36 Rafale, 3 squadrons of Su-30 MKI and LCA MK-II fighter jets to arm the IAF

[The Great One]

Just look at it this way, the IAF wanted 126 Mirage 2k and now wants 126 Rafales........

Times change. Technologies change. Threat perceptions changes. If we are replacing Mig 21, then so is the adversary.

 

[ito]

Just look at it this way, the IAF wanted 126 Mirage 2k and now wants 126 Rafales........

As Oscar said, previous defense ministers have spoilt the Airforce like dotting parents spoiling their own child with expensive gadgets. Airforce wanted Rafale and previous defense minister just went with that without even thinking whether we can afford that. MP is clearly setting a long term strategy for Indian Armed forces. Although initially we may face some hiccups, but eventually we will be a force to reckon

 

[Bang Galore]

Times change. Technologies change. Threat perceptions changes. If we are replacing Mig 21, then so is the adversary.

Then why have a competition which included the F16 & the Gripen. Either the Rafale is more capable or it isn't. Since we all are agreed that it is, we should consider the numbers that we might require & how much we can afford.

About times changing, I will go with what Parrikar said....a lot of stuff that was done earlier by fighters are now done by missiles...so can't be obsessed with numbers as if the times haven't changed.

 

[IND151]

I doubt it. If he is pragmatic and no egoistic, he will leave the Rafale at maximum of 3-4 squadrons and concentrate on making the proper Tejas(Mk.II) and the FGFA, along with preparing the AMCA program to do a better job than the disaster that was the project management of Tejas(and Arjun). The only way to acheive that is to let TATA,Reliance and other private firms with their PRESET quality control and corporate cut throat mentality take a major role in these programs.

I doubt it. If he is pragmatic and no egoistic, he will leave the Rafale at maximum of 3-4 squadrons and concentrate on making the proper Tejas(Mk.II) and the FGFA, along with preparing the AMCA program to do a better job than the disaster that was the project management of Tejas(and Arjun). The only way to acheive that is to let TATA,Reliance and other private firms with their PRESET quality control and corporate cut throat mentality take a major role in these programs.

Missing The Woods For The Trees
All it takes for the Indian component of cyberspace to go into a senseless tizzy is for a ‘Bandalbaaz’ masquerading as a journalist to highlight selected quotes from a certain Minister’s interaction during a media conclave, and draw spectacularly outrageous conclusions. This in turn gets to be ‘assumed’ as being the gospel truth, with the end-result being a classic case of the blind leading the blind. Take, for instance, the following two selective quotes that originated 48 hours ago:

“By buying 36 Rafales instead of 126, I have saved the cost of 90 Rafales,” Parrikar said, adding that this amount was around Rs.900 billion (US$15.51 billion). “We will use this money to buy Tejas LCA pricedat around Rs.1.5 billion each,” he added.

“By buying 36 Rafales at a price less than (what was quoted in response to) the earlier tender for 126aircraft, I have saved the cost of 90 Rafales. We will use that money to buy Tejas LCAs”.

Now here’s what it all means. Under the original M-MRCA procurement process for an initial 126 Dassault Aviation Rafales, the first 18 (12 single-seaters and six tandem-seaters) were to be acquired in flyable condition off-the-shelf, for which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would have had to pay only the acquisition costs and related support infrastructure costs. For the remaining 108 Rafales that were to be licence-built in India (74 single-seaters and 34 tandem-seaters of which 11 were be built from semi-knocked down or SKD kits, 31 from completely knocked down or CKD kits, and 66 made from indigenously manufactured kits or IMK), the MoD would have been required to fork out A) the industrial production costs (for setting up the domestic industrial infrastructure and training a skilled pool of human resources); B) acquisition costs that were to be paid to the MoD-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and C) support infrastructure costs for creating the squadron-level and intermediate-level MRO facilities.

Now that the original scheme for procuring 126 Rafales (plus 63 options) has been abandoned, the MoD will, under Phase-1, be required to pay only the acquisition costs and related support infrastructure costs for the first 36 Rafales. Under Phase-2, an industrial consortium comprising Dassault Aviation and its Indian counterparts from both the private-sector and public-sector will supply up to 153 locally-assembled Rafales. This consortium—to be dominated by the private-sector—will raise the necessary funding required (for creating the domestic industrial infrastructure and training a skilled pool of human resources) entirely from the capital markets, and will charge the MoD only for the fleet acquisition cost. In other words, the MoD’s Department of Defence Production & Supplies will no longer be required to foot the bill for industrial production costs of the 171 Rafales.

Consequently, this enormous pool of money saved will be invested in R & D activities for the Indian Air Force’s Tejas Mk2 MRCA and the Indian Navy’s LCA (Navy) Mk2. Since both these MRCAs will be brand-new designs, at least five flying prototypes for each type will be required to be built, and each type—Tejas Mk2 and LCA (Navy) Mk2—will be required to undergo at least 2,000 hours of flight-tests before they are awarded their respective airworthiness certifications. For all intents and purposes, these are herculean tasks that require substantial R & D funding-levels, about which I will soon elaborate further in greater detail below.

TRISHUL: Combat Hawk Project Explained, Missing The Woods For The Trees, Standoff DEW For SEAD

 

[ito]

Times change. Technologies change. Threat perceptions changes. If we are replacing Mig 21, then so is the adversary.

I think in this age of high tech missiles and satellite technologies, fighter planes are not anymore front line in a war. Fighter planes don't dog fight anymore. Even the enemies are changing. See Syria, and in Iraq. Tejas would do as good as Rafale today.

 

[The Great One]

Then why have a competition which included the F16 & the Gripen

That was the RFP. Original requirement was for Mirage which is nicely comparable to both of the above. Mirage was swapped for Rafale by Dassault, not us.

About times changing, I will go with what Parrikar said....a lot of stuff that was done earlier by fighters are now done by missiles...so can't be obsessed with numbers as if the times haven't changed.

So?

I think in this age of high tech missiles and satellite technologies, fighter planes are not anymore front line in a war. Fighter planes don't dog fight anymore. Even the enemies are changing. See Syria, and in Iraq. Tejas would do as good as Rafale today.

Right.
I would request both of you to leave framing the doctrines to the people who do this stuff for a living and actually have the low-down on actual performances/limitations - stuff which isn't egjakly in the public domain. If IAF ask for min. 42 squad. then we need 42 squads. Just because one Sukhoi can do what 18 Mig 21 could do (per IAF people) doesn't mean that it can be in 18 places at once. Covering the full gamut of operational necessaries i.e Air Superiority, CAP, SEAD, CAS and so on require numbers.

 

[posedion]

for 3 air superiority fighters pack 6 lca's the gang can get any job done

 

[ito]

That was the RFP. Original requirement was for Mirage which is nicely comparable to both of the above. Mirage was swapped for Rafale by Dassault, not us.

So?

Right.
I would request both of you to leave framing the doctrines to the people who do this stuff for a living and actually have the low-down on actual performances/limitations - stuff which isn't egjakly in the public domain. If IAF ask for min. 42 squad. then we need 42 squads. Just because one Sukhoi can do what 18 Mig 21 could do (per IAF people) doesn't mean that it can be in 18 places at once. Covering the full gamut of operational necessaries i.e Air Superiority, CAP, SEAD, CAS and so on require numbers.

Now don't take seriously....every day on PDF hundred doctrines are formulated and discarded. I was just expressing my analysis on what DM said. After all what DM says matters and not me. So chill.

 

[The Great One]

Now don't take seriously....every day on PDF hundred doctrines are formulated and discarded. I was just expressing my analysis on what DM said. After all what DM says matters and not me. So chill.

We are having a discussion dude. I'm cool.

 

[Bang Galore]

That was the RFP. Original requirement was for Mirage which is nicely comparable to both of the above. Mirage was swapped for Rafale by Dassault, not us.

They can't swap Rafale for a M2k unless we allowed it, they are in a different class altogether. That happened because Boeing offered AESA with the F18 & pushed its way in which Rafale & EF followed. However the IAF should have been clear on what they wanted. If purely technical merit & not price was going to be considered, anyone could have said the sungle engined platforms are going to be ejected. once you shortlist the two most expensive aircrafts based on technical specifications, you are screwed when it comes down to pricing.

So?

the numbers argument may have to be re-looked.

Right.
I would request both of you to leave framing the doctrines to the people who do this stuff for a living and actually have the low-down on actual performances/limitations - stuff which isn't egjakly in the public domain. If IAF ask for min. 42 squad. then we need 42 squads. Just because one Sukhoi can do what 18 Mig 21 could do (per IAF people) doesn't mean that it can be in 18 places at once. Covering the full gamut of operational necessaries i.e Air Superiority, CAP, SEAD, CAS and so on require numbers.

Then no point discussing anything here. The DM, the boss of all the guys at the IAF says publicly that he does not agree with their number argument and cites what I have said. My point has been clear - if we need the numbers, the IAF has to manage that within the budget available, maybe by choosing a less expensive platform. If however, the IAF wants a $200 million aircraft, it must atleast then be agreeable to reduce the numbers of planes at that price & fill up the numbers with other options.

No point in saying they are professionals & they know everything. We are discussing it because it is painfully clear, both to us & to them, that they didn't know enough which is why they are now stuck with 36 planes instead of 126.

 

[The Great One]

They can't swap Rafale for a M2k unless we allowed it, they are in a different class altogether. That happened because Being offered AESA with the F18 & pushed its way in which Rafale & EF followed. However the IAF should have been clear on what they wanted. If purely technical merit & not price was going to be considered, anyone could have said the sungle engined platforms are going to be ejected. once you shortlist the two most expensive aircrafts based on technical specifications, you are screwed when it comes down to pricing.

We drafted and floated a RFP. Manufacturers submitted their proposals. Mirage production line was closed by Frenchies, not us. What can we do to then? Also Boeing didn't do any such thing. They didn't even reply to original MRCA. Your knowledge of history is seriously warped.

There is no law of nature which says that single engines make a plane 'technically inferior' compared to twins. If so F-35 is worse off than HF-24 Marut. Maybe we shouldn't have had 6 fighters for evaluation and had stricter requirements. Thats different.

Choosing the best fighter out there to defend the country is not a very bad thing for the AF. IF there were financial constrains than the MoD should have intervened, at least after the bids were submitted. It did not because earlier i.e Jan 2012 these limits weren't there. We went through a mini-crisis in Circa~2013. Rupee depreciated, Fiscal Deficit escalated etc. Hence the fiscal prudence adopted by new government.

Then no point discussing anything here. The DM, the boss of all the guys at the IAF says publicly that he does not agree with their number argument and cites what I have said. My point has been clear - if we need the numbers, the IAF has to manage that withing the budget available, maybe by choosing a less expensive platform. If however, the IAF wants a $200 million aircraft, it must atleast then be agreeable to reduce the numbers of planes at that price & fill up the numbers with other options.

No point in saying they are professionals & they know everything. We are discussing it because it is painfully clear, both to us & to them, that they didn't know enough which is why they are now stuck with 36 planes instead of 126.

Strawman
So you take one of MP's statement (a guy known for suffering from Foot in mouth disease), and immediately discount all earlier statements made by the professionals about having at least 42 squadrons. Fighter jets aren't going to go do dhishum-dhishum with PLAAF and PAF. They'll be deployed to various airbases and tasked with operations in certain sectors. This stuff is not known to public in great detail. Its better to defer this to the people who do.

 

[spectribution]

You want SU 30MKI to be upgraded to SU 35S standard.
You want PAKFA.
You want Rafale.
You also want HAL Tejas.
You want to upgrade MIG 29s and Mirage 2000.

Where is $$$$?

IAF it seems is upgrading SU 30 MI to SU 35S and investing more in PAKFA.

India ready to spend $25bn on Russian 5G fighter jets — RT News

Could Su-35S Deal Edge Out Rafale in India?

 

[Bang Galore]

We drafted and floated a RFP. Manufacturers submitted their proposals. Mirage production line was closed by Frenchies, not us. What can we do to then? Also Boeing didn't do any such thing. They didn't even reply to original MRCA. Your knowledge of history is seriously warped.

There is no law of nature which says that single engines make a plane 'technically inferior' compared to twins. If so F-35 is worse off than HF-24 Marut. Maybe we shouldn't have had 6 fighters for evaluation and had stricter requirements. Thats different.

Choosing the best fighter out there to defend the country is not a very bad thing for the AF. IF there were financial constrains than the MoD should have intervened, at least after the bids were submitted. It did not because earlier i.e Jan 2012 these limits weren't there. We went through a mini-crisis in Circa~2013. Rupee depreciated, Fiscal Deficit escalated etc. Hence the fiscal prudence adopted by new government.

You need to go & read up some "history" yourself. It was Boeing's offer of AESA that caught IAF's fancy.

We weren't comparing the F-35, were we. I don't know about you but most others could have figured out that the EF & Rafale were in a different class from the Mig 35, F16's, Gripen etc, especially if you didn't look at cost of ownership. The only way, the lighter platforms had a chance was if one looked at cost also as an factor.

Strawman
So you take one of MP's statement (a guy known for suffering from Foot in mouth disease), and immediately discount all earlier statements made by the professionals about having at least 42 squadrons. Fighter jets aren't going to go do dhishum-dhishum with PLAAF and PAF. They'll be deployed to various airbases and tasked with operations in certain sectors. This stuff is not known to public in great detail. Its better to defer this to the people who do.

Kindly stop wasting everyone's time with your opinion if you believe that we all have to merely accept everything that is said because someone is a "professional". Maybe you haven't noticed but the professionals are the ones who are now wondering what it is that they should do with 36 aircrafts when they wanted 126. My point is simple, there were other fighters in the fray which included the F-16 & the Mig-35. Conceivably, there was a possibility that they could have "won" the contract for supplying 126 aircrafts. That cost would have been around $10 billion. The Rafale deal would have cost us around $25 billion for the same number. What kind of a competition & contract has that kind of variation. The IAF obviously thought that $10 billion & $25-30 billion are the same and that MoF would simply go with their opinion. So much for their "professionalism"......As I have said before, the IAF has to work with realism, the IAF chief said that there is no plan B & now what does he have to do? Make Plan B.....Shouldn't the professionals have thought of this before or were they sleeping the last few years when it was clear to everyone that the Indian economy was in deep trouble. One has to be either arrogant or stupid to act like they live in some kind of a vacuum where events happening outside does not affect them. If the IAF wanted the numbers, they should have picked a platform that could allow for such numbers.

It is not about one statement of the RM, it is the fact that has been laid down by the authorization for only 36 aircrafts. The professionals didn't have a plan B so the circumstances are imposing it on them.

 

[The Great One]

You need to go & read up some "history" yourself. It was Boeing's offer of AESA that caught IAF's fancy.

We weren't comparing the F-35, were we. I don't know about you but most others could have figured out that the EF & Rafale were in a different class from the Mig 35, F16's, Gripen etc, especially if you didn't look at cost of ownership. The only way, the lighter platforms had a chance was if one looked at cost also as an factor.



Kindly stop wasting everyone's time with your opinion if you believe that we all have to merely accept everything that is said because someone is a "professional". Maybe you haven't noticed but the professionals are the ones who are now wondering what it is that they should do with 36 aircrafts when they wanted 126. My point is simple, there were other fighters in the fray which included the F-16 & the Mig-35. Conceivably, there was a possibility that they could have "won" the contract for supplying 126 aircrafts. That cost would have been around $10 billion. The Rafale deal would have cost us around $25 billion for the same number. What kind of a competition & contract has that kind of variation. The IAF obviously thought that $10 billion & $25-30 billion are the same and that MoF would simply go with their opinion. So much for their "professionalism"......As I have said before, the IAF has to work with realism, the IAF chief said that there is no plan B & now what does he have to do? Make Plan B.....Shouldn't the professionals have thought of this before or were they sleeping the last few years when it was clear to everyone that the Indian economy was in deep trouble. One has to be either arrogant or stupid to act like they live in some kind of a vacuum where events happening outside does not affect them. If the IAF wanted the numbers, they should have picked a platform that could allow for such numbers.

It is not about one statement of the RM, it is the fact that has been laid down by the authorization for only 36 aircrafts. The professionals didn't have a plan B so the circumstances are imposing it on them.

Hurray. We now have an Indian version of MastanKhan.

 

[saurav]

126 Top end European aircraft with all bells and whistles was always going to be a difficult deal. 126 Rafales would have needed ~30 Bill. We are not ready to spend that kind of money especially when the services are in dire need of so many other things.