Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

[Viv S]

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

- The Su-30MKI has already been indigenized and is manufactured completely in-house.
- 200 out of 270 Sukhois have already been delivered. The balance will be delivered by the time the Rafale deliveries start. Where is the question of replacement?
- If anything can make up the numbers, its the Tejas of which five can be bought for the cost of one Rafale. Not to mention, the Mk2 will be available by the end of the decade.

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.

Our current approach and concerns has left us with barely 30 odd squadrons and staring at an unaffordable bill for the Rafale. As far as strategic autonomy goes, its served by developing the domestic industry, which requires govt funding invested in R&D not blueprints from Dassault. A few billion saved from the MMRCA and injected in those segments directly will yield far greater results.

Its also worth asking - will France support India in the event of a face-off or war with China? Its already cut off support for Taiwan's Mirage 2000s and La Fayettes, at least partially under pressure from the PRC. And did India's concerns figure when France was lobbying to get its defence companies access to the Chinese market? Will Indian interests be put ahead of Areva and Alstom, if India requests an emergency shipment of munitions or spares during a mobilization, and PRC pressurizes France to delay? The US is not in India's corner yes, but at least its not in China's corner.

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).

The Tejas Mk1 has cost about $1.2 billion to develop (a lot of which will feed into other programs) and delivered an aircraft that costs just $26 million each. That's a level of cost effectiveness that Dassault doesn't offer.

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.

Who said anything about an uber 4th gen aircraft? We're referring to a credible but cheap aircraft to make up the numbers. And the cost of the Rafale is what's giving cold feet to the MoD and GoI.

This also explain why nor the tejas and tejas mk2 were among the MRCA competitors and that none of them compete on international markets.

The MMRCA RFI was in 2004 and RFP was issued in 2007. The Tejas got its IOC in 2013. The implications should be obvious.

[Manish_Sharma]

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.

Exactly the same way the cost with ToT and 50% offsets the cost of Rafale is reasonable. You have personal problem with money going to anybody else than Anglo-American circle hence you find it objectionable. Now buying a 410 million dollar a/c compared to 150 million isn't making you worry about Bharat's money spent extravagently, while in case of Rafale......... but what to expect, when you don't mind at all the way america sanctioned and kicked out our LCA Tejas scientists out, confiscated even our own parts which had been sent to test. Complete fanatical blind support for any misdeeds of americans.

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.

These american ba$tards shouldn't get any F-35 orders. The way these jihadi supporters denied visa to elected CM of Bharat, even now after eating the crow and having to invite PM NaMo inside the americans are boiling with repressed hatred. That b!tch michelle obama doesn't want to give full national dinner in honour and instead just wants a quick lunch and get it over with. These americans will happily sell their wives to get any business.

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.

No the support was for letting the money go 410 million dollar per plane to amrika than just 150 million per plane to non-amrikans. Anyway as its obvious that like MMRCA, Hawk trainer these deals take years of demands by chiefs the matters are discussed to death in media but for C-17 there was not even a whiff ever, suddenly one day one gets informed the billions are being spent to buy a certain unique tonnage a/c by govt. for IAF. Great! Just great. No that was just a mole PM looting his own country to fill the coffers of his handlers.

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

Exactly, that's why the C-17 deal is completely fishy. Why suddenly IAF need became so rigid on just uniqe volume and tonnage of just C-17? Out and out loot. As for Rafale, it has come up from a whole competition in specific 643 parameters which IAF listed based upon their 60 years of experience.

See when grippen wanted to show off hot fueling with running engine, IAF refused. They were only interested in their own parameters in which american jets failed miserably with others, while ef2k and rafale came top. Due to passing top in these parameters rafale fits in IAF needs perfectly. I think we're getting rafale surely and you'll be proven wrong just as you were when ef2k was beaten.

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.

So you're opposing all the deals and JVs this hagel guy has been offering now? I think you're just pretending in your support for Tejas, as you're keeping a back door open for sneaking in jsf. This support for LCA is fake, I've hardly seen you ever post in LCA thread ever, always busy in supporting C-17s or jsf.

Dhananjay wrote: 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!

VivS wrote: 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.

See so truth comes out, upto now you were completely dissing ToT is completely irrelevant but now it comes out. Even if Rafale isn't giving 100% ToT its much more than americans will ever allow to give.

There was no ToT in LM taking money and just helping with 'Testing' of your beloved Tejas, and those criminal racist m'f%$(*$% pentagon even refused that. You know that how uptight miserly constipated US is regarding Bharatvarsh, that's why you've been dissing ToT as 'nothing'.

The american ba$tards even prevented israel to give 2052 for 'your beloved Tejas', there hatred runs so deep.

Your whole campaign Tejas for Rafale is just to kill 2 birds with one stone. Prevent money from going to non-anglo americans, and later you'll say "oh due to changed circumstances..... I now've to say we should by at least 60 F-35s".

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.

A private US company losing business due to logjam? Well what to say.......

[Manish_Sharma]

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 Il-476 is $120M flyway, while sold for $150M ,

while C-17 is $250M flyway, and sold for $410M?
A profit of $160M per a/c?

[Manish_Sharma]

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.

Do you agree and disagree with ACMs when it suits you?

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.”

[member_20292]

Someone else said that one could buy Dassault for that price.

Owning a company does not mean that when you give an order for aircraft (or toys or sabun or underwear) , the engineers and the technicians will not create the order on an empty stomach. You have to pay them the price for MAKING it additionally - owning the company does not come in the way.

It's only in India, where being part of the govt. means that you can pay for nothing on the railways and on Air India....in the real world, owning something does not equate not paying it to deliver new work.

[arthuro]

viv, if Nrao would have quote the article fairly, you would be able to read the next paragraph:

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.

“Beyond 2020, we are going to be replacing these aircraft with Rafales, an excellent piece of news, because it means the production line will remain active for many years to come,” Mercier says. “Ultimately, we will be OK.”

You would also read that a next NG standard is being prepared for mid 20s.

Looking forward, the agency and industry are already preparing the next generation. As soon as the F3-R is complete, the DGA will begin work on a new standard to be qualified by the mid-2020s.

On mirahes 2000D, 400 millions for few dozen aircraft and for approx 10 years of remaining shelf life is very little. I did not know it was still on as no milestones to my knowledge have been published on this.

So we still have 180 rafale on orders + a fifth tranche coming (F3R) as confirmed by 1) white book 2) French mindef 3) French air force chief of staff. + a new rafale NG development to emerge in the mid 20s. Not bad !

In fact Nrao had also this on the 4th tranche vs exports :

]
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.

If france do not find exports to slow down the deliveries it will have to take the rafales sooner than expected but no rafale cancelled in the forth batch.

@Nrao : Delay in deliveries and cut on other program are here to ensure the rafale will get all the ressources it needs in a tight budget environement. Postponing deliveries helps to keep the production lines open for several more years. Other cuts allow to free money for next rafale upgrade (each 5 to 7 years in average). Given the budgetary constraints, it is probably the smartest way to deal with this program.

[member_20292]

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

What part of the French military - industrial complex do you work in Arthuro? What are your credentials please?

I only ask because I find your posts informative, but quite , say, at an angle to other posters here. I don't know whom to believe , since everyone quotes authoritative sources..

For that matter, what is the background of some other esteemed posters on here-- Viv S? and Brar_w?

Thanks..if you can give a glimpse without compromising on your own privacy. Thanks very much.

[brar_w]

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

Isn't that the reason why (and the high fleet O&S cost for heavy fighters)the MKI was excluded from the MRCA?

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

Strategic lift comes at a cost. Acquisition cost is one aspect, lifetime O&S cost is a totally another thing. Heavy lifters require, facilities and MMHPFH figures are extremely important given that these things are expected to last 30,000-40,000 if not more through SLEP's. Commercial (Civilian transport and Cargo haulers) and Military customers throughout the world have been more than willing (historically as transport aircraft have evolved) to pay a huge huge premium in acquisition costs for very high reliability rates ( dispatch reliability measured in 99+% for commercial 777, and on the military side the C-17 gets you between 75-82% mission availability rate over a large fleet, that has conducted its fare share of ops @ combat tempo) in addition to Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH), logistical footprint and Man maintenance hours required per hour of flying (directly affects the mission availability and the tempo of ops during wartime). Boeing, Airbus have made a lot of sales and money by increasing the metrics generation after generation and delivering aircraft that achieve a near 100% dispatch reliability and offer a lowering operating cost compared to the aircraft they are replacing. 20 C-17's or IL-76s mean a minimum of 600,000 fleet operating hours (lifetime) which would most likely extend to 800,000 hours as most operators would look to extend lives on their frames (As a comparison a fleet of 100 Rafael's will give you around 800,000 fleet hours before life extensions). Its on these metrics that the C-17 really excels and its designed with these features and over the years the OEM has gathered enough data on this aspect so as to include a warranty with its sale just like it would do on a commercial airliner such as a 747-8F or 777F. This trend is only going to hold true for the next generation of transport aircraft. Already the C-17 program and Boeing are working on software based formation flying to bring down fuel burn by 5-10% during long haul..The program goals of 25-30% Fuel burn reduction in future heavy lifters more than justify a 1.5x cost growth that these systems are likely to bring in the acquisition costs.

As far as the C-17 vs IL476 goes, the latter has just been delivered this year and a grand total of 4 are expected to be delivered by the end of 2015. Indian Air Force will wrap up its entire initial acquisition of 10 aircraft before the end of 2014.
The A380F variant really didn't take off but thats because the design was not optimum. Perhaps the A38-9 would be better but with the sort of sales that the whale jet is having future iterations would have to have their ambitions toned down. The aircraft that revolutionized large scale freight was the 747 and it still reigns supreme in the VLA freight market, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

[Viv S]

Exactly the same way the cost with ToT and 50% offsets the cost of Rafale is reasonable. You have personal problem with money going to anybody else than Anglo-American circle hence you find it objectionable. Now buying a 410 million dollar a/c compared to 150 million isn't making you worry about Bharat's money spent extravagently, while in case of Rafale......... but what to expect, when you don't mind at all the way america sanctioned and kicked out our LCA Tejas scientists out, confiscated even our own parts which had been sent to test. Complete fanatical blind support for any misdeeds of americans.

With ToT and 50% offsets, the Rafale is not worth it at $20 billion. The political arguments are immaterial, its simply a question of cost vs capability. Comparing the cost of a heavy lift aircraft with a combat aircraft is absurd.

These american ba$tards shouldn't get any F-35 orders. The way these jihadi supporters denied visa to elected CM of Bharat, even now after eating the crow and having to invite PM NaMo inside the americans are boiling with repressed hatred. That b!tch michelle obama doesn't want to give full national dinner in honour and instead just wants a quick lunch and get it over with. These americans will happily sell their wives to get any business.

Then please stick to visa-not-given arguments. Please don't adjust the geopolitical and military realities to fit that narrative.

No the support was for letting the money go 410 million dollar per plane to amrika than just 150 million per plane to non-amrikans.

And where is this mythical '$150 million' heavy airlifter to come from? Certainly not from UAC.

Anyway as its obvious that like MMRCA, Hawk trainer these deals take years of demands by chiefs the matters are discussed to death in media but for C-17 there was not even a whiff ever, suddenly one day one gets informed the billions are being spent to buy a certain unique tonnage a/c by govt. for IAF. Great! Just great. No that was just a mole PM looting his own country to fill the coffers of his handlers.

Where was the decade long debate when the Su-30MKI was chosen or for its follow on orders? Or for the Mirage purchase in 2004? How much delay was there in the Phalcon or IL-78 purchases? The fact that multi-vendor competitions have been delayed doesn't mean that that is the default time that ought to be taken for such a purchase.

You hate the C-17 because its American and that's fine. But the technical or financial arguments rolled out don't hold water.

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

Exactly, that's why the C-17 deal is completely fishy. Why suddenly IAF need became so rigid on just uniqe volume and tonnage of just C-17? Out and out loot. As for Rafale, it has come up from a whole competition in specific 643 parameters which IAF listed based upon their 60 years of experience.

That's a unique way of dodging the question. You say Tejas can't meet 'Medium' requirement. I ask how could the Gripen. You tell me the C-17 is fishy.

For the record, the C-17 was formally requested by the same IAF with its 60 years of experience. And serving and retired IAF officers were just as supportive of it publicly as they are of the Rafale deal today. The crucial difference is that the C-17 came at the expected cost and was delivered as per schedule, while the Rafale has exceeded the cost estimates by at least 100% and will be delivered almost a decade behind the plan (with obvious implications on obsolescence).

See when grippen wanted to show off hot fueling with running engine, IAF refused. They were only interested in their own parameters in which american jets failed miserably with others, while ef2k and rafale came top. Due to passing top in these parameters rafale fits in IAF needs perfectly. I think we're getting rafale surely and you'll be proven wrong just as you were when ef2k was beaten.

We also got the C-17 didn't we? Chosen and requested by the IAF. If you think that deal was shady, well... Mr S. Swamy has things to say about the Rafale as well.

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.

So you're opposing all the deals and JVs this hagel guy has been offering now?

Oppose the Apache. Support the Chinook. Javelin v Spike; depends on the cost v capability.

I think you're just pretending in your support for Tejas, as you're keeping a back door open for sneaking in jsf. This support for LCA is fake, I've hardly seen you ever post in LCA thread ever, always busy in supporting C-17s or jsf.

'Sneaking in JSF'. As opposed to kicking away the Tejas for $20 billion on the Rafale?

See so truth comes out, upto now you were completely dissing ToT is completely irrelevant but now it comes out. Even if Rafale isn't giving 100% ToT its much more than americans will ever allow to give.

There's relatively little design or development experience to be gained from ToT. Entities with a high core competencies in crucial areas can however exploit it to improve countermeasures (Javelin's seeker algorithms for eg. can be used to improve softkill/DIRCM defences against it).

Of what will be manufactured in India under ToT, very little can be ported over to domestic products. The Tejas will already be in service and the AMCA is too far off.

The american ba$tards even prevented israel to give 2052 for 'your beloved Tejas', there hatred runs so deep.

If they own the tech partially and would prefer to sell the RACR/SABR...

Your whole campaign Tejas for Rafale is just to kill 2 birds with one stone. Prevent money from going to non-anglo americans, and later you'll say "oh due to changed circumstances..... I now've to say we should by at least 60 F-35s".

So the decisions to buy or not buy the Tejas/Rafale/F-35 is made here on BRF huh? Fancy that.

A private US company losing business due to logjam? Well what to say.......

Indian companies aren't the only ones that have issues with excessive bureaucracy.

______________________________________


Since apparently you see the world in black and white and have trouble swallowing the fact that someone could support both the Tejas and F-35. Let me lay it out clearly and in as simple terms as possible -

If we fight a war with China today, we may lose. If we fight a war with China in 10 years, we will lose. They're already inducting over 50 J-10s and J-11s annually. We can't spend as much they do on defence without crippling the economy, but can we maximize the return on our limited spending. That means buying cost effective equipment.

The Tejas is cost effective as is the F-35 and their roles don't overlap. The Rafale is NOT cost-effective at either role. [4.5G fighter at 5G cost in a 5G time-frame] Also includes the LCH over the Apache, MCIWS over the M4, Shivalik over the Talwar, LOH over the Fennec, Scorpene over the Amur, and so on. (No the IL-476 is not more cost-effective than the C-17.)

If a US-sourced weapon offers better value-for-money than a European or Russian one, and can help shift that military balance back in India's favour, I'm all for it. Even if Michele Obama didn't throw a satisfactory banquet or whatever.

[arthuro]

Viv, ToT is here to teach and close the technological gap if correctly taught and leverage.
It works in many countries why not in India.

Selling Technology Transfer

For DCNS, the export market includes selling technical skills to foreign navies to design their own vessels, with courses at sites such as Ruelle, in central France, and Toulon in the south.Technology transfer is seen as a sales tool, offering what Planchais described as added value to customers. The alternative is a refusal, he said.

Export sales are essential if DCNS is to hit its target of doubling annual sales to 5 billion euros ($7.02 billion) in 10 years. To meet this goal, the company will help customers design, build and maintain their vessels.

For Brazil, for instance, DCNS will help the authorities build a shipyard and a naval base as part of a 6.7 billion euro ($9.4 billion) contract for four Scorpene-class diesel-electric patrol submarines. Of that total, DCNS will get 4 billion euros.

Detailed models of a shipyard and naval base were among displays on the exhibition stand at Euronaval.

DCNS also will help the Brazilian Navy design the conventional parts of a nuclear-powered submarine. It recently opened a submarine design school at Lorient, in northern France, as part of its Brazilian commitments

[NRao]

Viv, ToT is here to teach and close the technological gap if correctly taught and leverage.
It works in many countries why not in India.

Selling Technology Transfer

For DCNS, the export market includes selling technical skills to foreign navies to design their own vessels, with courses at sites such as Ruelle, in central France, and Toulon in the south.Technology transfer is seen as a sales tool, offering what Planchais described as added value to customers. The alternative is a refusal, he said.

Export sales are essential if DCNS is to hit its target of doubling annual sales to 5 billion euros ($7.02 billion) in 10 years. To meet this goal, the company will help customers design, build and maintain their vessels.

For Brazil, for instance, DCNS will help the authorities build a shipyard and a naval base as part of a 6.7 billion euro ($9.4 billion) contract for four Scorpene-class diesel-electric patrol submarines. Of that total, DCNS will get 4 billion euros.

Detailed models of a shipyard and naval base were among displays on the exhibition stand at Euronaval.

DCNS also will help the Brazilian Navy design the conventional parts of a nuclear-powered submarine. It recently opened a submarine design school at Lorient, in northern France, as part of its Brazilian commitments

Arturo,

Great example. Thanks.

Two things to note, common to most, if not all "ToT"s:

* They fill a process gap and never a R&D gap, and
* They are always limited

Both ensure that a client is perpetually dependent (and that is OK - part of the game).

India has been manufacturing planes (Gnat, MiG-21, Jags, Su-30 MKI) *for decades* and yet has to continually go back to either France or Russia to get the next gen plane. Think about it.

In a "ToT" a buyer expects to gain some to fill critical gaps in their R&D and get very little, while the seller will always provide gap fillers for processes and ensure that the buyer is reliant on them (preferably for ever).

Heck with the MiG and Su production in India, why would India ever go back to Russia for something like the FGAF? Because neither ToT nor Lic Manufacturing fill the R&D gap. Neither the Soviets nor the Russians allowed India to gain R&D out of those deals - which is OK, it is to be expected.

Does Brazil have to approach France for ToT for private jets?
____________________________________

Here is a new idea:

India leases a 100 used Rafale from France (upgrade them to whatever F3 level????) (and toss them out in 2030/35) France can ramp up her production to fulfill her internal needs.

In addition India outright buys some technologies (R&D + Process) that will actually pave the way for the AMCA.

And, India spends the $10 billions that is saved on internal efforts.

____________________________________

This is *not* about spending $20 billion - it will get spent somewhere. The question is where does India spend this money - within India or outside India.

[arthuro]

Very relevant remarks Nrao which I agree with. The issue of absorbing ToT and the fact that India is still dependent on imports is spot on.

Which is also why Dassault or other companies do not always fear ToT as the time to absorb it technology will already moves on.

But the core issue lies in India itself rather than in the ToT promise. If India as a country cannot leverage on ToT it should modernize its industry an invest on education and R&D.

So you would say it makes a case for tejas or AMCA ? But probably that IAF operstional do not want to bet several billions on an indegeneous platform which might not meet its operational requirements. They feel they need a capable aircraft soon and other indian authorities bet that this time ToT will keep its promises. Not an easy situation. Probably indian authorities thought the rafale is a lower risk approach than tejas Mk2 and AMCA to deliver the right capability while still gaining some know how.

But without a strong and numerous skilled engineer and technician force + efficient governance companies the vicious circle will remain. This type of hurdle is long to clear and I dont think that the IAF can wait or take the risk with China on the rise.

[arthuro]

Some gems from the roundtable regarding the LCA and which can be linked to MRCA (see dedicated thread for complete review)

1) LCA as expensive as MRCA:

And the last issue is cost-related. Cost of LCA and cost of MMRCA cannot be compared because in cost, it depends on what elements you’ve included. So in the first 20 order we placed, it was just for the aircraft. Fully formed aircraft. When we wanted to include – and there was a small component for ground-support equipment. That ground-support equipment became a major issue because HAL said ‘we did not know what were the specifications’ and another, additional amount had to be earmarked later. So if you include all the elements which are: MRLS – that is Manufacturer Recommended List of Spares – warranty, product support for certain period – eight years, normally. Five to eight years – training, all the infrastructure and at times the differed revenue cost, or the set-up cost. Then all this becomes comparable and if we add all that and the development cost, then LCA is not a very cheap aircraft. But since the figures which we’re comparing, the figures which we compare tend to create a distorted picture. – Air Marshal (retd.) Nirdosh Tyagi

2) LCA is not a replacement for MRCA:

As someone who’s been involved closely with the program, and who’s done two studies intimately, I’d like to put certain things at rest. One: the LCA and MMRCA cannot be compared. So don’t flog that fallacy that under the indigenous program the LCA can now take over the MMRCA’s requirements and fill in those gaps – its not possible. The most important thing is, in the LCA program, we suffer from a national culture which I call – it flows from our caste culture system. Why? Because nowhere in the world, when designers are given certain tasks to design an aircraft and develop it, the interface between the user – user’s ability to convince and make him understand what he wants and what are the operational requirements so that the designer can choose the right design intent, is completely and interactive process.

Here, the scientific adviser will tell the air chief technology demonstration is my job – you’ve given me the ASR, now lay off – let me finish my technology demonstration program, then you come in – we will see thereafter. There’s the problem. Because it’s too late to come in and make changes. That’s one.

Second. What Admiral Arun Prakash said is absolutely correct. The F-22 program was – after the basic technology demonstration program the user takes over the entire program management. The US Air Force appointed a program manager with significant powers – financial as well as executive decision-making with respect to the program.

Because you must take even a decision – even if you have to foreclose the program if its not viable and you must have that wherewithal for it, so you have to be trained and you have to be fully in that process. This man took over the F-22 program as a Lieutenant Colonel – he remained the program manager when the F-22 was operationally inducted 20 years later and he was Lieutenant General when he retired. There’s a problem in our service culture and service mindset. We don’t want to put people on professional competencies as experts on a program for any length of time. Our P-staff or personnel staff in the other two services will cry hoarse and say ‘no, this guy cannot be in Bangalore for 20 years or three years or five years. So we keep breaking the expertise and it’s like the monkey climbing up and coming down two feet down so we are always at the perpetual start point. These are the fundamental factors that impinge on this.

More importantly, I think DRDO and the public sector spend more time on publicity events – on non-events. I said, stop all that. You know you have a pre-IOC, you have an IOC, you have a huge celebration – you actually keep announcing things – ‘we are the fourth country to achieve this’, ‘we are the fifth country to achieve this’ or ‘we are the third country to achieve this’ – where is the final product? Where is it going to see the operational utility? How about questioning that? Where are the timelines? Where is the cost accountability?

This is what we need to question. We stop these public events, we stop these announcements for the rest of the world and if you think that we’re fooling the rest of the world – we’re fooling ourselves. The rest of the world, who are experts in technologies in the aerospace domain – they know exactly what’s wrong with your aircraft. They know exactly where your technologies remain.

So the person who said there’s always been a conflict between HAL, DRDO and air force – there’s never been a change of stance of air force. Constantly, there’s an accusation that goalposts have been shifted by air force. The ASR was approved with everybody involved in 1985 and there were two concessions given in 1989 – no other change has ever been made. It is their inability to conform the ASR, for a variety of reasons. – Air Marshal (retd) M Matheswaran.

[arthuro]

Having read all the inputs from the roundtable there is not a single chance that Tejas, Tejas Mk2 or AMCA could replace MRCA. What a mess. I laught thinking at the so called unamed experts in the bureaucracy article posted here who are so far from reality.

It is also interesting to read that the FGFA investment was done with minimal if no commitment of armed forces. It seems that MRCA is the only thing operational have a clear grasp/control with known and tested capabilities. No wonder IAF operationals are pushing hard for it seeing the disater on other programs. They must be dismayed.

We’ve sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we’ve sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don’t understand. So it’s committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen.

.

[Viv S]

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 Il-476 is $120M flyway, while sold for $150M ,

while C-17 is $250M flyway, and sold for $410M?
A profit of $160M per a/c?

No that's $120 million officially stated to the Russian govt. The actual flyaway cost for an export customer will be well in excess of $150 million.

Also, the difference between the contract figure and flyaway cost is NOT the profit margin. The package cost including training, spares, long term support etc in addition to the flyaway cost. In the C-17's case this includes a performance based logistics contract wherein IIRC Boeing guarantees 85% operational availability for the IAF's fleet.

[Viv S]

Which is also why Dassault or other companies do not always fear ToT as the time to absorb it technology will already moves on.

Good point. Also design competencies can't really be addressed through ToT. Which is why HAL's IJT program might need to be shelved despite HAL's long history with ToT while ADA's Tejas design has proven itself to be quite robust with test pilots comparing it favourably to the Mirage 2000.

But the core issue lies in India itself rather than in the ToT promise. If India as a country cannot leverage on ToT it should modernize its industry an invest on education and R&D.

A chunk of that $20 billion would go a long way in improving the R&D setup at least.

But without a strong and numerous skilled engineer and technician force + efficient governance companies the vicious circle will remain. This type of hurdle is long to clear and I dont think that the IAF can wait or take the risk with China on the rise.

India will lose any spending match against China where its forced to depend on pricey imported equipment while the Chinese churn out equipment with 80% of the same capability at just 30% of the cost.

Viv, ToT is here to teach and close the technological gap if correctly taught and leverage.
It works in many countries why not in India.

Hmm.. and do they hold exams to test the level of ToT absorption? Then we can probably look forward to the mushrooming of coaching classes for HAL employees. *Dr N Rao's Bright Coaching Classes for HAL test. High success rate. Admissions close soon. Hurry, limited seats!* (What say NRaoji? Its a money spinner. And if you could use a partner...)

Having read all the inputs from the roundtable there is not a single chance that Tejas, Tejas Mk2 or AMCA could replace MRCA. What a mess. I laught thinking at the so called unamed experts in the bureaucracy article posted here who are so far from reality.

Unfortunately the grim reality also is that the deal now costs $20 billion+ instead of the $12 billion advertised when the downselect happened. The 'experts' may want it but the bean-counters get their say as well (and apparently call it 'financial suicide').

[NRao]

Having read all the inputs from the roundtable there is not a single chance that Tejas, Tejas Mk2 or AMCA could replace MRCA. What a mess. I laught thinking at the so called unamed experts in the bureaucracy article posted here who are so far from reality.

What do you mean by that?

MMRCA is part of a doctrine. It came, it can also go. Change the doctrine. Phoooooof. Gone.

It is also interesting to read that the FGFA investment was done with minimal if no commitment of armed forces. It seems that MRCA is the only thing operational have a clear grasp/control with known and tested capabilities. No wonder IAF operationals are pushing hard for it seeing the disater on other programs. They must be dismayed.

We’ve sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we’ve sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don’t understand. So it’s committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen.

.

Is that true? India has spent $390 million so far, not even $0.5 billion. So, where did they come up with that?

[TSJones]

Having read all the inputs from the roundtable there is not a single chance that Tejas, Tejas Mk2 or AMCA could replace MRCA. What a mess. I laught thinking at the so called unamed experts in the bureaucracy article posted here who are so far from reality.

It is also interesting to read that the FGFA investment was done with minimal if no commitment of armed forces. It seems that MRCA is the only thing operational have a clear grasp/control with known and tested capabilities. No wonder IAF operationals are pushing hard for it seeing the disater on other programs. They must be dismayed.

We’ve sunk money into the FGFA – PAK FA – which is already – three prototypes are already flying – the Russians have built it for their air force and we’ve sunk three or four billion US dollars into it – for what reason I don’t understand. So it’s committed. At the highest level of the government. So why is the air force allowing this to happen.

.

If that's true, you guys got hosed.

[Viv S]

Is that true? India has spent $390 million so far, not even $0.5 billion. So, where did they come up with that?

??

All that's been signed so far AFAIK is the PDC worth $295 million, which would put India's share at about $150 million. And of that a limited portion would have been disbursed thus far.

[Manish_Sharma]

[Post deleted and author warned for inappropriate language. Using colorful language against Services in the garb of criticism will not fly. It has been said so explicitly number of times here. - rohitvats.]

[LakshO]

So, MMRCA program has jumped from $10-12 billion (for 126 aircraft) to $20 billion (for 195 aircraft) to $28-30 billion (for whatever no. of aircraft). Inflation must be high in France May be, we should send NaMo bhai & Amit bhai to Paris so that France too can see some achche din

Because the currently bandied number is $28-30 billion, I hope GoI/MoD/MoF/IAF will not downsize the order to get a grip on the final $$$$ figure. Some, like Subramaniam Swamy, argue for scrapping the deal entirely and investing the same money in Tejas MkII. Neither of these are valid options as the IAF squadron strength are perilously low (down to 33 squadrons, IIRC).

Instead, GoI/MoD/MoF/IAF can consider to scrap plans for local manufacture of Rafale and go for 126/195 off-the-shelf purchase. Sure, we end up paying $15-18 billions to Dassault but we end up saving INR50-60K crores for NOT adding a new assembly line for Rafale at HAL. The money saved can be poured into LCA MkII, NLCA, and most importantly Kaveri. For purchasing 126/195 Rafale off-the-shelf, GoI/MoD//IAF must insist that Dassault help us get Kaveri to power LCA MkII and NLCA. IMHO, an indigenous Kaveri powering a Tejas MkII, NLCA is far more important than assembling 108/175 Rafales.

I don't think local manufacture of Mig21s, Jaguars, Su30MKIs has done anything for aircraft engine design capabilities of ADA/GTRE/HAL. So, what is HAL going to gain with transfer of screw driver technology from Dassault that Soviets (Mig21s, Su30MKIs) and Brits (Jaguars) haven't given us?

Ideally, by 2025-30, IAF must plan on:
Tejas MkI + Tejas MkII + NLCAs - 200 Nos. (HAL manufactured)
Rafale - 195 Nos. (Dassault manufactured)
Su30MKIs - 250+ Nos. (HAL manufactured)
FGFA - 250+ Nos.

As is, HAL maintains the existing fleet (with assembly lines for Hawk, Su30MKIs), upcoming Tejas MkII, and NLCA. Why saddle them with another assembly line to manufacture Rafale that practically adds no value to HAL's knowledge?

Just my thoughts!

[Manish_Sharma]

^^ Laksh ji, sometime back Maitya ji had made these points regarding this acquision:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1630876

That’s exactly the point … based on Brazilian RFP, and without having a clue on what the exact requirements are, we are trying to forecast the “Life cycle cost” of a platform that will be substantially built in India.
I’m sure, just like India, Brazil RFP details wouldn’t be privy to anybody else – so based on what factors the Brazilian cost/price calc “is still a good indicator” for Indian requirements?

Plus ToT in itself can be and actually is vastly different – as it needs to factor in the country’s mil-tech Industrial maturity etc.

For example, if we are to insist (in the RFP), say, that the X-band TR modules are to indigenously produced in a foundry in India (while making a few other radar components like RCs importable) and that the radar will have to be final assembled by an Indian entity, and the RFP respondent would still have to guarantee the overall radar xhrs MTBF – various factors need to be considered.

First and foremost - Do we have the required parallel capability (i.e do we regularly produce X-band or even S-band TR modules) to ask for this? If yes, how much dependency of that is on imported (GaAs) foundries? Do we have required design level understanding of the existing TR modules being indigenously produced, so that we can tweak/adjust it graduate to those that are required for the particular platform in question?
Also stuff like do we produce raw materials for an equivalent TR module – if yes, how much of the material design is understood by us etc.

OR
Is it that we don’t have the capability to produce any >1 GHz TR modules in India – and we are looking at acquiring that capability via this program?
Etc etc etc

The answer to the above questions can be and will be vastly different from country to country – and the cost of acquiring it (so the price as well) would be vastly different.

Ditto with another possible example with Composite aeronautical structures – thanks our local program (LCA) we have a substantial capability to produce panels from raw materials. But guess what, the composite body panels of Rafale are a gen apart.
How the cost/price of manufacturing the composites structures should then be calculated? And moreover, are we aware of the Brazilian capability of mil aeronautical-grade composite design/manufacturing/engineering capabilities well enough to be able to extrapolate the cost/price of that aspect of the ToT cost?


And also what about commercial Strategic importance (and the resulting discount, both in terms of pricing and IP-sharing) of building up that “relationship”, both with the user-community and mil industrial complex?
Is this “relationship-valuation” identical for Brazilian and Indian? Even if it is, will it not vary from country to country OEMs. For example, Russians know very well, the user, IAF mindset towards their product for this contract (and so does, the French, again for this contract) – how much of that “understanding” would influence the ToT pricing and IP-sharing readiness. Will they not be vastly different? And will that difference be same/similar for Brazil – why and how?

I can go on and on … but will stop!!

So bottomline is it’s fundamentally wrong to forecast pricing etc without atleast a qualitative understanding of the “context” of the contract for which RFPs were floated for.

The Rafale deal may still turn out to be $20bil+ etc – but mere matching of these values doesn’t mean the fundamentally wrong method of forecasting to arrive at that pricing.

So all these "why not" platform B or C or D debates, is a wasteful exercise - if there's a will to complete the MMRCA process, it will have to be either Rafale or EF ... otherwise another decade long tech-eval, comm-eval and contract negotiation phases will be required. Not sure if the "need/requirement" of 4.5 gen platforms will be there that long.

The cost was never factored into the primary evaluation of the aircraft, which has proven to be the primary drawback to the MRCA competition. The evaluation was structured in such a way, that the IAF was bound to end up choosing the two most obviously expensive options.

And with the Tejas nearing its FOC we don't need the Rafale/EF or any decade long replacement program.
...
...
...

Actually to dual-hedge against Russian-price-gouging (plus tech denial) and Indian mil industrial capability of failing with delivery schedule, a third “western” alternative is a must. And, LCA (Mk2) will not be induction-density ready (i.e. the numbers that will be needed in the timeframe that they will be needed) by the time MMRCAs will be available.

And Mk2 is not even close to what capability Rafale brings to the table (so let’s not talk about Mk1) – I’ll ask one simple question. Do you have any open-source material that do a comparo wrt internal ECM/ESM suite of the M2K upgrade and those that are being envisaged for LCA Mk1? (I used to have the details of M2K upgrade in one of my very old BR writeup/post but couldn’t find it anymore).

We will talk about Rafale once we have baselined with the oh-so-costly upgraded-M2Ks.
Also, continuing such subsystems, have you seen any open-source material on Indian capability (so that it’ll make it to the LCA) on the following (typing from memory, in haste, so the list is way too shorter than it actually can be):
1) mmW based “active” MAWS (and not just some X-band active MAWS)
2) Military grade IRST with an integrated LR that’s good enough for 20Km head-on tracking and lock-on
3) Military grade IRST that would allow ground-targeting, say from 20K ft.
Etc.

I’ll not even go to the engine area as, well as all being imported, there’s nothing much to talk about there – except that if we can get the casting tech for AM1/2 turbine blades, that in itself would be worthwhile RoI (ok ok, maybe not 100% RoI, but say 30-40% atelast).

Talking about engines, I wonder how many LCAs will be flying if Uncle decides to block GE tomorrow – well, they can indirectly influence the French as well, but then that’s the whole game (and penalty of not able to develop the indigenous strategic capability – outside the scope of this discussion).


At the end of the day, IAF after detailed review of it’s threat perception and the required mitigating-capability, and have decided to have 3 categories of fighter platforms,
1) 30+ T MToW (Su-30MKI)
2) 15-30 T MToW (MMRCA winner)
3) < 15T MToW (LCA)

And this classification goes well beyond the scope of old segregated/dedicated platforms (for Interception, Interdiction, Recon, Ground-Attack, SEAD etc.) … with multi-role platforms available, ALL modern platforms are able to perform all of these functions albeit limited with the platforms overall weight/aerodynamic agility/endurance etc capability.
And how is it even relevant what the whole-world thinks/does etc …

I gave the 2Km * 2Km example – answer this, assuming it be at a range of say 300Km how many Rafales on self-escorted missions would be required for this and how many LCAs would be required to do so? And for that matter how many Su-30MKIs will be able to achieve it.
You used ARM as an example solution – so on an LCA, you are then required to sacrifice 1-2 stations for addn RWS systems to be able to provide sufficiently granular range and angular-orientation of the emitting targets (SAM). Do you need to do so in a Rafale (with SPECTRA) – pls find out!!


And the single vs twin-engined debate is far from decided (it actually tilted towards the double-engined ones, until the cost factors, both capital and recurring, came into picture). Fighters are, after all, not going to fly only during war etc, but will fly 90-95% of the total flight time during peace time. ‘nough said!!


Oh betw, the quote for Bison effectiveness, no I don’t have it anymore (should be in the BR archives, as it got posted around 2006-7 timeframe) – so take it FWIW.

[Viv S]

So, MMRCA program has jumped from $10-12 billion (for 126 aircraft) to $20 billion (for 195 aircraft) to $28-30 billion (for whatever no. of aircraft).

$20 billion for 126 aircraft. From what I gather, the breakdown is - about $16 billion for the aircraft, plus $4 billion for training, ToT, licensing, production infrastructure, offsets etc.

At least $6 billion for weapons - Meteor, MICA, AASM, SCALP-EG (equipping just 50 Mirages with MICAs costed $1.25 bn). Balance amount for long term support.

[Manish_Sharma]

So, MMRCA program has jumped from $10-12 billion (for 126 aircraft) to $20 billion (for 195 aircraft) to $28-30 billion (for whatever no. of aircraft).

$20 billion for 126 aircraft. From what I gather, the breakdown is - about $16 billion for the aircraft, plus $4 billion for training, ToT, licensing, production infrastructure, offsets etc.

At least $6 billion for weapons - Meteor, MICA, AASM, SCALP-EG (equipping just 50 Mirages with MICAs costed $1.25 bn). Balance amount for long term support.

Not that expensive, considering we paid 5 billion??? for 10 C-17. So having this deal in 26 billion seems quite ok.

[Viv S]

Not that expensive, considering we paid 5 billion??? for 10 C-17. So having this deal in 26 billion seems quite ok.

Its a huge amount considering 75 PC-7s cost us just $500 million.

[member_20453]

BRF had chosen the Rafale even before the IAF did and discussions back then were skewed towards the technically best aircraft winning the competition, not which was the best fit for our situation. Even the IAF and MoD had announced at the time that cost was no barrier and that we wanted "the best" and we wanted all of it, including full ToT (wtf that means). Like all chest puffing bombast, that has come home to kick us in the ass and of course, we need to swallow our pride and reassess things.

As I did back then, I still believe that the F-18 is the best option for us and should we choose it even now, we will get it much faster and far cheaper than the Rafale. Not only that, since the LCA2 also uses the same engine, we will have tremendous savings in maintenance and logistics over decades. It is one of the most feared warplanes around with the best radar and weapons system available and I am absolutely unconvinced that a more agile fighter has any advantage over it, not that the Shornet is a slouch. The billions saved can be plowed into the LCA2 and AMCA which can then develop without pressure and be done right.

If Shornet is off the table 100% for whatever reason, we should forget making the Rafale in India and just buy it off the shelf which will also bring us the fighters much faster and cheaper. Again, the money saved goes to LCA2 and AMCA but to expect HAL to absorb anything from spoonfed technology is as pathetic as the naive belief in "full ToT". The only thing certain is the fact that we need jets quickly and we simply cannot wait.

I agree entirely, the F-18 SH is the only aircraft that could meet this requirement of the MRCA since the very start. I believe that IAF (not sure if they themselves know it or not) needs a workhorse, something that can do plenty of things at a reasonable cost. They need to address falling number asap. F-18 International is a great proposal, the bird has new tech (fer better than the Rafale or EF) coming on board including large panel displays, new gen spherical MAWS, LWS, EPE engines, enclosed pods, greater optimisation of cross section etc. The bird is an all rounder and capable of deploying some of the most proven and resaonably priced weapons in the world. SH has been reliable and continues to be the bread and butter of the USN. With a production rate of over 40 aircraft per year and eventual closing on the line, they won't have any problem moving the entire line to India while delivering 2 squadrons in the last years of production. I believe we can order around 200 of these puppies at the same rate as the Rafale deal of 126 including a good amount of TOT. The TOT on the Rafale is still only around 70% and not 100% as claimed by others and I am sure Unkil can match that. I am

We will save a couple of billion in engine commnality with LCA mk-2 as well. The F414 engine now is easily the most advanced among all MRCA engines with CMCs being used in core parts shelving 200lbs or more per engine. It is also the most reliable without a single engine failure related crash till date.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-349834/

[govardhanks]

Don't know how far this is true (did't get multiple reports as ref)
UAE is not going to buy Dassult RAFALE,

UAE National Security Adviser Sheikh Hazza’ Bin Zayed Al Nahyan is said to be expecting the UAE to abandon the Rafale option definitively and end up limiting its options to either Eurofighter Typhoon or the Lockheed Martin F-35.

http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news ... views/4188

So we are the only foreign customers for Rafale.

[Viv S]

Don't know how far this is true (did't get multiple reports as ref)
UAE is not going to buy Dassult RAFALE,

UAE National Security Adviser Sheikh Hazza’ Bin Zayed Al Nahyan is said to be expecting the UAE to abandon the Rafale option definitively and end up limiting its options to either Eurofighter Typhoon or the Lockheed Martin F-35.

So we are the only foreign customers for Rafale.

Its still in the running in Qatar which has a history of operating French aircraft. Qatar is reportedly looking to purchase as many as 72 Rafales, but given that it only operates 12 Mirages today, that's a very dubious outlook. Eurofighter is still in the running in Qatar while leading in Kuwait & Bahrain, and was therefore being proposed as the pan-GCC fighter. But with GCC-Qatar ties going through a rough patch, the latter is somewhat harder sell for EF now.

[member_23694]

Dassault Rafale publication. Not sure if posted before

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... lications/

Some of the pdf's have good info [though a lot of the members may already be aware]. Some pics are very good

Do we have something similar for Tejas ?

[NRao]

about $16 billion for the aircraft, plus $4 billion for training, ToT, licensing, production infrastructure, offsets etc.

Seems to me that India will get scant little. Screw drivers + some APIs (the code) + http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... lications/.

Unless France + Dassault + Thales + etc are agreeing to allow porting these to other Indian efforts, without further IP burden, I do not see this as being a win-win, for the much longer run.

It looks like AJ is betting on Ache Din to bail this pup out. India better be cranking at 11-12% GDP to afford such machines + make internal progress (on all fronts).


But, the Rafale is coming for sure.

Do we have something similar for Tejas ?

Have they completed the documentation for their own pilots, etc?

[arthuro]

Investing on indian R&D is fine but it is like throwing money by the window without appropriate governance. IAF operationals are fed up of waiting and don't want to make another risky experiment with tejas or AMCA, especially with China on the rise. They are also fed up to have programs imposed for political/bureaucratic reasons. That's why The MMRCA is so important for them : They have tested it against their operational requirements, for once they had an important input in the selection process. For the record when IAF made its priority list to new indian midef : MMRCA toped the list and the tejas was not even in this list.

They shortlisted the rafale and the typhoon and not SH which failed behind technically. Anyone can propose panel display, CFT etc but you need more than a mockup and a simulator to be credible.

As described in The LCA roundtable it is deemed unsuitable for war and it should be used for advanced training instead (which makes the mirage 2000 comparison laughable). "Anything but the Tejas for MMRCA" is what can be understood.

If india wants to be self reliant it should reform itself deeply to have leaner, more flexible learning organization. Otherwise both R&D invedtment and ToT will eventually fail.

[NRao]

Investing on indian R&D is fine but it is like throwing money by the window without appropriate governance. IAF operationals are fed up of waiting and don't want to make another risky experiment with tejas or AMCA, especially with China on the rise.

We *all* know that.

So, why not just have France build 100 (or whatever) Rafales? Or even lease a 100 used Rafales. THAT should satisfy the IAF.

You have never answered that point (perhaps you have no answer - which is fine too).

They are also fed up to have programs imposed for political/bureaucratic reasons. That's why The MMRCA is so important for them : They have tested it against their operational requirements, for once they had an important input in the selection process. For the record when IAF made its priority list to new indian midef : MMRCA toped the list and the tejas was not even in this list.

No, they did not.

They had an input *only* in the technical aspect of the selection.

And, the technical aspect does not complete the picture.

However, no one is arguing against what the IAF did, wants or anything else.

It is about the cost. This entire deal is not worth it. It does not mean the plane is not worth it.

The deal should be renegotiated (and it will not be).

They shortlisted the rafale and the typhoon and not SH which failed behind technically. Anyone can propose panel display, CFT etc but you need more than a mockup and a simulator to be credible.

As described in The LCA roundtable it is deemed unsuitable for war and it should be used for advanced training instead (which makes the mirage 2000 comparison laughable). "Anything but the Tejas for MMRCA" is what can be understood.

There seems to be a gap between Indian English and French English, is all I can say. Sorry.

If india wants to be self reliant it should reform itself deeply to have leaner, more flexible learning organization. Otherwise both R&D invedtment and ToT will eventually fail.

That I totally agree.

*BUT* you yourself are agreeing that the Rafale deal will NOT help this effort.

In fact renegotiate the deal (to satisfy IAF needs) AND as you rightly suggest reorganize should be the way forward.

[arthuro]

Nrao,

On ToT with the rafale it will not be enough to become independent for a next gen fighter jet IF Indian organizations do not reform themselves...I say "if" because ToT can work fine if appropriately leveraged.

There is still an advantage with ToT as it helps mastering current technology allowing you to operate your brand new aircraft autonomously. It will perhaps not help you for the next step (new gen fighter jet) but the current aircraft will be your own (like jaguars for instance). This is alredy a BIG advantage over a direct buy where all the spares and support will be imported. This is a hidden costs for the trade balance which is often discounted in thos cheap direct purchase.

As for the deal being worth it or not this is just an opinion however respectable it is. But you nor me will decide if its worth it or not. As for the price I dont doubt it will be a significant investment but to make your own a top performing fighter jet that was going to be expensive for sure ! Now nobody knows the exact price and it is still under negotiation. I can see a lot of speculation.

To finish R&D is a rikier path : You can miss the current requirement with the tejas MK2 and misd the next step (AMCA) alltogether. At least with ToT on the MMRCA you have a safe bet to fulfill the current requirement.

[NRao]

It will perhaps not help you for the next step

Thanks for that clarity.

Just as a FYI, Indians typically expect a "ToT" to help fill some important gaps that are expected to help with the next steps (may not be next gen). My point is that *NO* "ToT" will help that in any meaningful way.

[arthuro]

Nrao,

ToT associated with MMRCA will certainly help to catch up in many areas (it will prevent from being left behind at least) but to go beyhond that and become truely independent for designing an indegeneous next gen fighter the solution lies in deep reforms of indian organizations governance. You can get as much ToT or R&D if all organizations involved are inneficient it will be all waste.

It is up to India to leverage on ToT as much as possible. I am sure there are many things to learn but there will be no miracle without reforms. However the principle of ToT remain a clever one.

At least the rafale if selected will be yours with inhouse support and manufacturing capabilities rather than being dependent for support with a direct off the shelf purchase.

[Viv S]

IAF operationals are fed up of waiting and don't want to make another risky experiment with tejas or AMCA, especially with China on the rise.

To repeat, China is producing over 50 J-10s & J-11s annually with that rate is being scaled up and technology employed continuously improving. The Rafale's production rate at HAL in contrast will average only 15 per year. The whole MMRCA program will deliver just about 25 fighters by 2020. Can the Rafale overcome a 4:1 numerical disadvantage against PLAAF fighters? I for one, would bet against it.

As far as the IAF being 'fed up' is concerned, just FYI - the Army has not inducted a new field artillery gun in over 25 years. It needs carbines, replacement light helicopters, NVGs, ATGMs, mobile SAMs, new comm systems, attack helicopters, heavy lift choppers, more funding for large scale exercises, huge infrastructure overhaul in the NE region, etc. The IAF has requests for new Phalcons, stand off weaponry, MRSAMs, PGMs, BTTs, IJTs, Sukhoi & Jaguar upgrades etc waiting in the pipeline. The Navy's carrier construction had until recently been suspended because of a funding crunch. It also needs new anti-sub choppers as well as light choppers; too many of its ships are operating without any helicopters.

Which of the above do you suggest should be cancelled to help pay for the Rafale?

Meanwhile India's GDP growth this fiscal is projected to be about only 5.5%, a full two percentage points less than China (7.5%), and on much a smaller economic base.

If the IAF doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, the MoD must be the one to put its foot down and make cost effectiveness of military expenditure a priority.

Otherwise it should just hope and pray that a war with China never breaks out. Because valour and training only go so far.

[member_20292]

IAF operationals are fed up of waiting and don't want to make another risky experiment with tejas or AMCA, especially with China on the rise.

To repeat, China is producing over 50 J-10s & J-11s annually with that rate is being scaled up and technology employed continuously improving. The Rafale's production rate at HAL in contrast will average only 15 per year. The whole MMRCA program will deliver just about 25 fighters by 2020. Can the Rafale overcome a 4:1 numerical disadvantage against PLAAF fighters? I for one, would bet against it.

As far as the IAF being 'fed up' is concerned, just FYI - the Army has not inducted a new field artillery gun in over 25 years. It needs carbines, replacement light helicopters, NVGs, ATGMs, mobile SAMs, new comm systems, attack helicopters, heavy lift choppers, more funding for large scale exercises, huge infrastructure overhaul in the NE region, etc. The IAF has requests for new Phalcons, stand off weaponry, MRSAMs, PGMs, BTTs, IJTs, Sukhoi & Jaguar upgrades etc waiting in the pipeline. The Navy's carrier construction had until recently been suspended because of a funding crunch. It also needs new anti-sub choppers as well as light choppers; too many of its ships are operating without any helicopters.

Which of the above do you suggest should be cancelled to help pay for the Rafale?

Meanwhile India's GDP growth this fiscal is projected to be about only 5.5%, a full two percentage points less than China (7.5%), and on much a smaller economic base.

If the IAF doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, the MoD must be the one to put its foot down and make cost effectiveness of military expenditure a priority.

Otherwise it should just hope and pray that a war with China never breaks out. Because valour and training only go so far.

god-like post summarising the common sense that most of us are seeing.




arthuro - french manufacturing is expensive- if the labour unions dont wake up and smell the coffee, no one will buy french manufacturing anymore and the economy will continue to slide down the tubes.

[Philip]

The good ACM's observations that the Rafale wa evaluated as the best may be true.The same evaluation could be said if one evaluated a series of luxury vehicles like Rollers,Bentleys,Zils,Jags,Mercs,etc.! The Rolls and Bentley would most probably top the list.But can India afford to buy either of them?

Unfortunately,the IAF have steadily got into the habit of wanting more and more expensive toys,forgetting that in the days of frugality in the late '60s,when the best that they could acquire from abroad were the MIG-21 and SU-7s,innovation and Indian ingenuity saw the MIG-21 steadily improved to serve even today and until 2025 as the Bison! The bottom line is that one has to "cut one's coat according to the cloth".There may be differing ideas of which alternatives suit the IAF best,but the GOI needs to examine them when such a large amount is at stake and in the international context,with stealth tech becoming the norm in part for almost every major air force,the extra $10B could be better invested in developing/acquiring a 5th-gen stealth fighter that would maintain our air dominance in the face of the huge surge in Chinese capability,leave alone Pak's steady indigenous progress. As the USN's CNO has said,"payload centricity' in the age of PGMs make marginally less capable and less expensive alternatives to the Rafale as capable of delivering the very same ordnance.

In the evaluation of the 6 aircraft that contested the MMRCA requirement,surely the other aircraft must have some major merit as far as performance is concerned.Perhaps one or two may have failed the high alt. airfield operational tests.Those that passed most of the parameters should be re-evaluated from the cost-effective factor.If the IAF is allowed to acquire the equivalent of a Rolls or Bentley,what is to preevnt the IA and IN also demanding the most expensive toys for their service? They also have critical needs,as much as the IAF.

Arturo has made the most important point,"cost-effectiveness".In the current economic context this has to be the bottom line.Our DM has to crack the whip.

[arthuro]

Viv, China is out of reach as far as military is concerned. You will not be able to replicate their capability anyway. Quality over quantity is an old debate and as far as I know MRCA is here for quality not sheer quantity. Another platform could make for the qiantity, Hence the tejas was a different procurement process from MRCA.

It is the IAF (not me) which put the MRCA on the top of their list and the Indian gov which say negotiation is on.

You should also keep in mind that installement are spread over years. Arbitrage can be to delay another program or spread deliveries over time.

You should rather look to the expense forecast for each fiscal year rather than the total number. 20 billions over X years might not ne impossible to cope with. There are financing solution as well like a long term loan from France with preferential conditions. In case of further options the non recurring costs Will ne greatly diminished (production facilities already there).

I am not saying there are only easy options but simply that solutions exist to achieve other procurement.

[member_23694]

the Army has not inducted a new field artillery gun in over 25 years. It needs carbines, replacement light helicopters, NVGs, ATGMs, mobile SAMs, new comm systems, attack helicopters, heavy lift choppers, more funding for large scale exercises, huge infrastructure overhaul in the NE region, etc. The IAF has requests for new Phalcons, stand off weaponry, MRSAMs, PGMs, BTTs, IJTs, Sukhoi & Jaguar upgrades etc waiting in the pipeline. The Navy's carrier construction had until recently been suspended because of a funding crunch. It also needs new anti-sub choppers as well as light choppers; too many of its ships are operating without any helicopters.

oh, just realised that the Rafale deal without any payment made to Dassault prevented development of artillery gun , carbines , light helos,NVGs, ATGMs, mobile SAM, attack helos,more funding for large scale exercises, infrastructure issues in NE, IJTs. Where was the Rafale deal in last 20-25 years.
Navy launches multiple ships then we have a builder navy, but carrier construction stalled then its the Rafale deal.
Point is simple all the items you have listed are long overdue for the services , but linking the Rafale deal to every thing else pending for last 25 years is simply beyond logic.
Maybe C 17 deal could have funded a lot of the above for sure.
How much will project 75I subs cost ? Will those be cheap. So we continue with the old subs have disasters . All because of what ?
Lack of decision making , poor planning and management etc in other areas should not be hidden behind cost of one deal.

Otherwise it should just hope and pray that a war with China never breaks out. Because valour and training only go so far.

Yes we need quality equipment's for sure , Rafale or NO RAFALE but I give a damn to the hope and pray part of war with China..