Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

[Bang Galore]

Exactly because they know about the costs, they could have complained about it, as they did in the tanker deal, which than needed to be re-issued including lifecycle cost calculations! So FM is aware of the costs, the future plans and seems to have no issue, so where does the problem of future operational costs come from? That's a lot of hot air, unless the officials that actually knows about the real budget figures and plans comes out and state that there is an issue.

The cost is an issue, plain & simple.

Feel free to prove it. The facts clearly speakes against it doesn't it? IF cost would had played a role, we would never have seen the change from MRCA to MMRCA in the first place, because those were still the most cost-effective and fast to induct choice for IAF. Now in MMRCA, with the shortlisting of only the 2 most expensive fighter to procure and to operate, it gets even more evident that cost had no importance in the selection of the finalists. The only point where it played a role was the selection of L1 and L2!

The argument being made is that cost should have always been an issue. That is because it is in the real world, even if the IAF acted as if it wasn't.

Of course, that's why I said that that an F16IN could had done the operational job too, or that we had planned with a medium class single engine fighter as our indigenous project and not with a light class one, that is only useful for basic roles.
But the fact is, none of the single engined fighters were shortlisted in MMRCA, so even if they might had offered some capability, they did not in other fields and then were rejected. That's why it's pointless to talk about rejected fighters, or fighters that are no real alternative to the MMRCA. We have the Rafale and the EF as suitable options, or to scrap the whole deal at all.

The whole deal is being questioned here, not just the final two contenders. I made my point about it being ridiculous that the Gripen & F-16 were being judged on the same parameters as the other 3 without cost effectiveness being an early parameter because that was their main advantage.

And who says we can't? We are planing to buy amphibious SAR aircrafts for $1.6 billion dollar and people claim we don't have $1.5 to $1.8 billions to make the first paymeant for MMRCA? We want to pay more than a billion for combat helicopters, when we already induct and develop our own once, at lower costs.
At least DRDO and probably MoD considers a $2 billion AMCA program, that IAF as the prime planned customer doesn't need or want...
We have money and we will see more money coming in with the economy coming back and hopefully the inflation going down. What we don't have, is more time to waste since IAF needs more and more capable fighters, so we need a decision on 1 of the 2 MMRCAs soon.

You are comparing whole deals of very unrelated stuff with just a down payment amounting to not more than 10% for the Rafale?

Which blanks should be filled with light class fighters? Take the examples that I gave, none of them could be done with LCAs in an effective manner for IAF, let alone to oppose our threats. So either you keep a hi lo mix with both classes for dedicated roles, or you put a medium class in between, than can be used in all roles.
If in a hi lo mix LCA does 100h and MKI 100h in their own roles, these numbers could be reduced by adding a medium class option in between. LCA 85h, MMRCA 65h, MKI 50h. You have the same total hours, but at ruduced costs over operating heavy class fighters in the same roles, or doing lighter missions in a more effective way.

That would depend still on the cost of the procurement. This is pretty exorbitant no matter how you look at it. which is why everyone has balked at the costs, not just India. Reduced costs in your calculations do not account for the procurement costs. Take that away & we will always have money for higher operational costs. It has worked all these years without the MMRCA, there is little to suggest that we need them in the numbers suggested, regardless of cost. Everything does come down to cost, there is no unlimited bank here.

That's why it's not about my opionion vs others, but what really is important and what is not! Cost was never an official issue in the base selection of the fighters, capability and industrial benefits were! That's why Gripen, the Mig or the teens were rejected and at the end when cost played a role, the most cost-effective option was chosen. So one can't complain about cost being an issue or was not considered in the right way.

That is why I am arguing that cost should have always been a factor right from the very beginning. Those that were outside the budgetary figures should have been the first to go. Logically, by that argument if the F22 were in the mix, at whatever cost, say even $350 million per aircraft, it would have won because it was the best. no logic. The two most expensive were the best, no kidding? What is surprising that they were good at that cost? The whole deal was, imo, done in a manner that has resulted in this economic conundrum. Legitimate questions are not only those that the IAF & the government want asked, what they didn't ask or didn't want asked could be equally legitimate.

 

[sancho]

The argument being made is that cost should have always been an issue

Claimed to be an issue, based on nothing but hot air, without having insights in the plans or budgets, nor by giving any real resons for why it would be in issue, other than the fact that IAF will operate mainly twin engined fighters.

I made my point about it being ridiculous that the Gripen & F-16 were being judged on the same parameters as the other 3 without cost effectiveness being an early parameter because that was their main advantage.

Why should IAF create requirements to suit certain fighters? They looked at what they needed and wanted and set up requirements according to that. So unless costs is a requirement with importance, that will only play a minor role in the selection and unless the cost-effective fighters fulfill the technial or industrial requirements of the RFP, they won't be selected.

You are comparing whole deals of very unrelated stuff with just a down payment amounting to not more than 10% for the Rafale?

No, I am countering the claim that we don't have the money now, which is often stated but factually wrong. The whole MMRCA cost spread over several years and several budgets is even less of a problem, especially with the mentioned prospect of better economy even in this and next year and hopefully some inflation improvements.

That would depend still on the cost of the procurement.

Not at all, since the operational cost per hour has nothing to do with the procurement cost, but with fuel consumption, maintenance hours, how many personal you need to keep the fighter operational..., in all these points a western MMRCA is clearly better than an MKI, therefore would be more cost-effective to operate. And when it's capable enough to take over certain roles of the MKI and reduce it's flying hours, IAFs operational costs will be reduced!

That is why I am arguing that cost should have always been a factor right from the very beginning.

You can argue on that and I even agree, but it doesn't matter for this competition anymore and where it mattered they took the cost-effective option. But what you keep ignoring is, that the cost-effective options also have to fulfill the technical requirements, being cheap is not the prime factor for IAF selecting a fighter!

Those that were outside the budgetary figures should have been the first to go.

Who said they were outside of the budget? Nobody knows the real budget that is cleared for MMRCA, the $10 billion figure is an estimate and more importantly for the original MRCA competition, but the media still confuse the same number for MMRCA, which is not possible by simple logic, since even a Mig 35 is more costly than a Mig 29SMT.
But I agree and often stated that IAF made a mistake by fielding all 6 fighters to the trials and not making a first shortlisting already after evaluating the replies to the RFP. It was clear that the Gripen and the F18SH does not fulfill the TWR or G-Limit requirements, so they could had been rejected right away, which would have saved a lot of time.

Logically, by that argument if the F22 were in the mix, at whatever cost, say even $350 million per aircraft, it would have won because it was the best. no logic. The two most expensive were the best, no kidding? What is surprising that they were good at that cost?

Not really, the F22 would had been rejected for the same reasons why the F16 and F18SH most likely were rejected. Not complying to the ToT requirements. And the EF and Rafale were not shortlisted because they were the costliest, but because they comlied the most to the requirements. Flight performance, RCS, weaponary, avionics, EW and especially future potential, in all these fields they should had been among the best. Add that they also should have the best industrial offers and you know why they were prefered. We then chose the one, that offered us the best cost vs benefit ratio. Again, only because other were cheaper, doesn't mean they were more suitable to our requirements!

 

[Bang Galore]

Claimed to be an issue, based on nothing but hot air, without having insights in the plans or budgets, nor by giving any real resons for why it would be in issue, other than the fact that IAF will operate mainly twin engined fighters.

An issue on the costs that we know the deal to be. Twin engine etc... are the reasons but the cost is clear.

Why should IAF create requirements to suit certain fighters? They looked at what they needed and wanted and set up requirements according to that. So unless costs is a requirement with importance, that will only play a minor role in the selection and unless the cost-effective fighters fulfill the technial or industrial requirements of the RFP, they won't be selected.

That is the point. Cost must always be a factor, right from the beginning. only than can youu get a true cost benefit analysis. short listing the two costliest ones citing technical parameters does not allow for accurate cost benefit analysis.

No, I am countering the claim that we don't have the money now, which is often stated but factually wrong. The whole MMRCA cost spread over several years and several budgets is even less of a problem, especially with the mentioned prospect of better economy even in this and next year and hopefully some inflation improvements.

Hope is a dangerous variable. The point to buying a Range Rover is not just the ability to meet the down payment but the ability to deal with the entire cost.

Not at all, since the operational cost per hour has nothing to do with the procurement cost, but with fuel consumption, maintenance hours, how many personal you need to keep the fighter operational..., in all these points a western MMRCA is clearly better than an MKI, therefore would be more cost-effective to operate. And when it's capable enough to take over certain roles of the MKI and reduce it's flying hours, IAFs operational costs will be reduced!

That was a simple piece of logic. Procurement costs is important because before one gets to dealing with operational costs, one has to finish with the more primary procurement cost.

You can argue on that and I even agree, but it doesn't matter for this competition anymore and where it mattered they took the cost-effective option. But what you keep ignoring is, that the cost-effective options also have to fulfill the technical requirements, being cheap is not the prime factor for IAF selecting a fighter!

Technical parameters were obviously in favour of the heavier aircrafts, my point is cost should have been an factor in the downselect itself.

Who said they were outside of the budget? Nobody knows the real budget that is cleared for MMRCA, the $10 billion figure is an estimate and more importantly for the original MRCA competition, but the media still confuse the same number for MMRCA, which is not possible by simple logic, since even a Mig 35 is more costly than a Mig 29SMT.

Regardless of actual budget plan now, the point is that budgetary consideration should have been made open & a factor.

Not really, the F22 would had been rejected for the same reasons why the F16 and F18SH most likely were rejected. Not complying to the ToT requirements. And the EF and Rafale were not shortlisted because they were the costliest, but because they comlied the most to the requirements. Flight performance, RCS, weaponary, avionics, EW and especially future potential, in all these fields they should had been among the best. Add that they also should have the best industrial offers and you know why they were prefered. We then chose the one, that offered us the best cost vs benefit ratio. Again, only because other were cheaper, doesn't mean they were more suitable to our requirements!

The logic is that yiou simply cannot downselect the two costliest aircrafts & then run them against each other. several senior BJP leaders including a former FM has questioned the met5hod used in the final analysis. My sole point remains that cost should have been a primary consideration & one that should be conveyed to the IAF by GoI. Left alone, the IAF, like any other force will always go for the one toy that they want rather than the one that makes economic economic sense.

 

[sancho]

short listing the two costliest ones citing technical parameters does not allow for accurate cost benefit analysis.

Again, we haven't shortlisted the costliest, since that was not an objective! We shortlisted the once that were most suitable to our requirements and the cost benefit analysis must be based on those who passes to the final round, not on those that doesn't.

That was a simple piece of logic.

Yes and still you deny plain logic, which is kind of strange. You have to decide, either you complain about the procurement cost of around $18 billion, in comparison to the EF, the only other suitable MMRCA, or you have to compare the operational cost of Rafale per hour within the IAF fleet. Mixing up both things only, because you think the $18 billions are too much, simply doesn't make sense.

Technical parameters were obviously in favour of the heavier aircrafts

Just that the Rafale was the 2nd lightest fighter in the competition, even the F16 was heavier, so the weight definitely was not an issue for being capable or not.

 

[Bang Galore]

Again, we haven't shortlisted the costliest, since that was not an objective! We shortlisted the once that were most suitable to our requirements and the cost benefit analysis must be based on those who passes to the final round, not on those that doesn't.



Yes and still you deny plain logic, which is kind of strange. You have to decide, either you complain about the procurement cost of around $18 billion, in comparison to the EF, the only other suitable MMRCA, or you have to compare the operational cost of Rafale per hour within the IAF fleet. Mixing up both things only, because you think the $18 billions are too much, simply doesn't make sense.



Just that the Rafale was the 2nd lightest fighter in the competition, even the F16 was heavier, so the weight definitely was not an issue for being capable or not.

Let me explain my cost position. There is normal costing and then there is MMRCA costing. Normal costing works like this - you first decide your budgetary outlay+-20% and then decide what fits that cost. Its like buying a tv, you work on your budget +- some %. You dont simply shortlist the ones with the most features and then work on the cost. That is usually guaranteed to break the bank. If for example we had $10billion initially budgeted, we work on that budget and do a cost analysis. Keep basic parameters at say, the upgraded mirage2k level and then look at all additional features at cost benefit basis. See what features are on offer, place a monetary value on it and then come down to the short list. We then would have a realistic plan.

126 F16 versus 110 gripen versus 80 F18 versus 60 Rafale/EF would be the result on a 10 billion budget (for example purpose only). If budget is worked to 18 bilion as you suggest, then we would work on calculating whether 126 Rafales would be a better choice than 126 F16/Gripen + extra money either for weapons or other platforms. You could still pick the Rafale but it would be an explained choice. What now has happened is that two expensive platforms have been short listed and we then decide whether 18 billion or 30 billion is ok. Inane economic calculations. Suicidal.

Nothing wrong in looking at both the procurement costs as well as operational costs of the rafale together. Both are absolutely interdependent and necessary parameters. It is not only of costing against the EF that I object to, it is the whole way the IAF has gone about this deal. Unlike you, I simply dont accept the logic that we should pay whatever the costs that the winner asks, I question the very basis of how the two short listed fighters were selected. That (present position)would only work if the competing platforms were close in cost analysis, not where there is such disparity. If you are looking at fighters versus fighters as the criteria, you simply cannot do it in isolation to the cost of each platform. Both are required to be looked at as equal and important factors.

As usual, we may just have to agree to disagree. Our respective philosophies, both economic and military are too far apart to have a meeting point. No point in merely stating each others position endlessly.

 

[SSG_Commando]

Grapes are sour. keep whining.

Lolz!!! Why dont you go ahead then? 126 is the number Bhndis are talking about? We will who will be laughing at the end number if the deal gets mature

 

[sancho]

As usual, we may just have to agree to disagree. Our respective philosophies,

The problem is not that we have different philosophies here (especially since I am merely showing how the competition was done and what under what requirements), but that you keep ignoring the fact that there are certain requirements that needs to be met in any fighter competition around the world and only if they are met, a downselection will be done. That nobody knows what the cleared budget for the M-MRCA is, which makes it pointless to claim that we don't have the money for it. Just as it doesn't make sense to claim that Rafale would increase the operational costs in IAF, because it's a twin engined fighter, when it actually will be the 2nd cheapest fighter of the future fleet and can even reduce operational cost.

You want to make costs the prime requirement, but that was never an issue in the competition or of IAF / MoD! So unless you can show that there is another fighter in the competition, that would fulfill IAF's / MoD's requirement at lower costs, you there is no base to say Rafale or EF are too costly, because the the IAF and MoD (not even the new one) have ever shown any concern about costs, nor used one of the plenty chances to include such a factor into the competition.

- when the replies to the RFPs came, IAF / MoD knew about the basic cost of the fighters, so if cost would had played any role, that would had been the first chance to reject too costly once, as the Brazilians did with the EF for example
- within the competition, the comercial bids of the vendors wer re-newed several times, so if cost would had played any role, they could had shortlisted one of the more cost-effective fighters too
- now with the change of government, the new MoD has the right to review the evaluation results and could had included costs as an evaluation factor (happened in Brazil after their elections), which didn't happend so far since it wouldn't had changed much because the EF would have remained the more costly one

Which brings back my initial question, where is the base to say we can't afford MMRCA's, when the officals never stated something like that, nor have shown any interest to steer the competition towards a cheap solution, or when there is obviously no issue with inducting twin engine fighters even from the MRCA competition?
You have to understand that we don't wanted the cheapest fighter / offer, but the one that fulfills the most of our demands and the more it does, the more it is worth the cost! A Mig might had been cheaper per unit, but costlier to maintain, had offered less operational and industrial advantages, so even if the total procurement cost would had been lower, the cost benefit ratio would have been far lower too, because it offered less of what we demanded. That's exactly why Rafale and EF suddenly came out alone in the final, because even if the cost are high, they offer the most in return, be it for IAF or the industry and that was the prime focus of the competition.

 

[Bang Galore]

That nobody knows what the cleared budget for the M-MRCA is, which makes it pointless to claim that we don't have the money for it.

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that a price of around $20 billion is a ridiculously large figure. If you don't get that, maybe you really belong in a different economic planet.

Just as it doesn't make sense to claim that Rafale would increase the operational costs in IAF, because it's a twin engined fighter, when it actually will be the 2nd cheapest fighter of the future fleet and can even reduce operational cost..

Deliberate misconstruing for the purpose of obfuscation. We are dealing with the basic cost first. No point in comparing an MKI which already exists with a Rafale that, as yet, does not.

 

[sancho]

It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out that a price of around $20 billion is a ridiculously large figure. If you don't get that, maybe you really belong in a different economic planet.

Who said it isn't a large figure? But what's important is, that we don't seem to have an issue with paying it, as long as we get enough in return! $10 billions directly invested back into India, one of the best 4.5th gen fighters, additional weapon and tech capabilities for IAF, crucial technical input for the Indian defence industry...
You simply keep pointing at the base costs, but not on what we get in return nor on what MoD and IAF wanted.

 

[Bang Galore]

You simply keep pointing at the base costs, but not on what we get in return nor on what MoD and IAF wanted.

I keep pointing out that I seem to understand economic imperatives a bit better than you. If costs were to be calculated with a bit more logic, the EF could be a contender similarly because UK gives us decent aid. We could simply have asked the UK (&Germany) to raise the level of aid required to overcome any theoretical (and it is only theoretical, enough people have criticised lifetime cost calculations). After all the IAF had shortlisted both on technical parameters, let us see what the EF figures were -let it be discussed threadbare rather than this ridiculous idea of still negotiating costs & modalities of transfer. This is an fool's way of doing things.

The IAF may want the moon, there is no reason to hand it to them at any cost. The rest of us have to work within a budget, I see absolutely no logic in suggesting that the IAF needs to be an exception. Nor am I convinced about the exact gains that will accrue. The costs are real, the benefits, at this point, theoretical & may only turn out to be notional.

Unlike you, I see no reason to just be satisfied with any cock & bull story put out. A debate is warranted (regardless of the eventual outcome). It is those who insist that there should be no debate who one should be wary of, not those asking questions.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Game.Set. Match:

MMRCA Misgivings Unfounded (a must read)

 

[holysaturn]

Bharat karnad : Counter-response to Air Marshal Barbora, and others | idrw.org

Operational availability of rafale is 44% even for french air force which has been operating it for years. So even if the IAF achieves that mark only 50+ rafales will be available for war at a time.
I dont think this figure can arrest the declining numbers can they ?

 

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

Bharat karnad : Counter-response to Air Marshal Barbora, and others | idrw.org

Operational availability of rafale is 44% even for french air force which has been operating it for years. So even if the IAF achieves that mark only 50+ rafales will be available for war at a time.
I dont think this figure can arrest the declining numbers can they ?

On top of that the respected IAF gents don't even have a clue of life cycle cost calculation.

 

[$even]

Also Interesting that the members that are forcefully supporting this acquisition and more imports don't even have an Indian passport.

 

[Asian.Century]

Rafale gives ToT to India, India should go for it.