Know Your 'Rafale'

[smestarz]

You can go on holiday, The French had gone on holiday when the Germans rolled over France in 30 days

The Americans Offer, the Russians offer, but french are just short of begging and crying,
The statement of the article does say it "France Wanted India To Announce Talks For 36 More Rafale Fighters"

Perhaps the french read too much about Indian intentions, perhaps GoI is not interested in the childish acting IAF top brass. France is something like "Hello India, lets announce that we are engaged .." And India is like "Wow, we just met, and I bedded you, I dont even know you "
So make sure that some country is not going to invade you, and then you can go for holidays,

When France pushes for Rafale : Beggars !

When Moscow pushes for Su-35 : « From Russia with Love » , hugs

When US pushes for F-16, F/18, F-35 : wow, superpower tallks to us !


This is so unfair. I need holidays

 

[Armand2REP]

Is Dassault started manufacturing Rafales for India?.

The first Indian Rafale began production in Q1 2018 and India will get the first batch of 6 Rafale in September 2019.

 

[proud_indian]

30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[Sancho]

Most professional air forces go by the roles

No they are not, because the time for fighters with dedicated roles are log gone. All major forces distinguish between weight classes to have a hi love mix of fighters, the difference / mistake for IAF is, that they have a 3rd class, which however was not necessarily a choice.

Till MKI came, IAF had basically a light / medium mix of different types. MKI was added on top and while the desicion to replace Mig 21s, with an indigenous light class fighter was already made. But the capability gap between light and heavy is too big to have overlaps, to take over roles. Not to mention that China did it the right way with J10, so we had to add another type.

Btw, Air Chief Naik once said, that IAF would even like to have just a single type, to reduce the logistical burden, but that's not possible.

 

[Immanuel]

You forget that the current president of the US is the largest protectionist since Calvin Coolidge, who caused the Great Depression. He is slapping 25% tariffs on steel and it isn't pig iron from China, it is high quality steel from India. He won't even clear a computer chip for the sale of his French allies who are replacing the chip so they can export their own missiles. Buying an F-35 will get no ToT, no MII, nothing.

MMRCA competition wound down to two finalists that met the qualitative requirements, Rafale and Eurofighter. Rafale was and still is L-1.

Well, if a combined offer of 100 F-35A for IAF + 60 + F-35B/C for IN, this is big enough deal to have serious leverage in any discussion specially when it de risks the F-35 program significantly. Now you take a position that TOT or MII won't be offered while take a position in the opposite. Well for any future purchases of Rafale, SH or F-35, we clearly don't have enough money for such big ticket deals. I doubt coughing up the money for Rafale extra 36 Rafale will be easy. No deal will happen before elections and no big ticket items can be ordered without adding budget.

Tarrifs are tools and timing in politics is everything. Besides what does having a MII line for the F-35 have anything to do with tarrifs, I always said, we wouldn't get much TOT, more than 25% just like FGFA is not possible, Final assembly in India would mean most of the parts would come the US anyways, very few India made parts would make into US planes. Parts made in India would feed into Asian/Middle East supply chain in the future.

Great depressions or deep recessions happen due to several factors and tarrifs are not nearly in the top 10 reasons.

 

[smestarz]

Wonderful, Do tell me which is the light and medium and heavy fighter in USAF, Russian, German, Italian or Spanish air forces. USAF classifies by roles, so does Russian air forces, and so does RAF and so does Luftwaffe, If the weight classes were so important, why was the MMRCA was called MRCA? They came with M to ensure that Sukhoi is kept out of the RFP.
Would be nice if you would show some links where the Major air forces are purchasing planes based on their weight class.

No they are not, because the time for fighters with dedicated roles are log gone. All major forces distinguish between weight classes to have a hi love mix of fighters, the difference / mistake for IAF is, that they have a 3rd class, which however was not necessarily a choice.

Till MKI came, IAF had basically a light / medium mix of different types. MKI was added on top and while the desicion to replace Mig 21s, with an indigenous light class fighter was already made. But the capability gap between light and heavy is too big to have overlaps, to take over roles. Not to mention that China did it the right way with J10, so we had to add another type.

Btw, Air Chief Naik once said, that IAF would even like to have just a single type, to reduce the logistical burden, but that's not possible.

 

[smestarz]

The French are trying that and they would be just having Rafale when they retire Mirage 2000 and some of the French members have said that 2 Rafales can be as efficient as 5 Mirage 2000
I think your logic is very much biased and out dated

A) It is true that the ERA of specialised plane for mission are over
B) but even in this ERA there will be some planes which will be taken for specilised mission only. (these would be exceptions to the rule, and smaller quantity)
C) For a land based aircraft purchasing planes as per weight class shows how stupid the top brass is ,, or rather how compromised they are. When did we actually start this weight class concept? I think it was after the MRCA RFP before that we never talked of weight class, but we talked about roles that a plane can perform and hence the squadron would be trained for the various roles that it might need to perform.

I might correct your stupidity here itself,
Before MKI came to picture IAF mainly had MiG-21 which had short range, and hence their roles were interceptors or short range MRCA. They could not conduct deep strikes and that time radars and rockets were not very developed and so we went for Jaguars , Mirage 2000 for these roles, Remember we purchased 51 Mirage 2000 and not credible strike weapons (and that showed during Kargil) as Mirage 2000 were for nuclear delivery, and when IAF was caught with its pants down, they thought to use Mirage 2000
Unfortunately the IAF never had the vision or idea to see MiG-29 as an MRCA. IAF had purchased it only as Air superioity plane.

IAF was only purchasing what was best in Russia , so we had MiG-21 23 27 with us and these were short range planes. To answer the rise of F-16, the Russians developed Mig-29 and GoI purchased it to answer the Pakistani purchase of F-16. Remember we did not purchase it because it was Medium weight class etc,
Prior to MiG-29 we did not have a twin engine fighter, most Twin engine planes we had were bombers or strikers., So MiG-29 in a way started the "weight class" do you mean that?

After the F-15 became what it is today a very powerful plane, India was naturally inclined to purchase Su-30 MKI (developed and purchased)

Please do go by historical records if India pre 2007 ever had Light medium or heavy fighters., we purchased planes which were the best from USSR or simply because we wanted a plane for a role,.
It is only after the MRCA that the compromised IAF went in for weight class.

Your weight class theory is same as HINDU TERROR quote

So, if your theory that IAF should purchase planes as per weight class and not performance, then definitely HINDUISM is a terror religion too, after all its the same people who pushed both the terms

No they are not, because the time for fighters with dedicated roles are log gone. All major forces distinguish between weight classes to have a hi love mix of fighters, the difference / mistake for IAF is, that they have a 3rd class, which however was not necessarily a choice.

Till MKI came, IAF had basically a light / medium mix of different types. MKI was added on top and while the desicion to replace Mig 21s, with an indigenous light class fighter was already made. But the capability gap between light and heavy is too big to have overlaps, to take over roles. Not to mention that China did it the right way with J10, so we had to add another type.

Btw, Air Chief Naik once said, that IAF would even like to have just a single type, to reduce the logistical burden, but that's not possible.

 

[WolfPack86]

EXCLUSIVE: 1st Full Details Of Rafale's €4-billion @MakeInIndia & Offsets Plan
https://twitter.com/livefist?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

 

[BON PLAN]

Each Indian Rafale Aircraft Costs Approximately Rs 670 Crore, Says Government

ie nearly 84 € million each.

Far, far from the 200 €millions that some Rafale professional haters said or say.


http://indiandefencenews.info/t-5/

 

[Tanmay]

Each Indian Rafale Aircraft Costs Approximately Rs 670 Crore, Says Government

ie nearly 84 € million each.

Far, far from the 200 €millions that some Rafale professional haters said or say.


http://indiandefencenews.info/t-5/

$103million then per plane as basic cost
Tejas (IOC-1 standard) costs around $25 million and the Tejas (FOC standard ) is projected to cost around $50million ( forgot where I read it )

 

[Sancho]

Wonderful, Do tell me which is the light and medium and heavy fighter in USAF, Russian, German, Italian or Spanish air forces.

As already stated:

the difference / mistake for IAF is, that they have a 3rd class,

Most major forces in the world split their fleets into 2 types and a heavy high, as well as medium lo mix.

USAF - F15/F16
PLAAF - Flankers/J10
Russian AF - Flankers/Mig 29
Israeli, Singapore, Japanese AF - F15/F16
French AF - Rafale/Mirage 2000
German, British, Italian AF EF/Tornado
Spanish AF - EF/F18
...
...
...

It's in fact only India, that have the triple weight class, which as explained, comes from the fact, that LCA started before we got MKIs and I am criticising the shortsightedness of that decision for a long time.

But either way, the hi lo mix in most cases (except the Tornados), is based on having a multi role medium class fighter for the basic missions at reasonable costs, while having a high performance and heavier class fighter on top.

USAF classifies by roles, so does Russian air forces

No they dont, the F15 is the prime air superiority fighter for the USAF, but since the E standard, also one of the prime strike options. The arrival of multi role capability changed the dedicated role thinking, which is evident in the USN as well, which cut down from up to 4 different tyes for different roles, to 2 multi role once and the Growler being part of the multi role fleet.

Russia has moved to multi role fighters as well, which is why Su 34 multi role fighters, replace Su 25 strike fighters. They however geared Su 35 and 34 some more to A2A or A2G, which however was not a good decision as it seems, since they later added the Su 30 SM as well, which is the counterpart for the F15E and more balanced for both roles.
Russian Navy moved from single role Su 33, to multi role Mig 29K and plans with naval Su 57

If the weight classes were so important, why was the MMRCA was called MRCA?

Because the MTOW was the key criteria to keep certain fighters out. Intially it was 20t MTOW, in MMRCA it was 30t to keep heavy class fighters out.

 

[Sancho]

The French are trying that and they would be just having Rafale when they retire Mirage 2000 and some of the French members have said that 2 Rafales can be as efficient as 5 Mirage 2000
I think your logic is very much biased and out dated

Wrong again, since they reduced the number of initially planned Rafale orders and upgraded the M2Ks instead, to keep them available for a longer time, as a more cost-effective multi role complement to Rafale. French army is even considering a light attack prop aircraft, to have own CAS capability in anti IS / Taliban conflicts, instead using more costly M2Ks and Rafales of the AF.
Btw, Rafale being x times more capable than Mirage 2000, is an advertisement slogan of Dassault, mainly aimed on the bomb loads of both. A Mirage 2000 can carry 2 x 500lb LGBs with a twin launcher at the centerline, a Rafale so far up to 6.

But that's more for PR reasons that showing the reality, which is that the Mirage is often prefer for lower operational costs and that even Rafales only fly with 4 x LGBs in standard config, while you see Dassault testing new weapon loads for the M2K, with up to 6 x AASM or most likely a low collateral damage weapon.

 

[Sancho]

Each Indian Rafale Aircraft Costs Approximately Rs 670 Crore, Says Government

ie nearly 84 € million each.

Far, far from the 200 €millions that some Rafale professional haters said or say.


http://indiandefencenews.info/t-5/

That's the flyaway cost only, which translates to around 102 million USD in 2016.

 

[Sancho]

CCS approval for Rafale given 16 months after the announcement in France: Govt

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had cleared the Rs 58,000 crore Rafale deal in August, 2016, nearly 16 months after the announcement of its procurement was made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to France in April 2015, according to details provided by the government in Parliament today...

...The minister’s written response came to a question by Congress MP Vivek Tankha who specifically asked whether the CCS approval was sought at the time of announcement of the deal in France...

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...rance-5095330/lite/?__twitter_impression=true

Another government officials that fails to answer valid questions to the shady deal of the PM.

 

[smestarz]

IF you actually see what you written as an example then you do sound like an ignorant guy.

USAF: F-15 and F-16 the only difference is heavy and light or medium?
If you read any official USAF document, they never mention F-15 as HEAVY or Medium LCA
F-15 was primarily 4th Gen Air superiority Fighter and now it has also evolved into plane that can conduct Strikes
F-16 is Multi role combat aircraft,

PLAAF does not denote Flankers as heavy fighters, they simply denote them as Long Range MRCA. and J-10 having short range are denoted as Short range MRCA.

Now in RuAF what is light plane here? Flankers are used as Long Range Air superiority planes and MiG-29 end up being short range planes. Dont forget that Russia also uses Tu-22 and Su-34
Su-34 is long range deep strike plane, else you might in your "knowledge" make a Super Heavy plane.

For Japan and Singapore same as USAF.

French air force should be interesting, The French have actually closed the Mirage 2000 line almost decade ago, Also the French were producing Rafale to replace Mirage 2000 in all roles, Please ask any French member, they would educate you in this,

With the RAF/Luftwaffe you sound the most stupid, Tornado is fighter? In Tornado and Eurofighter which is the light / Medium or heavy one?
Eurofighter is 11 tons empty weight and Tornado is almost 14 tons, both have twin engines. Would difference of this weight be good to classify them as per your theory or light /medium?

You should read about these planes the most as the way you answer it, only fool can say that

The countries that you mentioned developed and use Tornado as IDS (Interdiction and strike) and SEAD/DEAD roles . There was a fighter version called Air Defence version which was mainly designed as an interceptor and used by Brtish (because they wanted it) the Italians and Saudis,
Why did Luftwaffe not take them and went with Eurofighters?

The Fact is that Tornado is a good strike aircraft and its used only in this role, Eurofighter was developed as the Air superiority plane and the strike was to be handled by Tornados, but now since the cost of operating and Maintaining Tornados is becoming higher, so the users want the Eurofighter to even carry the role of a strike aircraft making it truly MRCA.

Please do get your facts right, and if possible see the Web sites of the respective air force which classify them as Heavy or Medium or light, or do they classify them as per the roles,

You have truly got too deep into the description of IAF done for fattening their own pockets that they find any way to get the plane (and kickbacks)

As already stated:


Most major forces in the world split their fleets into 2 types and a heavy high, as well as medium lo mix.

USAF - F15/F16
PLAAF - Flankers/J10
Russian AF - Flankers/Mig 29
Israeli, Singapore, Japanese AF - F15/F16
French AF - Rafale/Mirage 2000
German, British, Italian AF EF/Tornado
Spanish AF - EF/F18
...
...
...

It's in fact only India, that have the triple weight class, which as explained, comes from the fact, that LCA started before we got MKIs and I am criticising the shortsightedness of that decision for a long time.

But either way, the hi lo mix in most cases (except the Tornados), is based on having a multi role medium class fighter for the basic missions at reasonable costs, while having a high performance and heavier class fighter on top.



No they dont, the F15 is the prime air superiority fighter for the USAF, but since the E standard, also one of the prime strike options. The arrival of multi role capability changed the dedicated role thinking, which is evident in the USN as well, which cut down from up to 4 different tyes for different roles, to 2 multi role once and the Growler being part of the multi role fleet.

Russia has moved to multi role fighters as well, which is why Su 34 multi role fighters, replace Su 25 strike fighters. They however geared Su 35 and 34 some more to A2A or A2G, which however was not a good decision as it seems, since they later added the Su 30 SM as well, which is the counterpart for the F15E and more balanced for both roles.
Russian Navy moved from single role Su 33, to multi role Mig 29K and plans with naval Su 57

If the weight classes were so important, why was the MMRCA was called MRCA?

Because the MTOW was the key criteria to keep certain fighters out. Intially it was 20t MTOW, in MMRCA it was 30t to keep heavy class fighters out.

 

[smestarz]

The PM had declared that India is interested in 36 Rafales with Hollande, he showed "intention to buy " of course
It was not so long time ago,
IAF was pushing for this plane and crying like baby (Arup Saha going as far as saying there is no plan B)
Parrikar was waiting to cancel it,
Thus NaMo in this way ensured many things
a) The way the MRCA was fixed, it would surely pull down any govt that signed it, so that RFP was cancelled
b) Dassault lost the big ticket for its success
c) Modi showed interest in 36 planes so that IAF can stop crying about it, with price to be negotiated by CNC..
Modi did not discuss the prices and if the prices negotiation was not successful then maybe these 36 would not have happened either.
So Modi just showed his interest to procure 36 planes and left Parrikar and team to negotiate the conditions and prices.

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...rance-5095330/lite/?__twitter_impression=true

Another government officials that fails to answer valid questions to the shady deal of the PM.

 

[BON PLAN]

To @Sancho : don't be surprised....

Smestarz, here and on other forum is a specialist in BS..... Its sole specialization in fact.

 

[Sancho]

F-15 was primarily 4th Gen Air superiority Fighter and now it has also evolved into plane that can conduct Strikes
F-16 is Multi role combat aircraft

=>

No they dont, the F15 is the prime air superiority fighter for the USAF, but since the E standard, also one of the prime strike options. The arrival of multi role capability changed the dedicated role thinking, which is evident in the USN as well, which cut down from up to 4 different tyes for different roles, to 2 multi role once and the Growler being part of the multi role fleet.

So you in fact agree that they don't think in roles anymore, since you confirmed 100% what I said as well.
Now you only have to admit that F15 and F16 are in different weight classes, which shouldn't be too difficult, when you consider that the F16 started as a light class fighter:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program

 

[smestarz]

LOL really? Is France using Mirage 2000 as light plane and Rafale as medium plane?
Does in Dassault website define Rafale as "medium" MRCA?
Take care dear cow

To @Sancho : don't be surprised....

Smestarz, here and on other forum is a specialist in BS..... Its sole specialization in fact.

 

[smestarz]

F-15 is Air superiority fighter plane that was to take down the likes of MiG-25 Foxbat,
F-16 was the single engined MRCA that was to be the plane that USA could sell to its allies, That time USA did not sell F-15 (Israel and few countries) or F-14 to anyone (Iran got a few)
IT was always there as an Air superiority plane, lately since now air forces want their planes to conduct different missions and not single mission, so came the evolution of F-15 Silent eagle etc, but this has come in 21st century.

F-16 on other hand was purpose built MRCA that was able to handle any role, It was actually the replacement of F-5 Freedom fighter that was sold in early 60s to many air forces as Air superiority plane.

Thus in a way F-16 evolved as replacement of F-5 as MRCA and F-15 was a specialist plane mainly to oppose planes like MiG-25 Foxbat.

Hope you got it right now,
Do come up with USAF link where they term F-15 as Medium or heavy MRCA etc., I am sure the only definition they had for F-15 was Air superiority fighter aircraft.

=>




So you in fact agree that they don't think in roles anymore, since you confirmed 100% what I said as well.
Now you only have to admit that F15 and F16 are in different weight classes, which shouldn't be too difficult, when you consider that the F16 started as a light class fighter:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Fighter_program