Know Your 'Rafale'

[Kshithij]

The MMRCA deal was fixed and thats how Rafale was declared L1.
but now its thing of the past

There is one more problem - euro fighter Typhoon doesn't have single owner. This is a problem for spares

 

[Wisemarko]

There is one more problem - euro fighter Typhoon doesn't have single owner. This is a problem for spares

Yes, EF is partly owned by favorite company of Congress: Leonardo

 

[Sancho]

I don't think I am. You can't provide TOT for things whose IP you don't own.

That's true, but who says they don't have IP for GaN AESA modules, EW, avionics, UAVs, Subs, AWACS and MPA...?
There is a false perception about what Saab can and what they can't, just as there is a misconception, about what Dassault and Co actually are ready to provide. That was proven in Brazil and is more than evident when you compare our deal for 36 fighters to theirs.

Would you care to enlighten me on Brazil's contribution in the said designing process?

It's basically what we were offered in the FGFA deal. Design participation in the twin seat version, customization of cockpit and avionics and if they go a step further also the joint design and development of the naval version (just as the Russians offered us the navalisation of FGFA too).

Rafale deal includes maintainence and guaranteed availability of 75%.

That's a contractual requirement the NDA government implemented, not offered by Dassault nor has anything to do with ToT or industrial benefits.

None of it benefits India in any way.

Please do at least some basic research if you want to have a real discussion, because these are nothing more than assumptions.

How come? Snecma is helping in ironing out the kinks in the Kaveri programme. This alone trumps any benefit Brazil is getting out of its deal.

Answered here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/know-your-rafale.32861/page-634#post-1382203

Edit: Above all why should IAF gets to buy an aircraft they rejected purely on technical grounds? Either their requirements changed overnight or they are trying to be too clever by half.

Who said IAF did changed anything?

The NDA PMO chose to buy 36 x Rafale, against IAFs requirements of 126 fighters.
The NDA government cancelled the MMRCA tender, against IAF's statements of not having a plan B.
The NDA government wanted a cost-effective alternative to MMRCA, under DM Parrikar and tried to convince IAF to MKIs or LCAs, both against IAF requirements of a medium class fighter.
And it also was the NDA government that announced a 2nd SE MMRCA tender, although IAF constantly stated throughout the MMRCA, that they don't want a split of types, because they want to reduce the logistical burden.

 

[Kshithij]

That's true, but who says they don't have IP for GaN AESA modules, EW, avionics, UAVs, Subs, AWACS and MPA...?
There is a false perception about what Saab can and what they can't, just as there is a misconception, about what Dassault and Co actually are ready to provide. That was proven in Brazil and is more than evident when you compare our deal for 36 fighters to theirs.


It's basically what we were offered in the FGFA deal. Design participation in the twin seat version, customization of cockpit and avionics and if they go a step further also the joint design and development of the naval version (just as the Russians offered us the navalisation of FGFA too).


That's a contractual requirement the NDA government implemented, not offered by Dassault nor has anything to do with ToT or industrial benefits.



Please do at least some basic research if you want to have a real discussion, because these are nothing more than assumptions.

Brazil? I have repeatedly told you that Beazil got Gripen because of loans. But you never learn and keep saying the same thing.

I am not interested in codevelopment or joint design. We don't need anything to be designed with us and called it ToT. Gripen has no GaN or naval variant. The cockpit and other parts are already being made in India for Su30 as well as Tejas. This is a technology available.

Ok, now give us the details of Technology SAAB ALREADY has and SAAB is making it right now. Anything of futuristic design is ruled out.

Answered here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/know-your-rafale.32861/page-634#post-1382203



Who said IAF did changed anything?

The NDA PMO chose to buy 36 x Rafale, against IAFs requirements of 126 fighters.
The NDA government cancelled the MMRCA tender, against IAF's statements of not having a plan B.
The NDA government wanted a cost-effective alternative to MMRCA, under DM Parrikar and tried to convince IAF to MKIs or LCAs, both against IAF requirements of a medium class fighter.
And it also was the NDA government that announced a 2nd SE MMRCA tender, although IAF constantly stated throughout the MMRCA, that they don't want a split of types, because they want to reduce the logistical burden.

This is a genuine question. But your Kaveri deal is your own whimsical assumptions. Kaveri deal in 2007 was rejected as Snecma refused to help. Instead it offered to insert M88 core. But, the latest deal is different

 

[Sancho]

Kaveri is not using French parts.

Please inform yourself about the development, I'm sure there are useful informations in a dedicated thread on the forum.

Why won't Su30 not offer the same industry as MMRCA?

Because we already producing it under licence and ToT. There is nothing more to gain from that deal. Any MMRCA under a licence production deal, offers new technical capabilities for the Indian industry and the IAF.

If Rafale was bought arbitrarily, then it is definitely a big crime. But, the question comes about 50% offset that France is offering. Why are you not considering this? Please give your details on this.

Exactly and that's why it should be investigated, how the deal was made, if the proper MoD procedures were followed "before" the announcement and why not alternative offer was requested? Because these valid questions are not answered so far.
The 50% offsets are not provided by Dassault and Co, but demanded by us. They only can choose what kind of offsets they provide and as said before, MMRCA had 50% offset requirement too, just that we would have gotten critical techs.

Integration of RBE2 at DRAL now Vs licence production of RBE 2 at BEL in the MMRCA. What was more beneficial for India?

 

[Sancho]

India wasn't planning to pay $30-40 billion that such a deal would have cost

So you neither have any argument to counter Indian officials that Dassault did not complied to the RFP, nor can you counter the Indian DM, that the deal has no option clause, but still you know it better what India was ready to buy or not. :biggrin2:

Dassault offered the same deal to Brazil as they did to Egypt, Qatar and India.

Which is factually wrong, since Egypt, Qatar and Swiss tenders were not about licence production or an assembly line.

 

[Wisemarko]

So you neither have any argument to counter Indian officials that Dassault did not complied to the RFP, nor can you counter the Indian DM, that the deal has no option clause, but still you know it better what India was ready to buy or not. :biggrin2:



Which is factually wrong, since Egypt, Qatar and Swiss tenders were not about licence production or an assembly line.

I think your comprehension seriously needs to be questioned. You are arguing for sake of argument without much knowledge or information. FYI: Qatar and Egypt didn't have tenders - it was G2G deal just like India ended up signing. Read my post for more education. Yes, I know how much Rafales cost.

Must be nice to know that Rafale deal is proceeding without consultations from your kind. Bye. Not going to waste time with this. also I hope you know what your name Sancho means- not a compliment, for sure.

 

[Sancho]

I think your comprehension seriously needs to be questioned. You are arguing for sake of argument without much knowledge or information.

I already explained you 2 things, that you evidently didn't knew, so it's obvious who is arguing just for the sake of it.

FYI: Qatar and Egypt didn't have tenders - it was G2G deal just like India ended up signing.

So you already are backing away from your earlier claims, but still end up to be factually wrong, because even if you compare the G2G deal, Indias was the only one with a 50% offset clause, Indias deal had different customisations and the performance based logistic clause is also a unique one, implemented in our contract by GoI. So again, Dassaults offers can't be the same.

 

[Wisemarko]

I already explained you 2 things, that you evidently didn't knew, so it's obvious who is arguing just for the sake of it.



So you already are backing away from your earlier claims, but still end up to be factually wrong, because even if you compare the G2G deal, Indias was the only one with a 50% offset clause, Indias deal had different customisations and the performance based logistic clause is also a unique one, implemented in our contract by GoI. So again, Dassaults offers can't be the same.

Lol, ok Sancho... sigue masturbándose en sueños.
Comparing MMRCA with a G2G deals and lecturing others. Sadly, people on this forum know lot more than you think. Adios

 

[Kshithij]

Please inform yourself about the development, I'm sure there are useful informations in a dedicated thread on the forum.

Yes, I know that. Kaveri is being developed in both manner - snecma core as well as consultancy. France had said that Kaveri is 75% complete before the start. So, this means only fine tuning is left. So, a parallel run with snecma core isn't the priority here. You are unnecessarily being selective.

 

[mayfair]

For those claiming that Parrikar was clueless and was overridden and kept out of loop

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-smaller-part-real-cost-in-equipment-4975834/

Manohar Parrikar justifies Rafale costs: ‘Aircraft smaller part, real cost in equipment’
“Unluckily, in India we deal with aircraft purchases, or fighter purchases, like we think of tur dal and moong dal,” said Manohar Parrikar.

WITH THE Congress keeping up the heat on the government over the Rafale fighter jet deal with France, alleging that it smacks of corruption, Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, who was Defence Minister when the deal was inked in September 2016, on Saturday justified the cost and said that the aircraft is “probably smaller part of the total cost”, and that the “real cost comes in special equipment”.

Parrikar also criticised the “logjam created” in the Rafale deal under A K Antony, Defence minister in the UPA government, and called the Defence Ministry the “backroom” of foreign diplomacy that “does the actual exercise which needs to be done”.

Speaking at the launch of the book Securing India the Modi Way by Nitin Gokhale, Parrikar identified surgical strikes as “exercises which increase the (country’s) sphere of influence”.

During the campaign phase of the Gujarat Assembly elections, the Congress, and Rahul Gandhi, has questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi on multiple occasions on the pricing front and sought details of the Rafale deal to be made public.

Explaining the price quotient, Parrikar said, “A fighter aircraft is not only (an) aircraft. (The) aircraft is probably smaller part of the total cost — the real cost comes in special equipment. How many of you know that this particular deal (includes) a helmet to be worn by the pilot where a target (gets) locked by just watching the target. It is virtually 360-degree visibility. The pilot doesn’t have to actually check up…. He has to just watch…and press the button. The computer does the rest….”

He said, “Our Rafales will come with this equipment…. That cost of development of helmet is included (in the deal).”

Stating that Indian Air Force was much superior to Pakistan’s during the 1999 Kargil war, Parrikar said, “Between 1999 and 2014, until Narendra Modi came, Pakistan, through various purchases, had acquired a capacity of 100 km range, whereas we had upgraded our BVR (Beyond Visual Range missile) only 60 km on Su 30. So we were now in danger of being shot down by Pakistani fighters from 100 km away, and not being able to retaliate. That is also part of the (Rafale) purchase.”

Stating that part of the deal is “servicability at 80 per cent”, he said, “I am explaining this only to make you understand that an aircraft may cost 92 million Euros, but other components will cost you 150 million Euros because you have to make it fighting fit.”

“Unluckily, in India we deal with aircraft purchases, or fighter purchases, like we think of tur dal and moong dal.”

About the deal under the UPA, Parrikar said, “When the Prime Minister was signing the Rafale deal, one day prior to that we had an extensive meeting with the Air Force. We worked out the solution on how to come out of the logjam created by St Antony, (former) Defence Minister Antony, who was called saint. He had a very strange noting on the file. He said, ‘start discussion, finalise price and after everything is finished, please come back to me with all documentary evidence’ how Dassault, or the Rafale company, was the lowest.”

Parrikar pointed out that the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines say the government cannot negotiate with anyone other than the lowest. “If you have identified him (any company) as the lowest, you can negotiate. But how do you negotiate with someone and then prove that he was lowest? So…for two-and-a-half years, the file was going around in circles (under UPA). We broke the circle by deciding that we have to take a different approach.”

 

[Kshithij]

If the development coat for the helmet is on India, is it also given as ToT to India?

He must have mentioned the ToT part to clarify the deal

 

[sthf]

That's true, but who says they don't have IP for GaN AESA modules, EW, avionics, UAVs, Subs, AWACS and MPA...?
There is a false perception about what Saab can and what they can't, just as there is a misconception, about what Dassault and Co actually are ready to provide. That was proven in Brazil and is more than evident when you compare our deal for 36 fighters to theirs.

Are you going to keep repeating yourself and make me do the same?

RAFALE IS A FAR SUPERIOR PLATFORM THAN GRIPEN.

No they don't have a GaN radar, what they have are TR modules, India has them too. They have EW, great, now they can participate in the global tender for radars & ew for MK1A.

They have datalinks, good for them. Last I checked India is not looking for them. If you have a source that says otherwise, feel free to correct me.

They have UAVs, wonderful, ask them to make an offer against the MQ9s and GA Avengers that India intends to buy.

They have subs, we have an open tender.

What was the point of all this except wasting my time, especially when I listed the plethora of Gripen sub systems they don't produce? So what SAAB doesn't make engines for the aircraft they are selling, they can sell us Anti Tank missiles instead.

It's basically what we were offered in the FGFA deal. Design participation in the twin seat version, customization of cockpit and avionics and if they go a step further also the joint design and development of the naval version (just as the Russians offered us the navalisation of FGFA too).

FGFA doesn't exist Brazil-SAAB deal does. So tell us what exactly is the design share of Brazil with a valid and trustworthy source. Please don't confuse "design share" with TOT or license manufacturing.

That's a contractual requirement the NDA government implemented, not offered by Dassault nor has anything to do with ToT or industrial benefits.

And that makes a difference because? Why would Dassault offer anything for an off-the-shelf G2G deal? They are fulfilling 50% offset clause like they are supposed to. Dassault is open for negotiations if India wants to produce Rafales in-house.

Please do at least some basic research if you want to have a real discussion, because these are nothing more than assumptions.

I suppose you have done some basic research. If yes, please enlighten me.

Answered here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/know-your-rafale.32861/page-634#post-1382203

And SAAB can just as easily replace Safran? Engine tech was always tied to induction of Rafale. If you believe IAF stopped the Snecma-GTRE tie up, please share a source.

Who said IAF did changed anything?

Did it not? Technical evaluations were done to judge contestants' on the merit of their technical abilities. It had nothing to do with the number of units, costs or government of the day. Rafale passed the trials, Gripen didn't. It is as simple as that. So how is it that IAF wants the very same aircraft that failed to meet their requirements? Once again, IAF's job is technical evaluation not financial or political one.

 

[Babloo Singh]

All who were claiming EF to be cheaper.... please explain this...
Qatar buys 24 EF for $ 8Bn
It's all about config, weapons, customization & options...

 

[Vinod DX9]

All who were claiming EF to be cheaper.... please explain this...
Qatar buys 24 EF for $ 8Bn
It's all about config, weapons, customization & options...

You just snatched my question, exactly how Typhoons are cheaper

 

[Kshithij]

All who were claiming EF to be cheaper.... please explain this...
Qatar buys 24 EF for $ 8Bn
It's all about config, weapons, customization & options...

Qatar also bought 36 F-15 for 12 billion DOLLARS! 333 million a piece!

 

[Sancho]

For those claiming that Parrikar was clueless and was overridden and kept out of loop

Just that all he is talking about, is the cost of the deal and the contract negotiations, "after" the deal was announced, not about the decision to order 36 and the procedures before the announcement, where MoD or the DM usually are involved.

If the development coat for the helmet is on India, is it also given as ToT to India?

He must have mentioned the ToT part to clarify the deal

He probably mixed it up with integration cost.

 

[Kshithij]

Just that all he is talking about, is the cost of the deal and the contract negotiations, "after" the deal was announced, not about the decision to order 36 and the procedures before the announcement, where MoD or the DM usually are involved.

He probably mixed it up with integration cost.

Procedures were followed while selecting Rafale. It was only when HAL asked for higher assembly cost, Dassault backed down. So, the fact that Rafale was the most cost effective was already decided. It need not be tested again and again. HAL asking for rates more costly than Dassault is something India should have corrected.

Blaming dassault for Indian PSU misbehaviour is not correct. No tender can ask the vendor to state the assembly ccost of a third party not related to the vendor. The tender is for flyaway cost only. Anything additional is at the risk and expense of the negotiating country.

Now, the reissue of tender for 36 planes is another thing. But, as it was already proven that Rafale is the cheapest and it was India misbehaving, this is justified in being skipped

 

[Sancho]

What was the point of all this

Giving you information to understand how much technology, they own that could be transfered and by admitting that they can join our radar, EW or Sub tenders, you already acknowledge that.

So assuming things is one thing, gaining real informations and then getting to a conclusion is another thing!

That btw is the same for the capability of both fighters, where you only assume Rafale is superior, obviously without informing yourself properly about the Gripen E, or the upgrades that Brazil brings.

Rafale F3R comes with a fixed AESA radar, no IRST, no HMS (customization by export customers), doesn't have GaN modules to improve SPECTRA as initially planned and has no low collateral damage weapon, or new AASM version with extended range or different weight class either.
Gripen E's AESA comes with the Selex repositioner, which increases the FoV to 200 degrees, compared to 120 of RBE2. It also has a Selex IRST, while the F3R uses MICA IR seeker with around 1/3rd the detection range. So both in active and passive detection capability, the F3R is in disadvantage!
The EW of Gripen E comes with RWR and jammers, based on GaN technology, with superior performance, than the GaAs in SPECTRA currently. Brazil chose Israeli IR MAWS, with at least 4, possibly 6 sensors around the airframe, while the F3R is limited to just 2 sensors on top of the tail, without proper sight below the fighter.
Sweden is integrating SDB quad packs, for low collateral damage strikes or SEAD, with load and range advantages over AASM 250 on the Rafale. Brazil is adding Israeli SPICE PGMs and their MAR 1 ARM for the same roles. Which adds up to superior CAS and SEAD capabilities. And last but not least, the Gripen comes with RBS15-ER which allows maritime or land attacks up to 200Km, far outclassing Exocet.

Rafales advantages are superior flight performance and deep strike roles with cruise missiles. Which makes it great for the strategic role, but in most other roles, or purely on technology and weapon variety it falls short today, once because Gripen E got much better thx to Brazil, but also because the F3R upgrade hardly adds new capabilities. Most of the real enhancements were pushed to the F4 in 2025, while it's competitors are catching up or even surpassing it in the meantime, at least compared to the French F3R version.

And that makes a difference because?

You brought it up and asking me now what difference it makes?
It gives us leverage over Dassault for penalties, in case the availability of the fleet false below agreed rates, caused by technical or support issues. We have the same agreement for MKIs now as well.

And SAAB can just as easily replace Safran? Engine tech was always tied to induction of Rafale. If you believe IAF stopped the Snecma-GTRE tie up, please share a source.

Check my post in the Kaveri thread.

Did it not?

As explained no, since GoI changed things, not IAF.

 

[Sancho]

Procedures were followed while selecting Rafale. It was only when HAL asked for higher assembly cost, Dassault backed down.

It's about the procedures of 36 Rafales deal, so HAL doesn't play a role wrt the article.