Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

Yes, except for Kaveri consultancy, Rafale is a bad deal. Kaveri is what makes Rafale deal one of the best deals.

No it doesn't, because we could have gotten the same consultancy without the Rafale deal too. It's just the only thing in this deal, that is worth something.

Additional MKI => no advantages at all
36 Rafale => minimum advantage of consultancy
126 Rafale or EF under MMRCA => maximum advantage in terms of fighters, techs, weapons, industry...

Btw, the biggest chance for Kaveri that we missed, was the Eurojet offer when we considered new engines for LCA MK2, because they were ready to provide the key technologies and let us be a co-developer for the 3D TVC system. By that time we sadly were distracted by the silly NLCA development, otherwise we could have gained much more advantages for LCA as well as Kaveri back then. But a navalised and more cost-effective GE414, was probably more suitable for the goals back then.

 

[Kshithij]

No it doesn't, because we could have gotten the same consultancy without the Rafale deal too. It's just the only thing in this deal, that is worth something.

Additional MKI => no advantages at all
36 Rafale => minimum advantage of consultancy
126 Rafale or EF under MMRCA => maximum advantage in terms of fighters, techs, weapons, industry...

Btw, the biggest chance for Kaveri that we missed, was the Eurojet offer when we considered new engines for LCA MK2, because they were ready to provide the key technologies and let us be a co-developer for the 3D TVC system. By that time we sadly were distracted by the silly NLCA development, otherwise we could have gained much more advantages for LCA as well as Kaveri back then. But a navalised and more cost-effective GE414, was probably more suitable for the goals back then.

126 Rafale = Bankrupt India, Tejas shutting down, Forex reserves taking a hit, Indian trade balance off the roof, Rupee collapse etc. If you are saying that 25 billion dollars can make France give away ToT, you must be joking. They may give some peanuts. We need these two only - Engine, full fledged AESA radar with algorithm. Anything else without this is a waste.

Eurojet was from Rolls Royce. UK can't be trusted.

 

[Steven Rogers]

So is the C17 deal or any deal that we made with the US, which all required official MoD procedures. So none of your points explains why these procedures were not followed in the 36 fighter deal, nor why a single vendor deal was created?

Btw, comparing system costs of different fighter deals, in different countries, with different contents doesn't tell you anything. Moreover it has no meaning for the reduced EF offer made in 2014, because by then the EF partners were able to reduce the costs, by diverting their surplus orders, while the orders you see now, are newly added once. There is no doubt that a new EF is more costly than a new Rafale, but in 2014/15 we could have gotten a lower G2G deal from the UK for example, which then also had forced Dassault to reductions => competition!

And we know that Rafale has a radar in the 1000 modules range, which however is the standard for medium class fighters, while the F18 and the EF top the class with the largest radars. That's why Rafales radar range didn't made a major impression in any evaluation/tender it was fielded, but the AESA was important to be comparable to the ranges other pulse doppler radars. As you correctly pointed out, the main features for Rafale were FSO and SPETCRA, but FSO is worse than it was without the IRST and SPECTRA is nothing special anymore, since all modern (non US) fighters offer digital GaAs AESA based RWRs, passive MAWS or LWRs even with better coverage. So when you fall behind in the 2 key areas, that defined you, it obviously is a concern.

You mean Digital RWR based on GaA.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

Engine upgradation is not needed as the difference is minimal and not worth replacing. If the difference is drastic, I would have said otherwise.

More land or less land is not the issue. We have wasteland in Gujarat and Rajasthan. We have wasteland in Sunderban mangroves, Arunachal plateau, Assam plateaus and Orissa. Land for base is not an issue and neither are pilots. Making airbases come under infrastructure spending. They are like making roads. It generates employment in terms of jobs like MGNREGA.

Pilots are also not an issue as it comes under emloyment generation and redistribution of resources. Also, only making bases while keeping them underutilised is also an option to have war contingency and extra bases in case some get bombarded. Underground runways like tunnels are also an option

Forex loss is the real issue here and that needs to be understood. Forex loss is the biggest loss.

The Al41F offers double the life, around 20kN more thrust, same weight with 3rd gen Single crystal blade and vanes over AL31 which has half the life of Al41F, less thrust than Al41F and 2nd gen Single crystal blade technology . An Indian Mki costs 60 million a piece, not that cheap.... And without super sukhoi upgrade, it will remain behind the technology level of Rafale fighter............

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

126 Rafale = Bankrupt India, Tejas shutting down, Forex reserves taking a hit, Indian trade balance off the roof, Rupee collapse etc. If you are saying that 25 billion dollars can make France give away ToT, you must be joking. They may give some peanuts. We need these two only - Engine, full fledged AESA radar with algorithm. Anything else without this is a waste.

Eurojet was from Rolls Royce. UK can't be trusted.

126 rafales=> Bankrupt India
20 billion dollars 100 single engine fighters=>Prosperous India.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Ultimately it is for the IAF pilots to decide which aircraft gives them the best odds against China & Pak....and they chose the Rafale.

IAF pilots don't get to decide as much as logic would dictate.

IAF pilots didn't get to decide whether untrained or poorly trained pilots should fly the MiG-21. Instructions were given and instructions were obeyed.

Part of the problem is the high landing speed and high angle of attack on landing for MiG-21. It is not just the MiG-21. It is the same story with F-102.

This poor safety record may have been due in part to a deadly flaw in the aircraft's design that caused an engine stall and loss of control under a certain combination of angle of attack and airspeed frequently encountered during takeoff. According to a former F-102 pilot we've interviewed, this problem caused the plane to roll inverted and resulted in several fatal crashes. Numerous accidents were also encountered during landing because of the plane's steep angle of attack and high airspeed that reduced the pilot's visibility and reaction time. These factors have traditionally been two of the primary disadvantages of delta wing aircraft and explain why the pure delta wing design was later abandoned. Today's delta wing aircraft are typically equipped with leading edge extensions or canards and fly-by-wire control systems that improve safety and performance.

Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

 

[pmaitra]

Rafale canards are a problem, and will escalate total lifetime programme costs by billions of Euros
Posted on December 10, 2017 by Bharat Karnad

(Rafale)

Commentary: First paragraph truncated.

Because IAF has been so critical about all the things ostensibly wrong with the Tejas, may be we should put the inordinately expensive Rafale combat aircraft, that makes no cost-benefit sense whatsoever, under similar scrutiny, and see all the things structurally and otherwise wrong with this French item.

Let’s focus in this post on the canards on the Rafale. Canards are the rear horizontal wings in normal planes that are moved forward to near the nose for better aircraft control and hence featured in some combat aircraft like this French plane. It can contribute to lift, replacing the horizontal stabilizer and, therefore, reducing overall drag.

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?

So, what’s the problem? Unlike the Su-30MKI — IAF’s front line advanced air dominance/air superiority fighter, which also sports canards, but uses its 2-D thrust vectoring nozzle for braking operations, the Rafale uses its canards. Using the canards thus generates enormous stress and strain on that part of the aircraft frame and can lead to stress fracture in the canards and result in cracks. Not sure if the IAF flew the Rafale, during the MMRCA test trials, in a sustained fashion over months in summer to see how the aircraft stacked up against the competition. Had they done so, they’d have witnessed the canards starting to fall apart. Combat aircraft experts give it 2-3 months of regular takeoff and landings in the hot tropical conditions of the subcontinent, for this problem to become apparent. Then what?

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?

Replacing fractured and disabled canards is not an easy thing and when the entire fleet is so afflicted, as it will be, the IAF will have more of the Rafale down, resting in their airconditioned hangars than pulling duty in the skies. Soon, because it cannot be used too intensively or extensively, it will be reduced to another grand and expensive piece of hardware that, in terms of actual ready use, cannot reasonably be counted in the air order-of-battle. So much for the Rafale’s low down-time and quick-turnaround capability!!!

IAF doesn’t see this awful problem heading its way — and that’s par for the course. But the plane’s producer, Dassault, must be licking its chops in anticipation, because every canard repair and refit will require the aircraft to be ferried to the company’s production line in France. One can safely assess the additional costs of this major structural flaw over the aircraft’s lifetime for the 36 Rafales to be in billions of Euros. As Government of India is clueless, it will do what — grin and bear it?

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?

Won’t the IAF then complain about a degraded fighter force and about not enough fighter aircraft in the air? Of course, it will but only to pitch in for more Rafales in the belief that one horrible mistake deserves a cascade of the same mistake!

Incidentally, thanks to the intervention by the IAF in the design stage of the LCA and insistence on a canard on the Tejas — a movement headed by an ex-test pilot Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, who retired as Deputy Chief at HQ Integrated Defence Staff, the entire project was delayed by several years. The insertion of the canard in the original design required a major reworking of it, and the ultimate decision by its designers, who knew better but tried to humour its customer, to do away with it, cost the project time and hurt the LCA delivery schedule. These delays were then used by the IAF and Matheswaran in particular, and an ignorant/illiterate press and media, in general, to slam the Tejas.

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?

This same Matheswaran after retirement was recruited by HAL as “adviser” for the LCA programme — why is not clear. He since jumped ship to something lots more lucrative — a sinecure with Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence that has signed up with Dassault for offsets to produce some knick-knacks that will go into the IAF Rafales to be manufactured — minus any transfer of technology — wholly in France. Neat!

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?

[Addendum: A Reliance Defence rep got in touch with me Dec 11, 2017, morning to say that Matheswaran, in fact, departed the company a year back, and that he had thereafter joined SAAB India, which he no doubt reckoned stands a good chance — if IAF can help it — in its “single engine” aircraft race. This only proves my point. The Reliance rep also informed that other than some Rafale components, his company is into mainly producing with Dassault, a Falcon exec jet, as news reports have previously reported.]

Commentary: Is the highlighted portion above true?
____________

Further Commentary: Some of the claims made need further debate. Some of the events might be coincidental or causal. Can anyone critique and/or endorse this article?

 

[Tactical Frog]

BK is a great entertainer. Never heard about any issue with canards. Canards falling apart under hot tropical climate conditions, really ? That is April Fools’ day level. But today is Christmas. Happy Xmas to all Xians.

 

[Metrology]

That is what I am saying. SAAB makes bullshit claims. Their marketing is disgusting to say the least. They lie through their teeth

I expect all companies to be bit flexible with the truth in a context rational manner. In the end of the day companies are about making money, not being honest. But they are generarly limited by reason, which gives some limitations. I’m not really familiar enough with general defence marketing to have much of an opinion. Solid information by which to judge claims is hard to come by.

Here is the source of my claims of GaN being used in Patriot: http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2017/may/raytheon_240517.shtml

The text explicitly says its a prototype. So its going to be used, which is perfectly consistant with what I said.

Let me complete that from the source: "Specifics, such as whether the PAF selected the Erieye or new gallium nitride (GaN)-based AESA Erieye ER (which has 70% more range than the Erieye) or if these new aircraft include synthetic aperture radars (SAR) for ground surveillance and target acquisition, are not known."

Doesnt change or add anything relevant.

Why is Gripen using SELEX radar in Brazil export? Which Gripen has SAAB AESA till now? You are giving partial information and hiding the rest.

I suspect they had to make a choice about the radar long ago, before being able to commit. None as far as I know. Never claimed or implied anything else. I explicitly said C/D has Pulse doppler. Your attitude is geting tiresome, you’re just looking for anything to jump on.

 

[Kshithij]

I suspect they had to make a choice about the radar long ago, before being able to commit. None as far as I know. Never claimed or implied anything else. I explicitly said C/D has Pulse doppler. Your attitude is geting tiresome, you’re just looking for anything to jump on.

I will concede if you can give me one source of fully functional GaN AESA in miniature form used in fighter jets. Give source for any AESA radar for fighter jets - even GaAs module. I don't care for prototype. Prototype generally needs more time to operationalise.

Else, SAAB is lying. Period. Till you come up with valid source, no point arguing

 

[Sancho]

BK is a great entertainer. Never heard about any issue with canards. Canards falling apart under hot tropical climate conditions, really ? That is April Fools’ day level. But today is Christmas. Happy Xmas to all Xians.

Yes he is known on most defence forums for being a highly unreliable and biased source. He was proven wrong, especially when it comes to Rafale a lot of times.

Merry Xmas to you too, enjoy the holidays!

 

[Sancho]

You mean Digital RWR based on GaA.

Yes Gallium arsenide, but the shortform afaik is GaAs.

 

[Sancho]

I suspect they had to make a choice about the radar long ago, before being able to commit.

They had to use available AESAs on the Gripen NG TD, initially they even asked Thales for RBE 2 AESA, to take part in evaluations in India, Brazil or Switzerland.
Not to mention that Saab prefers to use available foreign systems of different OEMs to reduce development costs and time. That's why they will have the same repositioner and IRST advantages of the EF.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yes Gallium arsenide, but the shortform afaik is GaAs.

Nah you said aesa based RWR.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Nah you said aesa based RWR.

I mentioned digital too =>

SPECTRA is nothing special anymore, since all modern (non US) fighters offer digital GaAs AESA based RWRs, passive MAWS

But the key is what kind of AESA modules are used, since GaN improves the performance.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Yes he is known on most defence forums for being a highly unreliable and biased source. He was proven wrong, especially when it comes to Rafale a lot of times.

Merry Xmas to you too, enjoy the holidays!

Thank you Sancho ! Merry Xmas and happy holidays too.

 

[lcafanboy]

BK is a great entertainer. Never heard about any issue with canards. Canards falling apart under hot tropical climate conditions, really ? That is April Fools’ day level. But today is Christmas. Happy Xmas to all Xians.

By that "LOGIC" SU30MKI too should face same issues as it too sport CANARDS, in fact bigger & Heavier ones..........

IDIOT Salesman BK...........

 

[WolfPack86]

A DOSE OF REALISM: THE RAFALE PURCHASE CONTROVERSY
There is something about the procurement of military equipment from western commercial sources that generates public interest far greater than its financial or strategic content. The entire spectacle of open tendering, nail-biting selection, followed by endless negotiations - all played out in the public domain - does little justice to the very serious business of dealing with a weapon system for the battlefield which, in reality, should remain strictly confidential, if not totally secret. In rare cases of contracts approaching fruition, chances are that at some politically opportune time, they would also become the subject of political controversy with scarcely any concern about the adverse impact this will have on national security, the operational capability of the armed forces or, indeed, on their morale.

The latest to join this league is the truncated MMRCA purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft from Dassault Aviation against the Indian air force's requirement of 126 aircraft, a process that was initiated in 2007 as a commercial bid, but remained deadlocked till a new government took charge, scrapped it, and took a decision to go by the government-to-government route. Political opponents have now fired a salvo, alleging that the final contracted unit cost per aircraft was far greater than the one that had been negotiated by the previous government and that due procedures laid down had been violated. This, in turn, has generated a freewheeling public debate - much of it based on limited technical knowledge and perception rather than on hard facts.

As someone who has spent nearly a decade in Air HQ in the planning and procurement branch in various capacities, including its head as deputy chief of air staff, was part of the ministry of defence team that negotiated the Anglo-French Jaguar contract in the late 1970s (which, at the time, had more than its share of speculative media debate and corruption criticisms), observed at close range how the United Kingdom and the French military aerospace industries function and been a part of numerous MoD negotiating teams thereafter, one feels morally bound to inject some realism in this self-defeating debate. This is because whatever may be the political or moral compulsions driving it, at its very least it undermines the confidence that the IAF rank and file will have in its own military leadership and adversely affect morale. That is why the IAF chief has been constrained to take the unusual step of publicly stressing that it was a government-to-government contract, and that it was a better deal with lower cost implications than the earlier MMRCA contract negotiations.

Even in commercial contracts that relate to modern combat aircraft and associated weapons and systems, national governments and strategic security interests of both seller and buyer countries are invariably involved. National governments of aerospace suppliers hence keep a benign check on their own industries - to promote their international sales footprint - as also on their industrial practices to prevent diplomatic embarrassment. All suppliers also require that their costs are treated as 'commercially confident' information for the buyer only. In the event of such contracts being backed through a government-to-government understanding,these commitments take on a more formal role.

Unlike many stand-alone products, it is too simplistic a notion to calculate costs per aircraft, because without ground and test equipment, weapons, spares support, repair facilities and a host of other essentials, the aircraft has no utility as an operational weapon system . Any cost comparisons to be meaningful must hence be based on the total system cost on a like-to-like basis. If a realistic analysis were to be attempted comparing the earlier MMRCA proposal and the truncated renegotiated one, this would need a detailed cost-benefit analysis by a body of specialists, who, in the end, would still be left guessing about many subjective issues that have significant value in the operational domain but are not readily quantifiable in financial terms.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/12/a-dose-of-realism-rafale-purchase.html

 

[WolfPack86]

Rafale discussion must in Lok sabha Congress.

 

[WolfPack86]

Qatar fighters prices.