What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2]

89
I have no doubt that such availability will not be possible for an export customer but it is still spectacuarly impressive that any operator anywhere in the world is able to get such rates with a twin engined complex fighter. Furthermore, it adds some credance to the IAF's demand that their Rafale fleet acheive 90% availability- where I thought the IAF was asking a bit much but clearly not.
There is no overhaul on rafale but maintenance "on condition" the engine is modular with 21 or22 modules (I don't remember) and diagnostic is embeded in weapon system, so when the Rafale land the maintenance people know if it need to replace a module and there is no need of bench test after the replacement. The two engine can be replaced in one hour. And the same principle apply for the whole plane. Iwill give later a NATO document explaining all this.

It's not just the 200 Rafales, but a new MRCA program is planned for at least 126 jets.

IAF needs to replace a total of 500-550 jets by 2027. Most of those will be covered by extra MKIs, 126 LCAs, minimum 180 Rafales and 126 new MRCA.

I think Super Hornet or Gripen-E/F will win. The main idea behind the second MRCA is cheap costs. Gripen is cheap owing to its design while Boeing may move their SH line in India to compete with Gripen. The SH bid was cheaper than Gripen by 20M during MMRCA. F-16 has no chance, Mig-35 also.

Another option is the LSA program, or Light Stealth Aircraft which will be an indigenous aircraft made in India.

Indian Navy needs 150 jets by 2027. So this will be a separate order. US Navy is pushing the F-35C for the navy as part of the carrier program. And Dassault is also competing.
After the first investisment on ground for Rafale it would be cheaper to buy more Rafale than to buy F-18, I see no advantage in F-18 the Rafale LCC is lower, the Rafale performance is better.
 
. . .
After the first investisment on ground for Rafale it would be cheaper to buy more Rafale than to buy F-18, I see no advantage in F-18 the Rafale LCC is lower, the Rafale performance is better.

I don't disagree. But there is information about the second MRCA program. And it is possible IAF is looking for cheaper start up costs rather than LCC costs. So Rafale may be cheaper in the long term, but SH/Gripen may be cheaper to build.

In 15 years, maintenance bill of 300+ Rafales and SH/Gripen will be peanuts compared to the size of the military budget. Especially when we will be inducting 200M+ aircraft at the time. So I'm not worried about the long term effects of the MMRCA bill.

I also have this theory where this second MRCA program may be meant to guarantee high level ToT for the F414 engine under the AMCA program. So choosing SH and Gripen may be a ticket to engine tech. If that's the case, then MoD will be ready to shell out cash to guarantee the AMCA's future. This in turn takes care of the falling squadrons. So both IAF and industry are happy.

Expendable addresses. No one is stupid here.

@randomradio Hey you gonna contact me? It's the other red-clad guy from I D F

I did.
 
.
I don't like it either, but this is what's planned.

We need to replace 250 Mig-21s, 80 Mi-27s and 8 squadrons of missing capacity by 2027. That's 475 jets minimum. Then there's talk of dumping 60 Jaguars earlier than anticipated. That's not possible with just Rafale and Tejas. IAF wants something that is not as capable as Rafale, but is cheap enough for mass production in India.

Even with 20 Rafales, 16 Mk1A and 20 Gripen a year, we won't reach the magic figure of 475 by 2027. This is not counting attrition. So you can imagine how big the requirement is.

But the flexibility of Rafale imply that you need less plane compare to old one: In france we have replaced 593 old plane with only 130 Rafale without decrease of capabilities.

The advantage is in the flexibility and cost savings that result.

If we take the example of an OPEX mission, it is no longer necessary to deploy fighter (+ spare), bombers (+ spare), reco aircraft (+ spare), SEAD / DEAD aircrafts (+ spare), CAS aircrafts (+ spare), or specialists (pilots and engineers) assigned to each type of device. You content to deploy a single type of aircraft and relevant specialists in lesser amounts (savings on the number of spares, the fact that specialized equipment is not used permanently or used in other roles, rationalization of staff), and logistics is thereby greatly simplified.

Basically, you send 20 Rafale, 30 pilots and 160 mechanics instead of 15 Mirage 2000C, 15 Mirage 2000D , 15 F1CR, 60 pilots and 700 maintenance people needed to fly everything.
 
.
But the flexibility of Rafale imply that you need less plane compare to old one: In france we have replaced 593 old plane with only 130 Rafale without decrease of capabilities.

The advantage is in the flexibility and cost savings that result.

If we take the example of an OPEX mission, it is no longer necessary to deploy fighter (+ spare), bombers (+ spare), reco aircraft (+ spare), SEAD / DEAD aircrafts (+ spare), CAS aircrafts (+ spare), or specialists (pilots and engineers) assigned to each type of device. You content to deploy a single type of aircraft and relevant specialists in lesser amounts (savings on the number of spares, the fact that specialized equipment is not used permanently or used in other roles, rationalization of staff), and logistics is thereby greatly simplified.

Basically, you send 20 Rafale, 30 pilots and 160 mechanics instead of 15 Mirage 2000C, 15 Mirage 2000D , 15 F1CR, 60 pilots and 700 maintenance people needed to fly everything.

We had discussed this before. IAF wants numbers as well as the flexibility of the Rafale. If we want to replace 330 Mig-21s and Mig-27s, we will do it with 330 Rafales, if we have the money for this. It's just the way it works.

The only reason why we have only 50 Mirage-2000 and not 200 is because we didn't have the money for it at the time. So the only constraint is money, regardless of how capable the aircraft itself is. It is part of the arms race policy with Pakistan, not to mention maintaining tech superiority over the Chinese.
 
.
I will harp here an old point i made..
according to parliamentary committee report our pilot to fighter availability rate is 0.81... For 475 jets, if i consider all to be single seater and keep the 40 MKI additional separate, we need 475 additional pilots..

Now our task originally was that sanctioned ratio was 1.25... we are in 0.81..
From my point of view the problem is the availability of your plane: suppose that you need 200 hour to maintain the level of your pilot but due to availability your plane can fly only 160 hours, you will have only 0.8 pilot by plane! if you want 1.25 pilot by plane you need your plane to be able to fly 250 hours.
In France we have 1.4 pilot by plane and each pilot fly 180 hours, and each plane fly 250 hours. But during OPEX (Foreign Operation) our plane are able to fly 500% of the peace rate.
It seems it's not the case with your plane. For exemple a Rafale need 8 hours of maintenance by flying hour compare to 32 hours of maintenance by flying hour for a SU-30 MKI. You need 4 time more maintenance people if you want to use your SU-MKI at the same rate than Rafale.
But in peace time we have 1 maintenance people by Rafale, so in OPEX we have 5 people by Rafale. For you it would be 4 people in peace time and 20 people in War operation. But 20 people is impossible it's too much.

There is a way bro.. If we commit say a much bigger number like 288 and production like an example
in Indian MII line 14-16 birds a year for entire 208 jets 13 squadrons in 13 years
and from Merignac line 14-16 birds a year.. for 5 years 80 jets 5 squadrons

2 squadrons a year for 5 years straight..

You get 288 jets there

But for practical purpose we need then to convince our whole country who will up in arms primarily due to cost and secondly, getting 288 jets means a clear cut strategy need which needs deep economical support too..

A better way is to tell Mukesh Ambani .. call up Marcel Dassault buy a stake. heck buy whole Dassault only and then lets do this number again.. :p:

But yes we cant reach 475 that way
The assembly line is not limited to 30/Year: if you ask Dassault for a 100/year assembly line it is possible, but the problem could be on the sub-contractors, not in France because we have a strong aerospace industry able to answer to the Airbus needs, but in India.
 
.
From my point of view the problem is the availability of your plane: suppose that you need 200 hour to maintain the level of your pilot but due to availability your plane can fly only 160 hours, you will have only 0.8 pilot by plane! if you want 1.25 pilot by plane you need your plane to be able to fly 250 hours.
In France we have 1.4 pilot by plane and each pilot fly 180 hours, and each plane fly 250 hours. But during OPEX (Foreign Operation) our plane are able to fly 500% of the peace rate.
It seems it's not the case with your plane. For exemple a Rafale need 8 hours of maintenance by flying hour compare to 32 hours of maintenance by flying hour for a SU-30 MKI. You need 4 time more maintenance people if you want to use your SU-MKI at the same rate than Rafale.
But in peace time we have 1 maintenance people by Rafale, so in OPEX we have 5 people by Rafale. For you it would be 4 people in peace time and 20 people in War operation. But 20 people is impossible it's too much.

I think most of the downtime for MKI is due to upper level maintenance. Like when the engines are removed for overhaul, then the plane can be grounded for 2 or 3 days until the engine is installed again. Rafale doesn't suffer with such a problem.

For low level maintenance, the difference should be much lesser.

In 2008, the MKIs that were in Red Flag had availability rates of over 90%. In two weeks, 8 MKIs had flown 850 hours.
 
.
But the flexibility of Rafale imply that you need less plane compare to old one: In france we have replaced 593 old plane with only 130 Rafale without decrease of capabilities.
But this isn't how the IAF/GoI looks at procurements- It is still quite a binary process. And the IAF/GoI is looking to replace all existing assets on a 1:1 basis. In India, it is not the capabilties that are measured but the size and right now the IAF has a sanctioned strength of 42 fighter SQNs but is at only around 30- with 8-10 SQNs worth of MiG-21/27 to be phased out by 2022. As such, the IAF is still interested in quality, it doesn't matter if the equipment you are inducting is many times more capable than what ti replaces, until now you've had a few instances of MiG-21s SQNs inducting the MKI!

The GoI wants the IAF to get to 42 SQNs by 2027 and will likely increase the sanctioned strength thereafter to 45-50 SQNs.

I think most of the downtime for MKI is due to upper level maintenance. Like when the engines are removed for overhaul, then the plane can be grounded for 2 or 3 days until the engine is installed again. Rafale doesn't suffer with such a problem.

For low level maintenance, the difference should be much lesser.

In 2008, the MKIs that were in Red Flag had availability rates of over 90%. In two weeks, 8 MKIs had flown 850 hours.
When you look at availability figures they are aggregates of all parts- major/minor work and upper/lower level maintenance and thus if something takes the MKI 2-3 days but the Rafale only 1-2 hours then it is going to hit the IAF and the MKI's total availability quite hard.
 
.
Thus a cheaper Indian aircraft if its possible like you said Light Stealth Aircraft should be encouraged.. Israeli folks just said based on lavi they want us to model AMCA.. may be used Israel only for the Stealth Aircraft and create a product where unit cost is under USD40-45 Mn.. a bit higher than LCA USD 30.. It solves our purpose much better,,

If really you buy 200+ Rafale you can ask Dassault to design AMCA with you and This AMCA will replace Rafale MLU, that is to say a completly new airframe but a weapon system which is incremental from Rafale with conformal antenna for Radar, SPECTRA and communication, DIRCM and so on. The M-88 family is designed to be able to deliver a thrust between 7.5 t and 11 t. So you will develop with the SAFRAN help the 11 t version for AMCA and it will be with a varianle cycle to take advantage of your Kaveri development.

.

Oh but the new engine will take 28-30 months so our jets can come in between 3 to 5.5 years
The new Engine will be ready for the first delivery to Qatar that is to say in 2018.
 
.
If really you buy 200+ Rafale you can ask Dassault to design AMCA with you and This AMCA will replace Rafale MLU, that is to say a completly new airframe but a weapon system which is incremental from Rafale with conformal antenna for Radar, SPECTRA and communication, DIRCM and so on. The M-88 family is designed to be able to deliver a thrust between 7.5 t and 11 t. So you will develop with the SAFRAN help the 11 t version for AMCA and it will be with a varianle cycle to take advantage of your Kaveri development.


The new Engine will be ready for the first delivery to Qatar that is to say in 2018.

I did say about AMCA offer from French side and with @Abingdonboy we did have lengthy discussion on that..
Any given day I would prefer a m88 fam engine over ge414 owing to my distrust for US MIC and geo political views.. They are pretty blood hungry MIC.. And looking at their present way of handling we should not trust them much..

If the new 85Kn or 8.5t engine is available by 2018 then its perfectly matches my earlier talk that engine development started last year in H2.. Implying its already 6-8months over so we are looking at max 2 more years.. This will make delivery possible from 2018 end, 2019-2021 max..
This is of course beneficial for us
 
.
.
But the flexibility of Rafale imply that you need less plane compare to old one: In france we have replaced 593 old plane with only 130 Rafale without decrease of capabilities.

The advantage is in the flexibility and cost savings that result.

If we take the example of an OPEX mission, it is no longer necessary to deploy fighter (+ spare), bombers (+ spare), reco aircraft (+ spare), SEAD / DEAD aircrafts (+ spare), CAS aircrafts (+ spare), or specialists (pilots and engineers) assigned to each type of device. You content to deploy a single type of aircraft and relevant specialists in lesser amounts (savings on the number of spares, the fact that specialized equipment is not used permanently or used in other roles, rationalization of staff), and logistics is thereby greatly simplified.

.

We are not facing a different scenario IMO. France can replace with one type of air craft and reduce the number of air craft but that is not the case with IAF. In a situation with PLAF Vs IAF, there will be high intencity air battles with more number of air crafts involved. If we decide the cut the number of jets with more capable Rafales, it will not work out in case of number of air crafts.
 
. .
Welcome to the club Rafale.. You are another member to think magic number 200+ is possible.. Members are presently very very limited.. Owing to extreme measures of "high cost" named virus infecting the whole Indian press... and others believing MKI is the solution to everything..

@Abingdonboy @Vauban We got a new club member:-)

@Taygibay : Our strength is increasing day by day :p:


@randomradio @Picdelamirand-oil : Pls do go to member introduction thread and post .. Webby and mods keep looking there..
New Introductions | Page 30

Don't worry mate... U can include me too... I feel if IN will too choose and it may shoot upto 250 or more rafale in India..
IAF.. 36 + 108-144 + 16-20(trainer/reserves) = 160-200..
IN ... 54(Vishal) ..+/- 16-32 ( vikrant 2.. If they have money) +/- 18 (1 sqn for A&N) + 6-10(trainers/reserve) .. So 60-116 depending on funds and whether it's MII or not...
If DA goes for MII... Then they will be guaranteed minimum 200 planes order by IAF/IN.

I just pray that IAF gives that guarntee to Tejas also so that the supplier base can be build economically and upgrades can be economical
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom