What's new

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

"If India wants to jump start an aerospace economy, do you want to do that with Dassault -- that's about a $5 billion company -- or do you want to do that with Boeing, which is a $97 billion aerospace company?" Jeff Kohler, vice president of global sales for Boeing's defense unit, said in an interview on Monday in Singapore.

True. But their primary military customer has always not chosen their aircraft.

And Boeing being bigger means Indian companies will have to deal with Boeing from a position of weakness.

And the US govt always gets in the way, unlike the French govt.
 
.
"If India wants to jump start an aerospace economy, do you want to do that with Dassault -- that's about a $5 billion company -- or do you want to do that with Boeing, which is a $97 billion aerospace company?" Jeff Kohler, vice president of global sales for Boeing's defense unit, said in an interview on Monday in Singapore.
What a dumb thing to have said- no discussion of the merit of their offer but their market capitalization somehow makes Boeing's product/offer more attractive to India? It's needlessly dismissive of both Dassualt and India and entirely ignores the fact that their product was found to be insufficent for the IAF's needs the first time around.
 
.
@randomradio ... Attrition is bigger problem man... U are losing trained manpower... To cover-up losses in number of pilots we need to reduce attrition and increase intake... Only increase intake won't help. Losing a trained pilot to attrition is a bigger loss... And this happen due to less paycheck than civil street after 10-15 yrs in service and steep pyramidal structure of promotions.
And yes we lost a lot of pilots... And I am talking now in future... Present availability is at 0.81 with 35 sqn ... U were advocating increasing it upto 42 in 10 years ... That is 140 more planes ... Few of them will be twin seater.. And with 1.25 ratio I can safely assume we need 250 + pilots for new acquisitions.. And to replace old planes with old pilots we still need increase availability of these pilots from 0.81 to 1.25...

It's as difficult for IAF as building up sqn numbers...may be more..from where I see it..

Civilian pilots work like donkeys. Military pilots are much more relaxed. The reason for attrition is in civilian aircraft you just sit on your seat and monitor your aircraft, the aircraft itself flies by itself. Military aircraft that we are using today are difficult to fly, and also dangerous. So pilots make that switch.

Now that we are modernizing, aircraft are getting easier to fly. In a few years, military pilots will have the same ease of flying and with lesser hours of work. And even the accident rates will eventually match airlines.

Once a pilot achieves 20 years of service, IAF is more than happy to get rid of him through VRS instead of paying many times more through pensions. So everybody's happy.
 
.
What a dumb thing to have said- no discussion of the merit of their offer but their market capitalization somehow makes Boeing's product/offer more attractive to India? It's needlessly dismissive of both Dassualt and India and entirely ignores the fact that their product was found to be insufficent for the IAF's needs the first time around.

To add to my previous post about Boeing, they lost the LRS-B contract also. And their SH line is coming to a close in the US.

That's a massive misconception.

a) some civilian pilots work like donkeys. My uncle (aunty's husband) flies for British Airways 777 Long Haul and he makes 4 flights a month and that is that. He's away about 11-13 days a month (exc. days he leaves/returns).

Your uncle is probably lucky.

UK
Airline pilots 'buckling under unacceptable pressures' - BBC News

India
High court to hear PIL on overworked AI pilots - Times of India

UAE
Pilot Workload at Emirates Under Question - WSJ

US
Airline Fined $1.3M For Overworked Pilots - CBS News

b) the aircraft doesn't fly itself. That is nonsense. Autopilot works on the PF's command. There is constant vigilance on the flight deck and I'd say the risk is far higher with a civilian jet (can be responsible for 500+ lives) than in a fighter jet (responsible for 1).

The autopilot does all the work. I have pilot friends and they have explained everything that they do.

They set the destination and flight route, taxi, take off, and then cross their hands and sit there until something happens. Humans are needed for communication and take-off/landing. In some instances, they are asked to fly in circles due to high traffic, that's probably the most excitement they get since they need to keep their ears open for that radio chatter from the ATC. So yes, there is constant vigilance, but the plane or ATC tells you when something's wrong. So you are just chatting with your crew most of the times. How I banged this new air hostess. That brothel is better than this brothel. Seriously.

The risk is why the airlines are relying more and more on automation. Humans are the ones who make mistakes.
 
.
Dude...read up on what a commercial pilot actually does and don't go off hearsay.

Bro, I'm comparing a civilian pilot with a military pilot. The civilian pilot literally does nothing. Military pilots sit in the briefing room for hours at a time and then fly for 30 minutes. There is too much of a difference even though the military pilot flies 4-5 times lesser every year.

Civilian pilots are more exhausted though. The flying part is easy, any pilot will tell you that, but the BS you have to deal with when you are on the ground makes it much harder. So yeah, this is not just hearsay.

What my friend said was golden. "We monitor the entire flight, physical flying is only for a fraction of the actual flight time." They have to land and take off manually for now, but even that will eventually be gone in the future. The landing and take off is what they actually call flying.

Of course, he was flying the latest Airbus, not the older aircraft which still require more physical handling.
 
.
They set the destination and flight route, taxi, take off, and then cross their hands and sit there until something happens

Partly correct as most civilian planes in mid sized jets follow that routine.. Like Indigo operating A320s.. They are basically told to handle input destination, flight path clearance in system and ticks on paper, the route planner, the weather forecase on paper and on system, taxi, takeoff and put the flight right after takeoff and landing gear withdrawl to Auto Pilot.. The preset altitude/route/flight path see the jet go through the motion..

The logic used by Indigo is Auto Pilot lets your system first handle the stuff "smoothly" and secondly it goes to best efficiency cruising speed in a better fashion allowing fuel saving by a good margin..

Its only in bad weathers and air pockets alerts when the pilots actually comes in and does some stuff or when near by ATC talks about change in flight route or editing the altitude part..

Again the landing part and round round story near busy airport and communication to ATCs sees them go through limited action...

The same cannot be said for a bigger jets with longer routes passing through multiple countries where such course corrections are more frequent... But still almost most of the stuff is very much automated..

The human element comes in mostly via the beeps, warnings and frequent information updates which needs to be monitored for certain necessary actionables..
 
.
So let's have a rundown of the entire estimated fighter aircraft production within foreseeable future,

Sukhoi/HAL FGFA According to latest reports, the IAF would be buying around 60 jets as the first batch, earlier it was thought that first order will be for 144 aircraft. But it seems they want their more slices in their pizza. So far, the maximum stated requirement for the FGFA is 214. This would grow after the MKIs are retired and the path ahead becomes clearer.

Su-30MKI The confirmed order as of today is for 272 jets, but recent reports are clearly hinting at an additional 40, taking the figure to 312. There has always been a strong statement from analyst Sengupta (I assume you all know him much) that MKI numbers will eventually reach 350. If HAL produces MKI at a rate of 12/year, and if we assume we currently have close to 230 of the Flankers already produced, it could take another 10 years (2026) to reach the 350 mark. It seems likely now that MKI production in India might actually happen alongside FGFA production.

A rate of 16/year (currently estimated max capacity) would see us having 350 jets by around 2024.

But there's a high likelihood that the first Super-MKI batch (about 40 jets) could come directly from Irkutsk, and upgradation of the rest of the fleet happens in India later. In which case we could have them all within 2022 or even by late 2020 if the 16/year capacity is used from now on. It's very likely indeed that these 40 jets could be the tranche that bridges the gap between the 312 and the 350 marks. In this case, the above mentioned possibility of FGFA & MKI production at the same time will not happen. This is the desirable approach.

Rafale The current deal calls for between 36 and 54 jets to be purchased off the shelf, separate from the Make in India component of the deal. The MII could see a further production of ~150 jets for Air Force (based on original 189 requirement) and atleast ~70 for the Navy for the first-of-class nuclear carrier. That's close to 250 right there.

++ The carrier gambit ++
It's as yet unclear whether we'll go for a 2nd Vikrant-class CV or not. If we do, the foreseeable composition (based on the 5-6 carrier requirement) would be 2 Vikrants, 2 Vishal CVNs and 1 Vikramaditya. By the time the 2nd CVN's keel is laid, the Vikram will start showing it's age. So a 3rd CVN is a given to replace it.

In hindsight, I always believed a 2nd Vikrant could keep the yards tied up with older technology for a much longer period. But keeping the time it could take to actually iron out the design, EMALS deal, reactor development etc. in mind, a second, improved Project-71 carrier (Gessler calls it Project-71A) is the way to go if you don't want to lose the skilled workforce.

Coming to the aircraft, an N-AMCA is an absolute future necessity. Originally, with the IAF investing in FGFA, a naval version was a possibility but day by day it's relevance to a carrier-role is becoming fainter. I don't think IN will even consider it. Let's give the N-AMCA till 2026 to appear in a workable form, juicing together all the tech & know-how acquired from FGFA, Rafale and Tejas production. But until then we'll need Rafale-Ms in sufficient quantity, their trump card will be that they can operate from any of IN's 3 carrier-classes (Vishal, Vikrant, Vikram) without much (if any) modification. Although operationally they would be limited to Vishaal (Gessler calls it Project-73(N) or simply Project-73) and the P-71A.

The P-73 is estimated to have a capacity of 3 fighter squadrons onboard, at 16/sqd we'll need 48 jets and at 18/sqd we'll need 54 for the carrier alone. Atleast 10-15 will be needed for deployment on shore-bases, and replacements. That's why I thought even a minimum Naval Rafale requirement could be closer to 70 for the first P-73 CVN.
++

Tejas LCA Let's just think that the 20 Mk-1 plus 106 Mk-1A plan materializes. That's 126 jets in the light category, it could happen sooner or later (if IAF decides to shave off Mk-1A numbers in favor of Mk-2). Realistically, we'll need around 200 LCAs for the Air Force alone. On the other hand, Navy will only buy the Mk-2 NLCA. About 40-46 of them for operating alongside MiG-29K on P-71 and maybe Vikram also (unlikely, but possible) as well as shore-based duties.

Second MRCA Could be a foreign jet, some new version of Tejas (!) or the LSA proposed by an ex-IN Harrier pilot that's currently under negotiation with IAI for a joint-development contract. If the LSA materializes, it would impress both IN and IAF and we could even see the IN wanting to derive the AMCA from the technologies introduced in this bird. Let's see what the French can offer for this once Rafale is set on it's track. Ideally, we should have the Russians with their FGFA, and pool together all of our agencies in conjunction with all available tech-providers (European, Israeli agencies) to build the LSA.

If you ask me, I'd say the AMCA would be better being made as a bigger, twin-engine version of the LSA. Oh, and we're yet to see exactly what Dedira would bring to Rafale.
 
.
Military pilots sit in the briefing room for hours at a time and then fly for 30 minutes. There is too much of a difference even though the military pilot flies 4-5 times lesser every year.

Civilian pilots are more exhausted though.

True a civilian pilot monitoring multiple information venues take a toll owing to long flights or duty time.. But as you rightly said their briefing and debriefing is literally just signing few pages.

OTOH military pilots briefing room is a devil in your back situation as that itself keeps your mind super busy and tires you down there.. Then the new long range flights with mission duties over aspects like flying 2000 km into and then coming back and say mid air refueling literally tires the pilot like a living hell.. The mission time on air now touches easily 120 mins plus for such long distance case.. and then the debriefing saga begins..

Even if mission time on air is say just 45 mins, you see few bogies, start the action and see them tailing you, the pressure, the situation, the work and effect of Gs for evading takes torturous toll on bodies..

What a civilian pilot goes through in 10 hours, a military pilot goes through that whole cycle in fraction of that timeline and in a bad day in just minutes...

The risk of 500 people is huge no doubt and airlines do insure and pay hefty sums for a life lost.. The military jet fighter in fact risk is similarly in epic proportion.. The lost plane is one thing, falling into enemy territory another..

Both sides risk cannot be equated but when quantified in simple terms one is brand and financial (civilian), the other is financial, geopolitical and military power (fighter jets)
 
.
++++
Since some time has passed and we have not seen any new pictures so few now

From Singapore airshow
Credit to Alpha Rafale
CbVKYQBXIAATwnp.jpg


CbVKZs6XIAA-u7n.jpg


CbVKbbPW4AArfVF.jpg

Thats a french Pilot looking at RMAF Su30MKM during Singapore Airshow

CbVK-3cW0AAMISI.jpg



Some pics from Solo display before show opening and some action
CbPyoloW4AArM1t.jpg


CbPyqqSWwAAD19f.jpg


CbPyuDwW8AAnAMW.jpg


CbPyvHsW0AAKUxt.jpg

Thats the picture which will soon be normal for us in multiple bases..
 
. .
It seems likely now that MKI production in India might actually happen alongside FGFA production.

No, MKI production will end in 2019. The extra orders, if any, will be CKDs from Russia. They will be assembled, tested and delivered to IAF.

But there's a high likelihood that the first Super-MKI batch (about 40 jets) could come directly from Irkutsk, and upgradation of the rest of the fleet happens in India later.

I think the first 6 aircraft will be upgraded in Russia. The rest will happen in India. But that's still many years away now.
 
. .
Sure, sure...:-)

PHOTO2.jpg


PHOTO3.jpg


Bless Shiv Aroor for having clicked these pictures during Garuda-V exercise with AdlA. Curse him for not having done so at higher resolutions.
I for a long time thought they were CGI

May be I was wrong..
 
. .
Bruno Revellin Falcoz: 30' 49"

Bien sur on est dans des domaines un peu confidentiel, mais disons que la signature vue par l'avant d'un Rafale, c'est la signature d'un moineau.

Translation

Of course it is in areas somewhat confidential, but we can say that the front view signature of a Rafale is the signing of a sparrow.

CV Bruno Revellin Falcoz
  • Appointed Director, Deputy General Technical Director in April 1981, he directed the aircraft new military and civil design teams - including the ACX / Rafale
  • Appointed Chief Technical 1 May 1982 he leads all design teams and development programs FALCON different civilian and military (mainly with the Rafale and developments Family MIRAGE 2000) and spatial (HERMES).
  • Appointed Vice President for Technical Affairs, Research and Cooperation in January 1987; his previous responsibilities are added the flight test and the Directorate of Flight Safety.
  • He was appointed managing director of GIE Rafale International.
  • Appointed Deputy CEO in April 2000, it continues to ensure coordination among other technical programs and in particular the new Falcon 7X.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom