Options for PAF After India Selects Rafale for MMRCA

[SBD-3]

The rupee has gained with the same pace it lost to the dollar in the last one month. Be my guest to check the news. It was writing on the wall that we would go for 200+ jets of the type. With 4 types of jets each targeted at between 150-250 jets, our idea is 100% replacement of old aircraft plus increase the fighter fleet to at least 1,200 jets in the coming 1-2 decades.

We naturally need this boost, you know.



There is more than one type of costs incurred mate. One is the flyaway cost aka the cost for available jet. Another one and that one is major, is the lifecycle and facilities cost that any nation has to incur in setting up facilities. Earlier while we had a zoo of fleet in 70s and 80s, all were sources from 90% from 1 country aka USSR. Today we have a very diverse fleet and getting Typhoons in would have meant two things:

1- retain existing facilities for those aircraft who don't require immediate replacements

2- build new facilities for maintenance, operation and other tertiaries for the totally unfamiliar and new Typhoons.

Dassault has a big presence in India and a very historic one. We already have facilities for Mirage 2000s all over the country which would need only some new enhancements and Rafales are good to go.

________________

The same reason why PAF went for JF-17s and FC-20s: apart from low fly-away costs and relative political independence, the life-cycle costs for both the jets would be best bang for the buck, since you have Chinese jets for a long time and existing facilities would only need limited facelift to get the new jets going for 'em.

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------



Every country around the planet has a method that suits them man.

1- I am talking about cost escalation over a decade, not a month or two as you're implying
2- I think you got me wrong on the tendering point as well, why do firms tender? lets just say we have X as total costs including both life cycle and flyaway costs. The tendering is intended to yield the lowest price taking advantage of the competition and information asymmetry between the suppliers. with such minute difference in tendering bids, what i said between the lines was that 1)at least one of the manufacturer was able to make inroads in MoD or Evaluation team about other's price. And all it had to do was to just outbid the other 2) The costs spikes were genuine enough that both could not afford much lower prices than the tender. Take an example that you are DA and you dont know what EDAS is going to bid, you will certainly make a much lesser bid (say 70) to outbid the EDAS, but when you know that EDAS has made a bid of 95 you can easily outbid him at 93 which results in you winning the tender but no commercial benefit for the buyer (IAF).

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Seems you didn't pick up the psyche of my post, let me put it this way, for the price of a single Rafale, the PAF can field at least 4 JF-17s, for argument sake translate that into, say IAF sends one to attack Pakistan while PAF deploys 4 for the same price tag, take out the Rafale, and there is no joy for you, on the other hand, even if PAF loses 50% of the strike force, the remainder could still do some damage. You can argue about the quantity all you like but keep in mind that it's the IAF which has to defend a much wider blue yonder. Every airforce has it's own operational requirements, PAF refused both the MiG-21 and SU-7 when offered by Russia in the late 60s, as they never met PAF specifications, yet 20 years later it opted for the MiG derivative, the F-7 because it filled the requirement.
Regardless of what you or others may deploy, the focus for the PAF has always been Quality rather than quantity, since at the end of the day, all that matters is the pilot factor.

Ah! you had to take the dive in the end..Till then it was a factually reasonable post. While Pilot does make a difference, its not all that matters now.. Is it?

Also your start of the post and end do not match. In the beginning you are harping on the tactic of numeric superiority with a cheaper plane and then you polish off by saying PAF is always about Quality and NOT quantity..

And finally, your hypothesis of 4 cheap JFTs for the cost of 1 Rafale holds good only if the spending power of PAF is in parity with the spending power of IAF. Now we all know, thats not the case. PAF will never spend 10 billion dollars to counter the MMRCA, which means no joy on 500 JFTs as you propose to counter 126 MMRCA..

 

[LaBong]

Ah! you had to take the dive in the end..Till then it was a factually reasonable post. While Pilot does make a difference, its not all that matters now.. Is it?

Also your start of the post and end do not match. In the beginning you are harping on the tactic of numeric superiority with a cheaper plane and then you polish off by saying PAF is always about Quality and NOT quantity..

And finally, your hypothesis of 4 cheap JFTs for the cost of 1 Rafale holds good only if the spending power of PAF is in parity with the spending power of IAF. Now we all know, thats not the case. PAF will never spend 10 billion dollars to counter the MMRCA, which means no joy on 500 JFTs as you propose to counter 126 MMRCA..

Even if they can match in spending power it's foolish to buy 4 jfts for 1 rafale. It necessarily means they need to field 4 times more pilots build up 4 times more infra. And it won't be a rafale dog fighting with 4 jft, in most cases rafale will see those jft and fire bvrs and escape before those jfts sense anything.

 

[SBD-3]

Ah! you had to take the dive in the end..Till then it was a factually reasonable post. While Pilot does make a difference, its not all that matters now.. Is it?

Also your start of the post and end do not match. In the beginning you are harping on the tactic of numeric superiority with a cheaper plane and then you polish off by saying PAF is always about Quality and NOT quantity..

And finally, your hypothesis of 4 cheap JFTs for the cost of 1 Rafale holds good only if the spending power of PAF is in parity with the spending power of IAF. Now we all know, thats not the case. PAF will never spend 10 billion dollars to counter the MMRCA, which means no joy on 500 JFTs as you propose to counter 126 MMRCA..

Of course it doesn't matter, if you're on XBoX. I can still remember IAF Chief's remarks on Mig Crashes saying the young pilots weren't able to handle them. A good jockey knows the strengths and weaknesses of his horse and optimize his performance by keeping them in view.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Even if they can match in spending power it's foolish to buy 4 jfts for 1 rafale. It necessarily means they need to field 4 times more pilots build up 4 times more infra. And it won't be a rafale dog fighting with 4 jft, in most cases rafale will see those jft and fire bvrs and escape before those jfts sense anything.

You and I seem to be of the same mind .. This is what i replied to the esteemed Windjammer sir a few hours back, but he doesnt seem to get it..

Tell that to a platoon of rifle wielding soldiers going up against 2 soldiers with M 16s

A couple of other points..

1. The flyaway cost difference between a JF 17 and Rafale is probably closer to 3x or so.
2. You are forgetting the pilot cost component. FOr 3 JF 17s you would want to field against 1 rafale, you would need to ready and maintain 3x no. of pilots and 3x amount of local infrastructure.. Once you factor that in, the cost advantage over the life cycle doesnt remain that favorable. That is mainly the reason why countries are moving towards smaller forces of highly competent planes vs larger number of low end ones.

On a lighter note, if you want to take your girlfriend to a party, what would you prefer.. 1 Mercedes slk or 10 Suzuki Mehrans

 

[prabhakar]

Of course it doesn't matter, if you're on XBoX. I can still remember IAF Chief's remarks on Mig Crashes saying the young pilots weren't able to handle them. A good jockey knows the strengths and weaknesses of his horse and optimize his performance by keeping them in view.

This is a subjective matter...

 

[anathema]

Seems you didn't pick up the psyche of my post, let me put it this way, for the price of a single Rafale, the PAF can field at least 4 JF-17s, for argument sake translate that into, say IAF sends one to attack Pakistan while PAF deploys 4 for the same price tag, take out the Rafale, and there is no joy for you, on the other hand, even if PAF loses 50% of the strike force, the remainder could still do some damage.

WJ - one problem in that thought process . Taking your example above. Assuming price of 1 Rafale = Price of 4 JF17's.

IAF is/will spend $20B on this acquisition. Will PAF spend $20B to acquire 4*JF17 - to match up with Rafale numbers ? If PAF has that kind of money then why wont they end up selecting plane like gripen or EF itself ?

Further more - More JF17's - More pilots - More infrastructure - More maintenance. So you are looking at mothball effect.

So even though logically your reasoning may work - but practically and in reality - it may not !!

 

[Whazzup]

LOL 115 users browsing this thread

Look there cannot be a perfect answer to this however I would like to say this (or hate to say this) no matter what is the economical condition of Pak your def forces have always taken the wright choice of procurement so no worries.

At the current stage it will be better for Paf to stick with 4 sqd of F16 blk52 and 200 JF 17 blk2 backed by manpads and SAMs.

If FC 20 is not a 5th gen plane then its useless to buy it.(just my thought)

 

[Windjammer]

the basic fallacy of your post is there for everyone to see.. let me put it simply for you

You don't have quality

and

You don't have quantity

Please don't make yourself as laughing stock by implying that PAF rejected both the birds on the basis of quality. The best you have is F-16 BLK 52 and for your info a better version of it with AESA has been rejected by IAF.

There you go digressing in a childish manner, where exactly did i say the Rafale or EFT lacked quality, the MiG-21 example is sufficient for little comprehension.

 

[SBD-3]

An interesting report, highlights spending more doesn't necessarily means better capabilities

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

This is a subjective matter...

A subjective matter about what?

 

[Trisonics]

LOL 115 users browsing this thread

Look there cannot be a perfect answer

Actually there is.. that too without spending a penny on defense equipment. It's always the underdog and least preferred weapon when it comes to IND-PAK and its usually called "Dialogue".

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

An interesting report, highlights spending more doesn't necessarily means better capabilities

Necessarily - No
Mostly - Yes

Just like spending less = worse capabilities

Necessarily - No
Mostly - Yes

 

[SBD-3]

So you think a great pilot in a sopwith camel can take out a rookie flying an F22 ??

Please do focus on my comment about Pilot skill is not ALL that matters..

An good F-15 pilot can certainly take out a bad F-22 Pilot please see again the red flag review where the american pilot highlights the weak point of F-22

 

[ziaulislam]

well, it seems french may have used their tramp card, same it used when we were doing agosta b deal..
for india sake lets hope it doesnt become another scandal along with their previous one.....

 

[Alphacharlie]

Rafale - Technologically Superior Machine. Congratulations IAF

If I go by logic of above notes :-

10 Spit fires should be equal to 1 Mig 15
10 Mig 15 = 1 JF17
This means, 100 spit fires equal = 1 Rafale "Impreposterous"

I fail to understand, If I can paint you from a Distance of 60-100 miles why should I come close and engage in Dog Fight. Pilot Skills stills are still valued. If I plot a graf of Human skills to Technology at one stage technology surpasses the Human Pilot skills.

Theoretically days of Dog fights were surpassed in Early 80s. Americans "DACT" excluded Dog fights w.e.f 1980s.

This Machine (Rafale) Cements hold of IAF on subcontinent. It also gives warning to Mr Han to be careful.