Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[MokshaVimukthi]

thats the whole point

we can get more bang for the buck IF we drop rafale

I would like to think that the IAF knows its maths better than us.

I made a similar point for long - that the MMRCA deal was flawed because we ended up shortlisting the two most expensive platforms & then squared of one against the other on cost. Guaranteed to blow your budget to bits. Would have very much liked to know what the unit costs of a Gripen & F18 was and we could then have a better idea of how much exactly the Rafale (or the EF) was better by & what would be the cost for being that much better. Might have given us a much better picture than doing it this way.

I believe the RFP would have defined a budget. It is unlikely that the MoD would have cleared that tender if there was not price attached to it and all participants had to offer proposals around that range. That is usually the way its done on commercial deals.

But if it was not done that way then its a serious issue. Maybe an RTI or CAG report can reveal that. But no one will be surprised if IAF does not bother about such things. It is one of the effects of lack of strategic thinking which our forces demonstrate from time to time.

 

[janon]

ANY purchase is first and foremost weighted against cost benefit ratio. Rafale will be selected if it offers the best ratio, its always as simple as that. End of the day every purchase is designed to make our war making capability deliver bang for the buck. That is what evolution in arms and ammunition is all about.

That's what it should be, but I'm not sure if that's what we got with Rafale. All things considered, the F-18SH might have given the most value for money - not just for the fighter itself, but even more so for the weapons package. American weapons cost a fraction of what European ones cost.

I'm afraid we did not make the right choice, in maximizing value for money. It was a mistake to exclude cost considerations in the first round - purely on technical merit, unsurprisingly the two most expensive fighters won. I agree with @Bang Galore, that we should have included the SH in the cost negotiation round, at least to get a sweeter bargain.

 

[The Unnamed]

That's what it should be, but I'm not sure if that's what we got with Rafale. All things considered, the F-18SH might have given the most value for money - not just for the fighter itself, but even more so for the weapons package. American weapons cost a fraction of what European ones cost.

I'm afraid we did not make the right choice, in maximizing value for money. It was a mistake to exclude cost considerations in the first round - purely on technical merit, unsurprisingly the two most expensive fighters won. I agree with @Bang Galore, that we should have included the SH in the cost negotiation round, at least to get a sweeter bargain.

totally there with u. but with growlers too. atleast 2 sqdns worth. australia has an edge over even japan in asia in case of an actual air attack.

having said that rafale is better for us from a business angle too. i hope nobody buys rafale. plus hornet is direct US. it IS risky.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

That's what it should be, but I'm not sure if that's what we got with Rafale. All things considered, the F-18SH might have given the most value for money - not just for the fighter itself, but even more so for the weapons package. American weapons cost a fraction of what European ones cost.

I'm afraid we did not make the right choice, in maximizing value for money. It was a mistake to exclude cost considerations in the first round - purely on technical merit, unsurprisingly the two most expensive fighters won. I agree with @Bang Galore, that we should have included the SH in the cost negotiation round, at least to get a sweeter bargain.

As I said earlier there is opportunity cost and risk cost. In my own estimate that will price the F-18 out of contention.

 

[Somras]

If the terms servicing and overhauling have different meaning in the context, than I apologize for confusion.



I vaguely remember the deal included training, infra and some weapons. I might be wrong. On cost, it is general assumption that a western fighter is generally easy on maintenance. And given Rafale is lighter, it is cheaper to use than Mki.


Rafale is better suited for SEAD missions. I do remember reading there are some other requirements that Rafale meats better than Mki.

the deal includes infra, it does not include weapons

Rafale is bettter suited than Su30 MKI is just a perceptions

whatever Rafale can do SU30MKI can do

 

[Somras]

I would like to think that the IAF knows its maths better than us.

I believe the RFP would have defined a budget. It is unlikely that the MoD would have cleared that tender if there was not price attached to it and all participants had to offer proposals around that range. That is usually the way its done on commercial deals.

But if it was not done that way then its a serious issue. Maybe an RTI or CAG report can reveal that. But no one will be surprised if IAF does not bother about such things. It is one of the effects of lack of strategic thinking which our forces demonstrate from time to time.

i woould like to think in such a manner too but the history of IAF and the historyof this deal dosent give me much confidence

At the time of KArgil -1999 our IAF was caught with its pants down

they had thought of a scenarios where they would need to go for accurate bombing in mountains

though they had bought Mirage 2000 they were not configured for bombing

none of the Jag strike ac were neither able to lift off from Leh nor were they able to bomb in the mountains

Even Mirage 2000 even today is not bale to takeoff from leh at full load.

As far as Rafale deal i concerned

it is only the IAF in the whole world who wants to go for Hi/MEd/Lo aircraft mi. All other Airforces operate at Hi/Lo mix

+

IAF wanted to replace Mig 21 so the RFI floated was for a single engine fighter. NOw tell me should we replace Mig 21 with rafale ?

IAF wanted to purchase Mirage 2000, and initially mirage was pitched but when they (IAF+Dasault) saw the competition they were scared and so they pitched in Rafale

Also the original price Quoted for Rafale was within 10 billion now the reported prices are rising day by day to touch around 23-25billion

23/25 billion$ iss serious money and that too for 126 planes

 

[cerberus]

i woould like to think in such a manner too but the history of IAF and the historyof this deal dosent give me much confidence

At the time of KArgil -1999 our IAF was caught with its pants down

they had thought of a scenarios where they would need to go for accurate bombing in mountains

though they had bought Mirage 2000 they were not configured for bombing

none of the Jag strike ac were neither able to lift off from Leh nor were they able to bomb in the mountains

Even Mirage 2000 even today is not bale to takeoff from leh at full load.

As far as Rafale deal i concerned

it is only the IAF in the whole world who wants to go for Hi/MEd/Lo aircraft mi. All other Airforces operate at Hi/Lo mix

+

IAF wanted to replace Mig 21 so the RFI floated was for a single engine fighter. NOw tell me should we replace Mig 21 with rafale ?

IAF wanted to purchase Mirage 2000, and initially mirage was pitched but when they (IAF+Dasault) saw the competition they were scared and so they pitched in Rafale

Also the original price Quoted for Rafale was within 10 billion now the reported prices are rising day by day to touch around 23-25billion

23/25 billion$ iss serious money and that too for 126 planes

Rafale is one heck of fighter and western tech don't come cheap.it will secure our dominance in Asia

 

[Somras]

Rafale is one heck of fighter and western tech don't come cheap.it will secure our dominance in Asia

it is agood fighter - Agreed

can it replace 1 Su30mki + 2 LCA's - Hell no

 

[cerberus]

it is agood fighter - Agreed

can it replace 1 Su30mki + 2 LCA's - Hell no

Sorry to say you are to much exaggerating lca mk2 as far I know LCA mk2 is still in papers it don't .progress of tech like Aesa radar is still unknown whereas Rafale is fully operational for years with full operational Aesa radar it's only fighter after Americans.

 

[Somras]

Sorry to say you are to much exaggerating lca mk2 as far I know LCA mk2 is still in papers it don't .progress of tech like Aesa radar is still unknown whereas Rafale is fully operational for years with full operational Aesa radar it's only fighter after Americans.

read the whole posts correctly

i wrote 1 Su30 + 2 LCA (1LCa mk1 / 2 Lcam1 / 1lcam1 + 1LCamk2 )

anywaay those are my views -

i dont beleive Rafale can replace 1 su30mki +2 LCA

you can have different views of course

in that case lets agree to disagree

 

[cerberus]

read the whole posts correctly

i wrote 1 Su30 + 2 LCA (1LCa mk1 / 2 Lcam1 / 1lcam1 + 1LCamk2 )

anywaay those are my views -

i dont beleive Rafale can replace 1 su30mki +2 LCA

you can have different views of course

in that case lets agree to disagree

Look Im one of those who always favor indigenous over foreign tech but realistically we are no where near to manufacture fighter like rafale Indigenously altleast in this decade.Our squadrons strength is falling day by day our Pilots are obliged to fly 50 year old fighters which has killed many pilots so it's best we go for best and suitable option available for them .saving fews bucks over lives of our Soilders is not very suitable choice . Rafale is best choice it's also negate are dependency on Russian tech which also available to chinese.

 

[Bang Galore]

.Our squadrons strength is falling day by day our Pilots are obliged to fly 50 year old fighters which has killed many pilots so it's best we go for best and suitable option available for them .saving fews bucks over lives of our Soilders is not very suitable choice . .

That's a false choice. The Rafale is so damn expensive that IAF will be able to replace only a few of those that requires replacing. Essentially that will condemn more of our pilots to fly legacy aircrafts for a very long time because the budget would be shot to pieces. There are many arguments that can be made in favour of Rafale (others do, I don't think it's a good choice at this price) but the one you made is unlikely to fly very high.

 

[Somras]

Look Im one of those who always favor indigenous over foreign tech but realistically we are no where near to manufacture fighter like rafale Indigenously altleast in this decade.Our squadrons strength is falling day by day our Pilots are obliged to fly 50 year old fighters which has killed many pilots so it's best we go for best and suitable option available for them .saving fews bucks over lives of our Soilders is not very suitable choice . Rafale is best choice it's also negate are dependency on Russian tech which also available to chinese.

rafel will give us 126 fighters = 126/18 = 7 squadrans over 13 years
the alternative

1 Rafale = 1 su30mki + 2 LCa

=126 su30Mki + 252 LCa over 10 or less years
= 378/18 = 21 Squadrons

make your choice

also for routine tasks like barcap etc patrolling point defence LCA can perform more than adequately

also there are some 240 mig 21 which will be easily replcaed by LCA

why do you need to Replace mig 21 - single engine low cost , low operating cost, low maintenance costs point defence interceptor fighter with

Rafale a twin engine, high costs, high operating costs, high maintenence costs multirole fighter

when Mig 21 can be easily replcaed with LCA single engine, low cost, low operating costs, low maintenace costs multirole fighter

also today even our enemies dont have AESA - which LCA will have in Mk2

LCA can easily faceoff JF17, Mirage III/V on the western border along with some su30MKI rest of the Su30MKi can be placed on eastern/northern Border in swing roles/deployments due to longer range

why do we need rafale?

we DONT NEED RAFALE today

in 2001 - 2005 period it was a different issue

Su30MKI had not evolved now we have better option

 

[PARIKRAMA]

LCA is still dreams away from becoming a potent realistic weapon. We may be gung ho on our own domestic platforms but realistically LCA (Even 2 in nos with different combinations mk1 mk2) + MKI does not make us any better as compared to 1 rafale. The argument of having superior numbers is good no doubt but potency of a platform is not judged by just numbers alone.

An example is the roles that are assigned to such aircrafts. LCA can and will be used to protect India's vital air corridor upto 750-1000 kms from its base of operations. All this without extra Drop tank and arming with max missile and ammunition. Officially MK1 can do 750 kms as per SP1 configuration and i believe MK2 is being tasked to increase it to 1000 Kms. Su30 MKI same stats is upto 3000 kms without mid air refuelling and drop tanks. Its true LCA is dirt cheap. but the missions which can be assigned to LCA (present MK1 and proposed MK2) seems to be limited as their specific role and capabilities are also limited . if we do develop and make it more potent with integration of latest technologies then yes there is a scope of wider mission capabilities in future. But whats the realistic time frame for such a capability to come in. to my own estimate around 2028-2030 for LCA MK2 to be a matured enough platform to do what a gen 4 or 4.5++ could accomplish. This is where the next 15-20 years the gap is suppose to be there. and on top we have to retire our ageing fleet who have already stretched much beyond limits with our upgrades and excellent pilots skills whom we cant afford to lose and are far more valuable. this gap is not possible to filled with FGFA which again is on paper as of now (dont quote PAKFA as India specifications are not met by PAKFA heck we dont even know if india has access to Pakfa so realistically even pakfa is 2025++ for us) and will be assigned a different role and class . FGFA is heavy class and rafale is medium (on weight)

The reality is that Indian programs like LCA had been and is still a slow program. We were not able to foresight the need of a medium range platform in 90s and hence we never had any program domestically for that. As LCA was still in building blocks, the medium weight category was never thought of domestically. Another good example is AMCA . If we were so serious then whats the state of AMCA? whats the time line there?.

We can state whatever we want in pro and con of the deal argument. Unfortunately since we did not foresee, invest enough in our own defense industry and get credible results, we have to depend on platforms which may seem a bit costly as compared to any cheap indigenous or semi ingenious production.

India does not have a choice. It needs Rafale. France does not have a choice. It needs Rafale orders beyond its force requirement to keep its manufacturing lines going and to fund future upgrades. Its a need for both. Whatever the deal cost is, which i am sure that it is still being not divulged in public domain and all journos are just giving brain fart figure, the deal should help us with enough TOT to make our own industry mature. If we succeed that then yes, we could then be self reliant on our homegrown jets in future. Till then we have to shop abroad.

 

[sancho]

you mean to say a single rafale can replace 2 LCA + 1 Su30MKI?

No, but that 2 LCAs + 1 Su 30 can't replace Rafale in deep strikes with cruise missiles, by the simple fact that LCA is not even close to be as capable as Rafale in performance, weapon carrying capability or range and that even the MKI won't be fit for this role until Brahmos is ready. So the unit cost is totally unimportant for the operational worth of the fighter in IAF, just as it is totally unimportant for the benefits we want for our industry with the M-MRCA. As long as you keep ignoring what actually is important in this competition, you will keep getting the wrong conclusions.