgrade was supposed to be 700 million for around 80 aiframe but the scope wad limited ...all ressources to the rafale in France.

As for the rafale MRCA price I believe that the price tag around 20 billions is indeed expensive but not surprising when you need to : Pay for the aircrafts, duplicate the production capability, pay for full ToT & royalties. The high price is linked with the structure of the deal itself. Some like you believe it is not worth it as other alternatives exist. As far as I am concerned I think that LCA, F35, AMCA, FGFA are no credible alternatives for different reason : Indegeneous path is not credible due to the poor record, F35 is nice but you are completely tied to the US (no ToT, source codes...), FGFA is a niche air superiority fighter with limited AtG payload. I forgot the SU-30 which is old gen however big and impressive it is. On the article several innacuracies wich broke the limit of amateurism tend to temper its credibility.
Last edited by arthuro on 14 Aug 2014 00:25, edited 2 times in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Viv S wrote: At the time the C-17 was the only heavy lift aircraft in production. And its competitive with the Il-476 after factoring in life-cycle cost, operational availability and tonnage.

The debate had proven thoroughly that never there was a single voice raised for such a specific tonnage aircraft, ever. In Bharat here we saw IAF asking for Hawk trainer for 23 years, while we read for the first time in press about C-17 suddenly. Its like IAF + MoD doing a sudden FMS deal with Rafale for 126 jets without sending RFP to other a/c mnfrs. And only creating a unique need which feets just only Rafale.

No one had a problem with the Rafale at $12 billion. At a package cost of $20-30 billion with deliveries beginning in 2018, its not worth it.

2018 to 2058 for 40-50 billions I don't have any problem, hell even IAF doesn't. Down to 29 squadrons its emergency, we must act.

I take it you haven't visited the Indian Military Aviation thread lately.
All drama, just a token protest to show off. Those who are really objective are like 'brar_warrior' knowing inside out of F-35, loving it yet rejecting it completely for MMRCA.
Captain Gilles and Sanku ji tried their best but stupid us got to enamoured by american posters campaign.
On the other hand, Sankuji's opinion when it comes to imports from Russia are well known. Russian tanks always welcome, even at the cost of a first rate domestic MBT.

Whenever he did I fought with him too, in armoured both him and philip too.
Bloody idiot Dhananjay you don't understand paying 850 million $ per C-17 is nothing, we're blessed that uncle sam has deigned to do this day time robbery on us. Strategic partenership and all that.........
We're paying $410 million per C-17 including the aircraft, spare parts, spare engines, training, long term support contracts etc. Not $850 million.

Ah 410 million per aircraft is cheap to you? How many air chiefs or reports you saw that IAF was desperate for such a big ticket deal?
That IAF is down to 29 squadrons means nothing, buy some jsf with ToT. Although ToT means nothing, but somehow uncle sam is really miserly constipated and tight assed about it!
The IAF is down to 29 squadrons so buy Tejas Mk1, expedite the Tejas Mk2 and scrap the MMRCA. You want the ability to carry out high threat ISR, SEAD/DEAD or strike missions in Chinese airspace, get 2-3 squadrons of F-35s.

Exactly just like "medium" or MMRCA can be ignored and Light Tejas can suffice, same way lighter Il-76 / 476 would suffice why buy such expensive C-17? Why that unique tonnage? Why didn't you people have same heartache at seeing such an enormous amount of money going out of country?

Want to develop domestic tech base, invest in domestic R&D. We pay extra for ToT and through a long and storied history of ToT deals, its unfortunately proven not to be a shortcut to the top for India.

No fine, ToT means nothing then why usa has problem in giving it 100%? No use can be made of it anyway. THE TRUTH IS THAT AMERICAN PENTAGON REFUSED TO GIVE PERMISSION TO LM FOR HELPING OUT IN TEJAS TESTING METHODS!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by NRao »

arthuro wrote:Mirage 2000D upgrade was supposed to be 700 million for around 80 aiframe but the scope wad limited ...all ressources to the rafale in France.

As for the rafale MRCA price I believe that the price tag around 20 billions is indeed expensive but not surprising when you need to : Pay for the aircrafts, duplicate the production capability, pay for full ToT & royalties. The high price is linked with the structure of the deal itself. Some like you believe it is not worth it as other alternatives exist. As far as I am concerned I think that LCA, F35, AMCA, FGFA are no credible alternatives for different reason : Indegeneous path is not credible due to the poor record, F35 is nice but you are completely tied to the US (no ToT, source codes...), FGFA is a niche air superiority fighter with limited AtG payload. I forgot the SU-30 which is old gen however big and impressive it is.
"Alternative" is a relative term.

A 126 Rafale made in France, without getting into details, does not seem to be an issue.

It is the cost associated with "duplicate the production capability, pay for full ToT & royalties", etc, that is an issue. And, that does have alternatives.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by NRao »

It is coming .....................

Aug 12, 2014 :: Negotiation on for Rafale aircraft: India


Aug 13, 2014 :: India talks to buy French fighter jets still on: Defence Minister Arun Jaitley
The cost of the deal was pegged at $12 billion but media reports have recently put it at around $15 billion.
No rocking the boat.

Under "oh-oh":
Jaitley told parliament that the United States has overtaken Russia as the largest arms supplier to India in the last three years, followed by France and Israel.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Philip »

Dhan,tx for the note on the billions spent in acquiring the C-17 instead of fighters.I was most vociferous when the C-17 deal was inked.It suddenly appeared out of nowhere! This was confirmed to me by a Delhi source. It was never a high priority item of the IAF.Secondly,and much was posted in the transport td.,the IL-476 was far cheaper and we could've obtained 3-4 IL-476s for the price of just one C-17.The deal was a gift from Quisling Singh to Boeing to keep the production line open,part of the backscratching for the N-deal,where Quisling had promised Uncle Sam a bonanza of defence orders.
FMS,life-cycle costs,methods to eliminate cheaper options.China is picking up MI-26s while we appear to prefer smaller Chinooks and Apaches to LCHs.Anyway,that was just a few billions to the UPA,"what the worry? "

Unfortunately,for the MMRCA contest,their vintage birds couldn't make the grade technically,and the IAF rightly shortlisted the two best birds,the Rafale and Typhoon.But both these beauties are in the Rolls/Bentley/Lincoln class and not the equiv. of a mere 12 VVIP dragonflies to transport the precious backsides of our former ruling elite.Simply unaffordable at these costs and numbers.I am sure that as the decision draws nearer,the intensity of the opposition to the deal in its current form will dramatically increase.
In short,the Rafale is a wounded animal.Her enemies scent blood and are circling for an opening where they can finish her off.The NDA-2 have many fish to fry and the nation is hungry and angry after the UPA thieves looted the kitty. The biting and scratching in the media from various sides against and in defence of the deal is just the tip of the iceberg.Remember two points about the intended deal:

1.The inexplicably high cost of the M-2000 upgrades,where one could buy a brand new MIG-29K as the IN have done for the price of just one M-2000 upgrade,almost $55m for each!

2.The party whom Dassault intended to partner in the TOT/production,allegedly v.close to the Cong/UPA "high command"...Reliance!
(http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... liance.htm)

Need one say more.
PS:The good Dr.SS has much to say about the beneficiaries of the deal,and he isn't meaning the IAF!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

The deal was a gift from Quisling Singh to Boeing to keep the production line open,part of the backscratching for the N-deal,where Quisling had promised Uncle Sam a bonanza of defence orders.
FMS,life-cycle costs,methods to eliminate cheaper options
So figuring in a Life Cycle cost and factoring in that aspect of the deal is actually counter to the entire assessment of any program? Are you advocating a strategy where only the upfront acquisition cost of hardware and support is looked at without looking at the entire cost to the service when its pretty much a known fact that most military aircraft cost much more over their designed service lives as opposed to the upfront acquisition cost? Life cycle cost calculations and relying on this data for crucial acquisition decisions is standard practices worldwide and the only thing that actually makes sense. FMS is only a route/method to totally eliminate negotiations between the OEM and the customer and allows the customer to have the US government negotiate the same vehicle and component price for the customer as it pays for itself with a fixed margin in for the deal and has a military to military training as opposed to outsourcing it to industry. An FMS deal is not a requirement or pre-condition, the MOD or any other customer can enter into a direct commercial deal for any military hardware but that involves figuring out everything on your own including initial training and setup. Most nations prefer the FMS route as it is clean, and hassle free. Others can enter into a hybrid deal where one component (usually hardware and training) is negotiated through the FMS route and the long-term support contracts are negotiated between the OEM and the customer. Do you for a minute think that any deal with russia would involve just the aircraft and would not be fashioned like an FMS deal where the aircraft, spares, maintaince, logistical equipment, training are also factored in?

Any comparison between any of these birds would need things which are not known to us. Things such as Mission availability rates (with relative volume of data), upfront vehicle and support/spare/training cost and overall life-cycle cost based on CPFH and the logistical footprint of the entire fleet. These are the MUST KNOW things..Other nice to know things are the path to consistent capability addition where the total circulation fleet size is of importance as this not only drives industry to offer improvements but also means that one of the operators may fund a large portion of the development that cold be retrofitted onto other customer's aircraft. All in all i saw no hard numbers in the arguments. I can provide some on the C-17, get some for the russian bird and then we can try a little to guess what the numbers must have looked like to the people who actually ran them (with far more info than what we can fashion). This is just looking at the thing from a cost parameter, without getting into a technical comparison which the IAF must have also done.
PS:The good Dr.SS has much to say about the beneficiaries of the deal,and he isn't meaning the IAF!
Has he provided any evidence other than the fact that some of his old-college friends told him so?
1.The inexplicably high cost of the M-2000 upgrades,where one could buy a brand new MIG-29K as the IN have done for the price of just one M-2000 upgrade,almost $55m for each!
Those sort of prices are always going to occur with systems that warrant a boutique upgrade path and that have a limited customer base. Its not indicative of western system upgrades. Lets for a moment take the F-16 for example (Again not advocating the F-16 for this program or any other, just using it as an example). Currently there are 2 companies that offer solutions for F-16 fleet upgrades (Soon there would be 3). One is Lockheed Martin and the other is BAE. This in itself is something not usual, and as it has turned out in a competitive, export driven environment BAE out bided lockheed martin to win the South Korean F-16 upgrade contract that came in at around 11 Million per (5.5 million integration cost + apron 5 million worth of equipment) for a fleet of 100+ F-16's. These upgrades include an AESA, Data links, modern computer processors, Electronic warfare suits and an avionics overhaul that enables these jets to carry the current generation weapons for the fleet.
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Aug 2014 06:58, edited 2 times in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

^Just after the new govt. had taken over there were many programs on news channels regarding defence, Retd. Major General Bakshi kept on saying on those that armed forces are not happy with FMS way of doing deals they're finding them exorbitantly priced and these things could have been bought much cheaper. Unfortunately stupid anchors without understanding kept cutting him of talking of mundane things, but he did manage to say that in future we'll not see anymore fms deals.

These kind of loots will be stopped now!
--------------------------------------------

Philip as I stated on the last page also in case a war of 30 days happens and all the Mirages and Mig 29s go on sortie after sortie the Mirages will pull many more sorties while after initially pull heavy number of sorties the Migs and Sukhois will start falling out of the sky, inspite of titaniums and strong outer body their inner organs will start failing miserably.

A yogi may not be as strong outwardly like arnold schwarzneggar, but his inner organs are trillion times better than arnold the bodybuilder. While arnold looks good displaying his muscles in bodyshows when the yogi will survive in much tougher conditions while arnie wont.

I remember on many himalayan journies how my muscular sikh friends get in pathetic conditions while I see poor sadhus surviving and travelling healthily in much tougher conditions. The reason due to yoga their inner organs are much supple and healthy, while these butter chicken stuffers and iron pumpers have poor organ conditions.

So the snecmas, pratt and whitney, ej200 & GE 4___ are miles ahead when it comes to thousands of hours usage compared to russkies whereas their engines may pull same kind of power but aren't as "dada khareede pota barte" shape. (grandfather buys and grandson still goes on using).

Otherwise IAF would be retarded to go for less manuevering one engined M2k inspite of 60 Mig 29s. They know that during war these non-supermanuevering Mirages will go on and on, while Mig 29s will become hangar patients after a week or so. Just see the F-15s airframe life is ridiculously high 16000 hours, engine life 10000 hours. That itself is a matchwinner.

While IAF knows that by showing gymnastics to porkis in air mig 29 won't scare them and they fall unconcious of fear and surrender.

Mig 29 = twin engine, more manueverable, cheaper in upgrade

Mirage 2000 = Single engine, no comparison in manuevering to 29, super expensive in upgrade

Still IAF chooses M2k
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 14 Aug 2014 07:02, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Retd. Major General Bakshi kept on saying on those that armed forces are not happy with FMS way of doing deals they're finding them exorbitantly priced and these things could have been bought much cheaper
There is nothing stopping the MOD from doing this. The Rafale deal is being negotiated with the french companies. Any deal with US suppliers can also go through the Direct commercial sale route, but it seems that most nations do not prefer this route, as an FMS deal has an element of certainty to it particularly when it comes to the basic hardware costing and how it compares to what the developer nation paid for it. The reason FMS deals are large is because one negotiated deal covers absolutely everything from hardware to spares, sometimes long term support, M2M training and all other technical costs associated with introducing the set capability to the customer's air force. However, What you pay upfront is only a part of the story, life cycle costs and the total systems cost to the customer are increasingly gaining importance because folks who buy military hardware the world over have found that cost to run these things is significantly greater than the cost to buy these things. It is here that CPFH, Mission availability rates and the logistical footprint and reliability gain absolute importance. Here the C-17 really does well with a very competitive mission effectiveness, a fleet size that generates tremendous data and has allowed the OEM to issue a warranty on the product and a relatively low CPFH given the size, capacity and mission availability. Lifetime costs and the difference in cost between a tactical fighter and a strategic airlifted vary greatly and these are capabilities that are mutually exclusive and can therefore not be compared if for nothing else but because your standard strategic air lifter is going to out-live your fighter by a factor of 4 (Airframe hours) and that it serves as a strategic asset and therefore the costs to maintain a strategic lifting capability over 3-4 decades has to be factored in. The IAF boss has said that the service was looking at a follow on order for the C-17, the government now is not the same as it was when this deal went through the last time..If and when the service asks the MOD (Or rather convinces it) for a follow on order, who will be to blame? Antony? Sonia? Sonia's Sister :)
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Aug 2014 07:12, edited 1 time in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

^^ No no the real objection is that the same people who were jumping with joy at 5 billion given for 10 C-17s, were calling it just peanuts for such a great platform.

Now MMRCA has a special clause that 50% is to be offset back in country, plus the ToT, still its giving them heartburn for 126 Rafales. "Bharat must think like a world power now, such money is nothing.... " that was for C-17.

Now these gentlemen are going through muharram season, "Hai Ram so much money, Bharat has no money..."

This ugliness pushes my button.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

No no the real objection is that the same people who were jumping with joy at 5 billion given for 10 C-17s, were calling it just peanuts for such a great platform
Well its a different capability and therefore a different cost for that capability. Strategic lift over decades costs differently than tactical fighters over their airframe life.
Now MMRCA has a special clause that 50% is to be offset back in country, plus the ToT, still its giving them heartburn for 126 Rafales. "Bharat must think like a world power now, such money is nothing.... " that was for C-17
Thats an MOD thing (30% Offset or TOT). You can seek TOT or Offsets from US vendors too. US OEM's have provided 100% Offsets to customers and the ability to offer that sort of an offset deal is only hard for small companies that do not have a lot of work to spread around. No problem for Boeing in this case. Similarly TOT can be worked out, but as the rafale deal has shown, expect a long protracted negotiation session and a seller that puts a price on its technology.
Philip as I stated on the last page also in case a war of 30 days happens and all the Mirages and Mig 29s go on sortie after sortie the Mirages will pull many more sorties while after initially pull heavy number of sorties the Migs and Sukhois will start falling out of the sky, inspite of titaniums and strong outer body their inner organs will start failing miserably.
And this thing also applies to Strategic lift for a platform that has huge volume of data (flying hours) and has a mission availability rate between 75-82% in addition to a relatively low CPFH and other M&R metrics (No doubt a result of the producer's vast commercial aircraft business where such metrics are the most important aspect of performance along with safety and reliability)
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Aug 2014 07:23, edited 3 times in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Just was going through specifications of AMCA & Rafale:
AMCA

General characteristics

Crew: 1 (pilot)
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
Empty weight: 16-18 tons ()
Max. takeoff weight: 22-24 tons two tonnes of internal weapons and four tonnes of internal fuel ()
Powerplant: 2 × new GTRE engine GTRE GTX 35 VS Kaveri NG with vectored nozzles turbofans
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,130 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,230 lbf) each

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+ at altitude of 11 km.
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
---------------------------
Rafale

Crew: 1–2
Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft)
Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft)
Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft)
Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²)
Empty weight:
C: 9,500 kilograms (20,900 lb)
B: 9,770 kilograms (21,540 lb)
M: 10,196 kilograms (22,480 lb[193])
Loaded weight: 14,016 kg (30,900 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M) (54,000 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-2 turbofans
Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each
Fuel capacity: 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) internal

Performance

Maximum speed:
High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h, 1,032 knots)
Low altitude: Mach 1.1 (1,390 km/h, 750 knots)
Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission
Service ceiling: 15,235 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 304.8+ m/s (60,000+ ft/min)
Wing loading: 306 kg/m² (62.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.988 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile) version M
Maximum g-load: +9/–3.2 g
I see that maximum take off for both AMCA and Rafale comes almost same to 24 tons, while Rafale is much longer and higher aircraft.

Could it be possible that as we'll be mfrg. Rafale by 2022 that HAL uses the whole landing gear same as Rafale as for Tejas they've cautiously designed extra heavy landing gear.

Also why in empty weight inspite of being a lower and shorter plane AMCA is 18 tons compared to 9 tons of Rafale which is longer higher fighter? *whatever is more I have marked as red in Rafale.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Probably for the same reason that every 5th generation aircraft is heavier than the 4th generation it is replacing. Stealth requires internal weapon bays, all the mission radius requirement to be met with internal fuel (Optimum anyways) and a host of other design considerations that add to the weight.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

brar_w wrote:If and when the service asks the MOD (Or rather convinces it) for a follow on order, who will be to blame? Antony? Sonia? Sonia's Sister :)
Now the deal is done, its just a matter of ordering next batch. Just like Narsimha Rao Govt. made the Sukhoi deal while next govts kept on adding more numbers.

Now new govt. won't start Il 476 thingy for next 6 jets, they'll follow on what's in pipeline already.

Though I hope they buy C-295 and not C-27s! And do the pokharan tests quickly, to prove me right regarding true colors of US :twisted:
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Now the deal is done, its just a matter of ordering next batch. Just like Narsimha Rao Govt. made the Sukhoi deal while next govts kept on adding more numbers.

Now new govt. won't start Il 476 thingy for next 6 jets, they'll follow on what's in pipeline already
But what suggests that the 476 was a better platform from an acquisition point of view? From an acquisition and fleet utilization POV, what are some of its numbers in mission readiness, CPFH and other reliability metrics? You yourself have mentioned a valid point regarding fleet utilization and mission availability of military hardware determining a lot of things, similarly the life time cost far outweighs the acquisition cost of military hardware and this only gets worst as the price of fuel continues to rise which only widens the gap. There is absolutely no hard data on the 476 when there is quite of bit of data on the C-17 based on which one can conclude that it does extremely well in these metrics which as I have mentioned is largely due to the position the OEM enjoys in the commercial airliner world where things like CPFH, MTBF, MHPFH, and mission availability rates are critical components of affordability and fleet sustainment.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Manish_Sharma »

brar_w wrote: But what suggests that the 476 was a better platform from an acquisition point of view?
Here everything was discussed to death on this issue, you'll enjoy it, its right up your alley:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=5291

I read each and every post of these 99 pages, though hardly posted was great fun.

Why I took the example of C-17s is 'cause at the time biggest objection taken to C-17 was its cost IIRC 4 or 5 billion plus.... for 10 a/c.

These very gentlemen who are cribbing for high Rafale cost were gung ho about "capabilities" don't look at "cost". Oh and these very people were saying "isn't there 30% offset back in Bharat?", the wind tunnel created for testing? Forget about the big cost, learn to sit at the high table.

Now for 126 Rafales with 50% offset, plus mfrd here, will be our babies, we'll know them inside out. Suddenly 20 billion dollars are too much, and Bharatvarsh is down from high table back to same old "too expensive".

That's what the hypocricy the double standards are. These posters just want money to end up in USA.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by brar_w »

Why I took the example of C-17s is 'cause at the time biggest objection taken to C-17 was its cost IIRC 4 or 5 billion plus.... for 10 a/c
But in return the aircraft offers excellent CPFH and O&S costs which at any given rate (and for most military systems) are significantly higher than the upfront recurring flyaway cost of the aircraft. In addition to that the aircraft offers very high availability for the mission set and is highly reliable. How do these metrics compare to the Russian bird? I am not even going into a technical comparison, or the future upgrade potential. Systems that drain a lot of capital over the 3-4 decade life of a program are getting increasingly unpopular with most cost-concious militaries. I read that this was the main thing favoring the M2K, and western designs in the MRCA as opposed to the trusted flanker. The C-17 ( and the C-130J) offers excellent performance in the same metrics i.e mission availability, aircraft M&R and CPFH.
These very gentlemen who are cribbing for high Rafale cost were gung ho about "capabilities" don't look at "cost". Oh and these very people were saying "isn't there 30% offset back in Bharat?", the wind tunnel created for testing? Forget about the big cost, learn to sit at the high table
And to that I am saying that the rafale is a tactical fighter and as such its cost (either too much or reasonable) cannot be compared to that of acquiring a strategic airlift capability. Whether the rafale costs 1 billion, 15, 20 or 50 ..The cost can never be compared as the capability obtained is different.

Offsets have not much do with costs. You can up the offset to 50% or 100% for the C-17 deal and it would not significantly alter the cost ( unless local production of parts is requested) since offset is a function of a Y or N. Either the OEM is in a position to honor that or it isn't. Indian MOD requested 30% Offset and received it for the C-130J, Canada asked and received 100%. Its all a function of what is asked in the deal and what the OEM is contracted to provide.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by deejay »

BTW, how much is the Rafale deal presently worth? Is it a) $ 15 billion, b) $ 20 billion c) $ 22 billion d) $ 25 billion e) $ 30 billion or f) $15-$18 Billion g) $ 20-$22 billion, h) $22-$25 billion or i) 1 lakh 44 thousand Crores (~$24 Billion @Rs. 60 per dollar) j) 1 Lakh Crores (~$16.67 Billion @Rs. 60 per Dollar). (Indian to Western conversion is mental so may be wrong)

Are we quoting prices of convenience because all the articles that mention the price keep it in the high range or low range based on their leanings.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Dhan,tx for the note on the billions spent in acquiring the C-17 instead of fighters.I was most vociferous when the C-17 deal was inked.It suddenly appeared out of nowhere! This was confirmed to me by a Delhi source. It was never a high priority item of the IAF.
ACM PV Naik would disagree.
Secondly,and much was posted in the transport td.,the IL-476 was far cheaper and we could've obtained 3-4 IL-476s for the price of just one C-17.
The IL-476's flyaway cost is abouut $120M (from the recent Russian order) or about half that of the C-17's $250M flyaway price tag. For an export customer that will be in excess of $150M. (Compare 'official' prices for the Su-30SM to the Su-30MKI.)

So basically, you could get 1.5 IL-476s for the cost of 1 C-17. Factor in operational availability and sortie generation rate and the C-17 comes out at par if not well ahead.
China is picking up MI-26s while we appear to prefer smaller Chinooks and Apaches to LCHs.
Do you expect China to order Chinooks and Apaches from the US? They buy Russian because only the Russians are ready to supply high-grade military equipment to India's biggest military threat.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

Dhananjay wrote:The debate had proven thoroughly that never there was a single voice raised for such a specific tonnage aircraft, ever. In Bharat here we saw IAF asking for Hawk trainer for 23 years, while we read for the first time in press about C-17 suddenly. Its like IAF + MoD doing a sudden FMS deal with Rafale for 126 jets without sending RFP to other a/c mnfrs. And only creating a unique need which feets just only Rafale.
The debate had proven thoroughly that the operational availability of the IL-76 fleet was down to unacceptable levels and that the IAF had recurring problems with maintenance.
2018 to 2058 for 40-50 billions I don't have any problem, hell even IAF doesn't. Down to 29 squadrons its emergency, we must act.
That's $3 billion upfront. And $2 billion plus annually for the next 10 years. The MoF will have a problem.
I take it you haven't visited the Indian Military Aviation thread lately.
All drama, just a token protest to show off. Those who are really objective are like 'brar_warrior' knowing inside out of F-35, loving it yet rejecting it completely for MMRCA.
The arguments for the F-35 are the same as for the Tejas, LCH and LUH. They are all deliver value-for-money. And you seem surprising happy with Brar_w's posts which contradict everything you've ever claimed about its cost and capability.
Whenever he did I fought with him too, in armoured both him and philip too.
'All drama, just a token protest to show off'? Because I haven't seen you 'fighting' with Arthuro over his statements about India's indigenous programs.
Bloody idiot Dhananjay you don't understand paying 850 million $ per C-17 is nothing, we're blessed that uncle sam has deigned to do this day time robbery on us. Strategic partenership and all that.........
We're paying $410 million per C-17 including the aircraft, spare parts, spare engines, training, long term support contracts etc. Not $850 million.
Ah 410 million per aircraft is cheap to you? How many air chiefs or reports you saw that IAF was desperate for such a big ticket deal?
For the function, size and payload of the aircraft, $410 million is a reasonable cost. The Airbus A380 also costs $410 million, that hasn't stopped it from getting over 300 orders from 20 customers.
The IAF is down to 29 squadrons so buy Tejas Mk1, expedite the Tejas Mk2 and scrap the MMRCA. You want the ability to carry out high threat ISR, SEAD/DEAD or strike missions in Chinese airspace, get 2-3 squadrons of F-35s.
Exactly just like "medium" or MMRCA can be ignored and Light Tejas can suffice, same way lighter Il-76 / 476 would suffice why buy such expensive C-17? Why that unique tonnage? Why didn't you people have same heartache at seeing such an enormous amount of money going out of country?
If there was a domestic alternative to the C-17, I'd have been all for it. The Il-476 was not in production and its costs after it went into production have not proven to be ultra-cheap as was suggested at the time. If the Il-476 were ordered instead, an enormous amount of money would still be going out of the country.

How come the 'Medium' in MMRCA was high enough to include the Gripen but utterly discounts the Tejas?

Want to develop domestic tech base, invest in domestic R&D. We pay extra for ToT and through a long and storied history of ToT deals, its unfortunately proven not to be a shortcut to the top for India.
No fine, ToT means nothing then why usa has problem in giving it 100%? No use can be made of it anyway. THE TRUTH IS THAT AMERICAN PENTAGON REFUSED TO GIVE PERMISSION TO LM FOR HELPING OUT IN TEJAS TESTING METHODS!
We're not getting 100% ToT from France either. Software in particular if leaked (even accidently) can jeopardize operational security for every serving Rafale (or F-35). That would basically be giving away what countries spend billions on ELINT to steal.

The US DoD did NOT refuse permission to the LM. Its the bureaucratic logjam which cause LM to overshoot ADA's 90 day deadline and lose the consultancy contract.
arthuro
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by arthuro »

If Il76 availibility was not good enough, the same rational should apply to Su-30 mki: Go for the more reliable MRCA option instead...

Also what you continuously discount are the other consideration than value for money through US FMS. ToT, independence of use (F35), indegeneous manufacturing and other strategic consideration. Your view is so far from Indian concerns which clearly has an emphasis on ToT, offsets with local manufacturing.

Investing directly in R&D is fine unless it is here to reinvent a less capable wheel. Current record in India is not wortheless by any mean but it has not yet demonstrated it can handle effectively a modest light weight fighter program (not to mention that trainer). Betting it can develop an uber 4th gen aircraft with the tejas mk2 and then the AMCA is rather dubious...hence the cold feet from IAF operationals which can already see the limits of current indegeneous platforms despite all those year of development.
This also explain why nor the tejas and tejas mk2 were among the MRCA competitors and that none of them compete on international markets.
Last edited by arthuro on 14 Aug 2014 14:31, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Post by Viv S »

arthuro wrote:Mirage 2000D upgrade was supposed to be 700 million for around 80 aiframe but the scope wad limited ...all ressources to the rafale in France.
According the article NRao posted the Mirage 2000D upgrade is still on. Makes sense too, for a mere €400M it could get 45 upgraded Mirages and meet its 225 aircraft fleet goal. Incidently, India had to pay more than four times as much, so that's a useful indicator of what Rafale support might cost in the years to come.
Some like you believe it is not worth it as other alternatives exist. As far as I am concerned I think that LCA, F35, AMCA, FGFA are no credible alternatives for different reason : Indegeneous path is not credible due to the poor record,
If Indian industry is such a failure, it sort of takes the air of the ToT balloon doesn't it? What's the point if domestic programs are doomed to fail? Unless you'd like to make the case that this ToT deal is hugely different from the dozens of ToT deals India has made in the past.
F35 is nice but you are completely tied to the US (no ToT, source codes...),
The PLA won't be quite so cavalier about the F-35's effect on its IADS. Also, ToT, source code not required to integrate non-source armaments.
FGFA is a niche air superiority fighter with limited AtG payload.
The PAK FA can carry a full range of air to ground munitions externally and it'll still have a lower RCS than the Rafale.
I forgot the SU-30 which is old gen however big and impressive it is.
By 2020, the Su-30 will be 'old gen' as well.
On the article several innacuracies wich broke the limit of amateurism tend to temper its credibility.
Its not written by a defence journalist and its in a magazine that focuses on the bureaucratic services. Discount the technical aspects by all means, but the information and concerns about the cost on the other hand are likely to be genuine as they're sourced from the MoD.
Locked