Ditching Rafale

[notsuperstitious]

The original poster article complains like Indian in-laws. None of it makes sense.

India has money. France has technology. Technology comes at a premium. French wont give their technology that easily. Its as simple as that.

Do you think they will transfer technology to nobody in India just because India fancies so? RATPL, the article admits has ZERO experience building a glider let alone a super high tech plane like Rafale. And India expects Dassault to take full ownership of the plane built by RATPL?!!! Amazing foolhardiness.

Just post ''I hate India'' instead of posting factually incorrect rants to say the same and looking foolish in the process! Atleast ''I hate India'' will be factually correct!

 

[sancho]

Don't know about the T-50. But from what I gather, the Indian variant of the Su-30 is good for strike missions.

All modern fighters are multi role fighters, the only difference is, how they are specialized. Su35, Su 30 and Su 34 are multi role fighters, the earlier however is more geared for A2A (aim on high flight performance and manuverability...), the latter more for A2G (aim on shared workload, low level flight, specialised avionics...), while the Su 30 is a more balanced varient. Similarly, F22 is a multi role fighter mainly geared for A2A (aim on high flight performance and manuverability...), just as F35 is a multi role fighter geared for A2G (aim on carrying larger strike weapons, longer range, integrated targeting pod and specialized avionics...).
The T50 is aimed on multi role capability from the start too (aiming on SEAD, precision and anti ship strikes), while the FGFA twin seater approach would be a more balanced one to do a variety of roles, but it's not specifically made for A2G.

 

[hussain0216]

Pakistanis have been telling you this for years

Same goes for the Arjunk we told you that was rubbish too

Now all you have to do is realise LCA is nothing more than a pile of monkey sh*t and pakistanis and indians will see things the same

 

[The enlightened]

Just post ''I hate India'' instead of posting factually incorrect rants to say the same and looking foolish in the process! Atleast ''I hate India'' will be factually correct!

OMGLOL
I am going to use this if you don't mind (or have a copyright).

 

[hussain0216]

Just because your army is bankrupt and cant afford expensive fighters like India and has to make with dirt cheap JF17 which an African nation like Nigeria refused to buy to use even as a trainer.No need to cry over it and write nonsense here.

Just admit it

We told you years ago the Raphael deal was way overpriced and you were being taken for saps


We told you years ago Arjunk was a overweight pile of junk that is unsuitable for the terrain and guess what the indian army agrees........ short of your politicians forcing it on your military they have no desire to buy the thing

Now take our word for the LCA bring as useful as a extra-large condom for an indian, you will realise in a few years we were right about that too

 

[conworldus]

isn't that what India needs a good ground attack aircraft??

I thought the SU-30 and T-50 is for Air Supremacy

and also Urban Meyer, what lol

India wants fighter jets mostly. I don't think ground attackers are their priority.

Good luck tomorrow, though.

 

[gau8av]

All modern fighters are multi role fighters, the only difference is, how they are specialized. Su35, Su 30 and Su 34 are multi role fighters, the earlier however is more geared for A2A (aim on high flight performance and manuverability...), the latter more for A2G (aim on shared workload, low level flight, specialised avionics...), while the Su 30 is a more balanced varient. Similarly, F22 is a multi role fighter mainly geared for A2A (aim on high flight performance and manuverability...), just as F35 is a multi role fighter geared for A2G (aim on carrying larger strike weapons, longer range, integrated targeting pod and specialized avionics...).
The T50 is aimed on multi role capability from the start too (aiming on SEAD, precision and anti ship strikes), while the FGFA twin seater approach would be a more balanced one to do a variety of roles, but it's not specifically made for A2G.

apart from the low RCS, which can't be fixed, why not retrofit more squadrons of the mki or even Mig-35 with those AASM, Brimstone/spear 3 and MICA systems ? The production/maintenance infrastructure is already in place so that would mean a lower fly away cost too ?

 

[Iggy]

Going for SU 30 means we are going to be dependent on Russia again which is not wise..Better we go for F 18s or EFT..My vote is for F 18 bcoz of its low price..

 

[notsuperstitious]

Going for SU 30 means we are going to be dependent on Russia again which is not wise..Better we go for F 18s or EFT..My vote is for F 18 bcoz of its low price..

Isn't F18 heavy class?

But you are absolutely right about the dependence on Russia. Its a huge risk.

 

[anant_s]

Going for SU 30 means we are going to be dependent on Russia again which is not wise..Better we go for F 18s or EFT..My vote is for F 18 bcoz of its low price..

Typhoon looks better choice, its only bound to get better and i guess India was offered a chance to be a participating member in the production program. I too don't believe in putting all eggs in one basket, time to look beyond Russia and/or US.

 

[Indo-guy]

Deal to acquire French Rafale fighters hits rough weather - The Times of India


NEW DELHI: India plans to take a final call, one way or the other, on the gigantic $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters before Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits France and Germany in April.

Sources said the defence ministry is now hopping mad with French aviation major Dassault's continuing refusal to take "ownership" of the 108 Rafale fighters which are to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in India with transfer of technology after the first 18 jets are delivered off-the-shelf to IAF.

The MoD is also upset with Dassault's attempts to "change the price line", which led to its selection over the Eurofighter Typhoon as the L-1 (lowest bidder) three years ago, by deciding the "costing" for HAL on its own. "It will amount to a de facto hike in the L-1 price," said a source.


If Dassault continues to renege from its earlier commitments, refusing to be "fully compliant" with the original RFP (request for proposal), India will be left with no option but to scrap the entire MMRCA project despite having invested almost a decade in the selection process. Incidentally, the defence procurement policy and Central Vigilance Commission guidelines do not allow the L-2 (Typhoon) to re-enter the negotiations.

As was first reported by TOI, even though 90% of the draft contract is ready, the finalization of the complex MMRCA project has been stuck for almost a year now due to Dassault's reluctance to stand guarantee for the fighters to be made in India in terms of liquidity damages and production timelines.

Sources said defence minister Manohar Parrikar has written to his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian that India was still awaiting the "empowered" delegation he had promised to send to resolve the imbroglio. The two ministers had decided to "fast-track" the negotiations during talks in New Delhi on December 1.


"The ball is firmly in the French court. India cannot allow any violation of the RFP in such a mega project, nor can it afford to let the negotiations drag on endlessly. A final call has to be taken, one way or the other," said the source.

If the MMRCA project is indeed scrapped, it will bring to an end the mega fighter selection process launched by India way back in August 2007. This "mother of all defence deals" had global aviation majors salivating at the prospect of bagging the lucrative deal.

After extensive field trials by IAF test pilots, Swedish Gripen, Russian MiG-35, American F/A-18 'Super Hornet' and F-16 'Super Viper' were ejected out of the high-voltage competition.

Subsequently, the commercial bids of the two remaining contenders -- Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS), backed by UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, and French Rafale (Dassault) - were opened in November 2011.

Rafale was then declared the winner in January 2012, having beaten the Typhoon both on direct cost of acquisition as well as "life-cycle costs'' of operating the fighters over a 40-year period with 6,000 hours of flying. But the final commercial negotiations with Dassault have progressed at a glacial pace since then.

 

[vsdave2302]

Here:

No You misinterpreted that. I said come close to Gripen E. MK2 is just an upgraded version of MK1. We have a based line aircraft in our hand. MK 2 is not just a paper plane like AMCA.

As I said, it's not about filling gaps but adding capabilities next to what MKI offers and having an alternative to it. Therefor getting another fighter with advanced radar and flight performance capabilities, additional advanced weaponary to the Russians / Indians the MKI will offer, improving the strike capabilities..., with lower operational is what we needs to for the bulk operations. It's about using MKIs long range radar capabilities, alongside with Rafales low RCS and passive sensors. It's about MKIs heavy weapons, along side Rafales AASM or EF's Brimstone and SPEAR 3, it's about having R73 / Astra, but also MICA or IRIS-T / METEOR, Scalp or Storm Shadow / Brahmos.
More MKIs only provide us with more numbers, but the same capabilities and the same operational costs or difficulties, not different or lower once. Just as more MKIs only offer us the same industrial advantages that we already get, while MMRCA is meant to add new industrial capabilities, more offsets and export potential (at least of parts and systems).

Yes, But at what cost. We can have best in the world planes but cost is a constrain. We have to look at the siiue from an angle that what best we get out of the fund we have. If we can have one Super MKI and One Tejas MK2 out of the fund of one rafale and still left with a huge amount to push our R & D than it is better to go for Second option. After all indigenization is our goal. We should not lose focus on that.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

India does not any more planes it already has enough planes

 

[C130]

India does not any more planes it already has enough planes

I think Indian knows what India needs

 

[sancho]

Yes, But at what cost. We can have best in the world planes but cost is a constrain. We have to look at the siiue from an angle that what best we get out of the fund we have.

And that's the point of the MMRCA, especially of the switch from MRCA to MMRCA, because the aim was, if we have to buy new fighters anyway (because of LCA delays), we have to make sure to get the most in return for the money we spend. That's why we not only increased the options of vendors, but also increased technical and industrial demands! For each Billion we spend, we get 500 million back into our own industry + advanced techs and production capabilities + advanced fighters with higher operational capabilities and lower operational costs than the heavy class fighters we have, all this is not possible without MMRCA!
Sure you can buy MKIs and LCAs for $18 billion too, but won't get the same benefits in return. Therefor the ideal scenario remains to get one of the two MMRCAs, while even in the worst case scenario, we have fall back options to fill the numbers.

After all indigenization is our goal. We should not lose focus on that.

Who said we lost that focus? LCA development is still going on, but as said, it also caused the need for an alternative fighter, because it still is not available in a capable for to secure IAF's operational needs. The only operational alternative to do that, would be MKIs, which obviously is not an indigenous choice, even though we have made good progress in indigenizing it. The biggest problem for the MMRCA as a tender is, that people still look at it as stop gap procurement for fighters, which it isn't since we sent out the new RFP. Today it is more a bridge to gap the lack of industrial capability than a fighter procurement, because the LCA project as made clear that there is still a huge need for know how in the Indian aviation sector. So if it costs us $18 billion for Rafale or even $20+ billion for EF and we can afford it (and there is no official statement so far that suggest otherwise), the cost is worth it if we get enough advantages in return, be it industrial or operational once.