Alternatives to Dassault Rafale

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

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

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

will india get the latest version of typhoon or the older ones? i still think typhoon is a better aircraft for air superiority, air to air role, and to protect the indian airspace from any threat in the region. many things have been changed and improved since india announced the rafale deal. for eg, raf typhoon will be fitted with meteor beyond visual range missiles next year and storm shadow cruise missiles (500km range) soon. required amount of typhoon can be delivered to india at much faster rate and on time compared to rafale which will struggle to keep up with their industry and production rate.

 

[Pulkit]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

will india get the latest version of typhoon or the older ones? i still think typhoon is a better aircraft for air superiority, air to air role, and to protect the indian airspace from any threat in the region. many things have been changed and improved since india announced the rafale deal. for eg, raf typhoon will be fitted with meteor beyond visual range missiles next year and storm shadow cruise missiles (500km range) soon. required amount of typhoon can be delivered to india at much faster rate and on time compared to rafale which will struggle to keep up with their industry and production rate.

There is only one way India can have that is cancelling Rafale dea and Until and unless IAF and MOD decides to skip all the processes.....l
Sending requirements and application again going through trials again , going through the whole process of contract again....
This will take another 5-6 years by then its requirement will be over...

Hence there is almost no possible way we can hve Typhoon so the question of India getting new or old stands no where...

 

[pramsin]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

The Pentagon's troubled, expensive new fighter jet

The Pentagon's troubled, expensive new fighter jet
The F-35 has been plagued by problems. Will it ever get off the ground?
By Frances Weaver | 8:00am ET






At this point, the state-of-the-art jet is anything but. (AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, Samuel King Jr.)

What is the F-35?

It's a state-of-the-art fighter jet that's supposed to seal America's dominance over the world's skies. Conceived in 1996, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II was to be put into operation starting in 2010 to gradually replace the Pentagon's aging fleet of fighters, such as the F-16 and the F/A-18, many of which were built in the 1970s and '80s. But in the 18 years since its conception, the F-35 has proven to be so technologically ambitious that Lockheed can't get it finished; there have been endless delays, budget overruns, and technical failures. The plane was recently grounded again, because of an engine fire — the 13th grounding since 2007. Since the F-35 has been repeatedly redesigned, the cost of developing the plane has doubled to a record-breaking $400 billion — the most expensive weapons system ever. A single plane will cost $185 million to produce. The F-35's deployment has been pushed back to 2015 at the earliest, with the Pentagon calling its performance "immature'' and "unacceptable,'' and many military experts question whether it will ever operate as intended. "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run," concluded one scathing Rand Corp. study.

How advanced is the F-35?

In theory, it will be the most lethal fighter ever made. The "do-it-all" fighter can both bomb land targets and engage in air-to-air combat, covering the diverse needs of the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Its radar-absorbing coating, coupled with its supersonic speed, allow the "stealth" fighter to swoop into combat zones before the enemy can detect it coming. The single-engine, single-seat plane carries groundbreaking software technology that's used to control a futuristic video screen inside the pilot's helmet. Information from several cameras mounted around the plane is fed back into that helmet, giving the pilot a 360-degree view during dogfights and bombing runs. "This aircraft reinforces the way Americans go to war," says Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Gorenc. "We don't want to win 51-49. We want to win 99 to nothing."

Does the technology work?

It often does not. The helmet's video resolution, for example, is far worse than that of the naked eye, so pilots struggle to pick out the tiny dots in the distance that could represent an enemy threat. Many other malfunctions have been ironed out in the last decade or so of development. "This is an incredibly complex aircraft," says Air Force Col. Rod Cregier. "Getting it right isn't easy." Keeping it right won't be easy, either: The F-35 will cost up to 40 percent more to maintain than previous fighter jets have, and a Pentagon study estimated the lifetime maintenance cost of all the jets at $1 trillion. And even when it works properly, the F-35 is handicapped by one fatal design flaw.

What's that?

Its vertical takeoff equipment. The Marine Corps insisted the plane have "jump-jet" capability so that fighters could take off from the short landing decks of the Corps' amphibious assault ships. But vertically lifting a plane that weighs up to 35 tons requires about 40,000 pounds of thrust, so Lockheed added a powerful lift fan. The bulky fan assembly has increased the drag of the plane, making its acceleration, fuel efficiency, and flying range inferior even to older Chinese jets (see box). To rub salt into the wound, China is now developing its own rip-off of the F-35, based on Pentagon blueprints stolen by Chinese hackers. The J-31 comes without the F-35's compromising jump-jet lift fan; as a result, it's faster and more maneuverable.

What are the alternatives?

The Pentagon could restart production on the F-22 line, though that system has been dogged by its own problems — including its pilots regularly experiencing oxygen deprivation and blackouts while flying. Or military officials could skip the so-called Fifth Generation of fighters, like the F-35, and move straight to the sixth, which will apparently focus on giving jets laser weaponry. Other military experts argue that the Pentagon should drop its World War II–era dependence on piloted combat altogether, given that it's barely used in military conflicts around the world today, and instead focus on unmanned drone and robotic warfare. But both the Pentagon and Congress now seem irrevocably locked into the F-35 project.

Why is that?

Perverse as it sounds, the program has become too expensive to quit. Congressional lawmakers are also keenly aware that the project supports 133,000 jobs — a number that will grow to 260,000 when full-scale production begins — in 45 states, and are reluctant to sacrifice so many American jobs. Many of America's allies have also made commitments to buying the F-35, and it would damage U.S. prestige to cancel those sales. So the Pentagon is committed to producing 2,400 fighter jets that analysts say could actually weaken America's aviation advantage. "My prediction is the F-35 will be such an embarrassment," says aircraft engineer and defense analyst Pierre Sprey, "that it will be canceled before 500 are built."
Blown out of the sky
In 2008, two defense analysts at Rand Corp., a California-based think tank, created a computer program that would test the F-35's fighting ability in a hypothetical war with China. In the war game, American jet fighters based in Japan and Guam are provoked into a dogfight when Chinese missiles destroy the Taiwanese air force. After America's F-22s are themselves destroyed, 16 of the F-35s are left to fight it out with Chinese enemy jets — with devastating results. As soon as the simulated American fighters fire their missiles, they lose their stealth and become visible on radar detectors. Outflown by their Chinese rivals, the F-35s are blown out of the sky. America loses the war, and Taiwan falls to the Chinese. In the technical terminology of the study's two authors, the F-35 was judged "Double Inferior." Lockheed challenged the war game's results, claiming they were based on faulty assumptions. Rand then backed away from the report's conclusions, saying it didn't intend to make jet-to-jet comparisons.


Frances Weaver


Frances Weaver is a senior editor at The Week magazine. Originally from the U.K., she has written for the Daily Telegraph, The Spectator and Standpoint magazine.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

especially the russians like to bash and mock the f35, f22, typhoon, rafale or anything related to us/nato. but, they keep super quiet when their latest and so called most advanced 5th gen stealth was blown up due to electrical and engine failure lol. what typical and predictable commies!

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

will india get the latest version of typhoon or the older ones? i still think typhoon is a better aircraft for air superiority, air to air role, and to protect the indian airspace from any threat in the region. many things have been changed and improved since india announced the rafale deal. for eg, raf typhoon will be fitted with meteor beyond visual range missiles next year and storm shadow cruise missiles (500km range) soon. required amount of typhoon can be delivered to india at much faster rate and on time compared to rafale which will struggle to keep up with their industry and production rate.

Though EF may never match Rafale's endurance and payload, the upgrade capabilities on Typhoon is greater because of the higher rating of the engine. But it doesn't change the fact that Typhoon is more expensive.

If you look at certain loadouts, like SCALP/Storm Shadow and LGBs, the weapons configurations Rafale has is more well suited to air to ground combat than EF is. Meaning, EF can carry only one drop tank while carrying 2 Storm Shadows and EF's center station is used up for a targeting pod. Rafale is not affected by this.

We can't buy 500 Km missiles from Europe. MTCR. We are restricted to the 300 Km versions of the missile. We may integrate the 1000 Km Nirbhay on Rafale though, as planned for MKI. And plans are already afoot to carry the Brahmos-M on Rafale. So, we will have all three missile systems, whether Rafale/EF was selected. The next decade would be the decade of the hypersonic Brahmos-2. That would add a new dimension to the aircraft.

Note to LCA-supporters. Note that none of the above is possible on LCA. The discussion itself is now headed to a different dimension.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Though EF may never match Rafale's endurance and payload, the upgrade capabilities on Typhoon is greater because of the higher rating of the engine. But it doesn't change the fact that Typhoon is more expensive.

If you look at certain loadouts, like SCALP/Storm Shadow and LGBs, the weapons configurations Rafale has is more well suited to air to ground combat than EF is. Meaning, EF can carry only one drop tank while carrying 2 Storm Shadows and EF's center station is used up for a targeting pod. Rafale is not affected by this.

We can't buy 500 Km missiles from Europe. MTCR. We are restricted to the 300 Km versions of the missile. We may integrate the 1000 Km Nirbhay on Rafale though, as planned for MKI. And plans are already afoot to carry the Brahmos-M on Rafale. So, we will have all three missile systems, whether Rafale/EF was selected. The next decade would be the decade of the hypersonic Brahmos-2. That would add a new dimension to the aircraft.

Note to LCA-supporters. Note that none of the above is possible on LCA. The discussion itself is now headed to a different dimension.

interesting. but, i always thought that typhoon was better than rafale in many aspects, including speed, rate of climb, engine power, supercruise capability, radar cross section, agility, fuel capacity, loaded weight, service ceiling, and thrust to weight ratio etc. do you have any specs on flying costs of these aircraft? typhoon is getting new radar system as well.

http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and...ernational-airshow-with-new-aesa-radar-system

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

interesting. but, i always thought that typhoon was better than rafale in many aspects, including speed, rate of climb, engine power, supercruise capability, radar cross section, agility, fuel capacity, loaded weight, service ceiling, and thrust to weight ratio etc. do you have any specs on flying costs of these aircraft? typhoon is getting new radar system as well.

Among the categories you mentioned, Typhoon has the better speed, higher engine power, service ceiling and better supercruise capability. Typhoon is marginally better in fuel capacity and climb rate.

Rafale is better in strike loadout configurations, endurance, payload, EW, maturity level of the avionics, and is fully developed today resulting in smaller investments from the Indian side and induction of the aircraft with little delays. Rafale can conduct nuclear strike missions which Typhoon cannot.

I have based this on Swiss evaluations. IMHO, I favor the Rafale over the Typhoon plainly because of its greater strike capability. It can carry 9.5 tonnes to greater distances than Typhoon and has a well-tested EW suite, which means we can take it to war as early as possible, unlike Typhoon which needs extensive testing for its yet to be inducted new avionics.

We have seen different opinions on agility. For eg: In Corsica, Rafale beat the Typhoon 8:1 in guns only dog fights. Some other places other Typhoon pilots say they beat Rafales etc. I doubt it really matters in the end because such things have a lot to do with the pilot. I suppose you can say Rafale is better at low altitude performance and Typhoon is better at high altitude. One favors dog fights and strike while the other favors BVR battles.

RCS may go both ways and we don't really know. Past reports point to RCS being lower for Rafale and higher for Typhoon while some say the opposite. The RCS difference between the two no longer matters to a modern radar.

A lot of other parameters are more or less the same like sortie rates, turnaround time etc.

What matters to the IAF is they wanted an aircraft that matched or exceeded all IAF requirements and was a well-tested system. It didn't matter if Typhoon had a much better radar or if Rafale had a much better EW suite as long as the requirements were fulfilled. Eventually the FGFA is set to exceed the EF or Rafale's air to air capabilities by a huge margin, so Typhoon's or Rafale's marginal advantages over each other don't matter in the long run. What matters is the cost, which was in Rafale's favor in India.

We don't have official information from the govt, though we can surmise the costs from the bits and pieces that are released. We had some reports in 2012 which said the Rafale was $5 Million lesser per aircraft. We recently received news that Air Marshals and Admirals were talking about Rafale costing $85 Million. That means Typhoon probably costed $90 Million. We do not know the actual cost for the aircraft's lifecycle, we had reports in 2012 that Typhoon was priced 25% higher. Though we don't know if there is any truth in this report. Only the $85 Million for Rafale is confirmed.

As for Typhoon's radar, a contract between partner nations is yet to be signed. The decision to procure the radar is yet to be made.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

As for Typhoon's radar, a contract between partner nations is yet to be signed. The decision to procure the radar is yet to be made.

thanks for the informative reply. however, uk government has awarded the bae systems to develop and produce the new radar for the raf typhoon fleet. so, whether the other typhoon partner nations will go ahead as planned or not, one sure thing is that the raf typhoons are definitely going to be fitted with the new radar system. regarding with rafale, $5 difference per aircraft is just a peanut, but i can understand india's requirement, regarding with the nuclear strike capability. i reckon india can order different variant of typhoon which can be armed with air to ground nuclear bombs. even the swedish are developing navalized version of gripen due to brazil's demand.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

thanks for the informative reply. however, uk government has awarded the bae systems to develop and produce the new radar for the raf typhoon fleet. so, whether the other typhoon partner nations will go ahead as planned or not, one sure thing is that the raf typhoons are definitely going to be fitted with the new radar system. regarding with rafale, $5 difference per aircraft is just a peanut, but i can understand india's requirement, regarding with the nuclear strike capability. i reckon india can order different variant of typhoon which can be armed with air to ground nuclear bombs. even the swedish are developing navalized version of gripen due to brazil's demand.

The AESA radar is required anyway.

For nuclear strike you need electronics that can handle very high levels of EMP while also protecting the pilot from radiation. This cannot be done on a handful of aircraft, the cost will be prohibitive.

Irrespective of the price differences, there will be additions of weapons and upgrades to the Rafale that are India-specific like addition of HMDS which French don't have, addition of non-Western weapons and a very important satcom capability which neither Typhoon nor Rafale have today. This allows a laser link between the satellite and aircraft to transfer data to other assets in areas where AEW&CS don't operate. Typhoon has not demonstrated many abilities that are becoming standard on Rafale today, and this plays a part in reducing Typhoon's export chances.

Brazil's requirements are very different. They can't invest the kind of money we can because their threat environment is very different. Gripen is beyond their needs.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Someone asked for more proof about Rafale being technically proficient in tenders.

This is from Korea.

"Dassault's combat aircraft Rafale was rated as "excellent" in all five categories, while its strongest rival, Boeing's F-15 fighter, reached the standard in only two categories.

The Boeing fighter received "excellent" in reliability and supportive combat capability, while Eurofighter, produced by a European consortium, won the top grades in the general function and reliability categories.

In the categories of weapons and electronic warfare capability, only Rafale earned the "excellent" grade, according to the officials.
Russia's Su-35 took fourth place with "ordinary" rates in all five categories.

This is from the Dutch evaluation.

A surprising and important detail had been made public: the technological and operational evaluation by the RNAF of the three candidates. According to the RNAF criteria, the JSF had been graded 6.97; the Rafale, 6.95; and the Eurofighter Typhoon, 5.85. "

The Dutch evaluation is a bit sketchy because unlike other evaluations this was just a paper evaluation. The EF was still immature while the F-35 barely existed. Rafale was in service with a lot of the equipment in comparison.

And from IHT in Singapore.

Rafale, the French fighter, scrambles for export orders
By Christina Mackenzie
International Herald Tribune

Published: July 16, 2006 Paris

Riddle: Which combat aircraft outperforms its competitors in dogfights, is frequently classed first on technical merit in international tenders, is capable of covering a broad spectrum of air missions and is competitively priced, but has yet to win a single export order from a foreign air force? Answer: the Rafale, the French fighter developed and manufactured by Dassault Aviation.

In development since the mid-1980s and in French naval carrier-based service since 2004, Rafale is a so-called fourth-generation fighter, a sophisticated multirole jet with advanced avionics and weapons systems, but less able to avoid radar detection than "fifth generation" stealth fighters like the Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor or the U.S.-European F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Competitors include the U.S.-made F- 15 Eagle, in service in various versions since the 1970s, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-18E/F Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Swedish-built JAS-39 Gripen, marketed in collaboration with BAE Systems of Britain.

Dassault and the French Ministry of Defense hope that exports may now take off after Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin declared operational a first French air force squadron of 20 Rafales on June 27.

"It's almost impossible to sell a combat aircraft not operational in its own air force," Gérard David, head of communications for Dassault said during an interview by telephone. "The doors are now open to Rafale's export career."
Within the French military, the Rafale eventually would replace existing air force and naval fighters and fighter- bombers, including the Mirage IV, F1 and 2000; the Jaguar; Crusader; Etendard IV and Super-Etendard.

"This is going to reduce our operating costs tremendously through rationalization of maintenance," said General Patrick Dufour, director of the Rafale program at the Délégation Générale de l'Armement, France's defense procurement agency.

Colonel François Moussez, a pilot who has flown 150 hours on the Rafale, said that two could do the work of six existing air superiority/defense and air-to-surface attack jets. "With the Rafale," he said, "we can do simultaneous multimission management: air-to-air, air-to- ground, reconnaissance at the same time."

Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations "we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon."
Yet it lost to the F-15 in competitions to sell to South Korea and Singapore. Moussez said it was outflanked in the former case on political grounds and in the latter case on costs, noting that the dollar had depreciated 30 percent over the period of the Singapore competition.

In competitions to sell combat aircraft, "the principal criterion is political. It has little to do with aircraft performance," Moussez said.

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia, also says that politics play a major role in fighter procurement. "Aggressive U.S. foreign policy" was a primary cause of export wins by U.S. military jets, he said during an interview by telephone.

Bob Kemp, director of sales for the Gripen, was not so sure. "There is no doubt a political factor," he said during an interview. But "the first thing is, the aircraft must be able to do the job, and the second is financial."
The Gripen, in operation with the Swedish Air Force since 1997, has been sold or leased to three countries and is quietly adding more orders, partly because it is "half the price of our competitors," Kemp said.

Pricing combat aircraft is notoriously complex, with deals often involving industrial offsets and seldom reflecting full aircraft development costs. While Dufour put the average cost of a Rafale at €50 million, or $64 million, and the Typhoon - a collaboration grouping Italy, Germany, Spain and Britain - at about £65 million, or $120 million, Kemp said both aircraft had been offered to Singapore and South Korea at about $95 million each, compared with a basic price tag of $45 million to $50 million for the Gripen.

Combat aircraft technology "costs what it weighs," Kemp said. "The Typhoon is basically twice the weight of the Gripen - and costs twice as much."
The Typhoon, although lacking air-to- ground capacity in its current version, already has one export customer. Austria signed for 18 aircraft in August 2003 and Britain has signed a preliminary agreement with Saudi Arabia to supply at least 24 Typhoons from the British production run of 89 aircraft, although no final deal has been sealed.

Meanwhile Gripen has sold 28 aircraft to South Africa, the first of which left Sweden by ship in early July for the Overburg test flight center near Cape Town. Hungary has signed a lease and purchase agreement with Sweden for 14 aircraft, of which the first five were handed over in March. And the Czech Republic has leased 14 aircraft, all of which have been delivered. Norway and Denmark have also requested information on the Gripen from Saab, its manufacturer.

French procurement officials, comparing the sales prospects of the Gripen and Rafale, said the Gripen was designed for a different type of mission. The Rafale, a twin-engine aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 24.5 tons, can carry 9.5 tons of weapons slung under its wings, while the single-engine Gripen, with a maximum takeoff weight of 14 tons, carries only 5 tons of weapons.

Kemp agrees. Buyers of the heavier fighters "pay for longer range and heavier weapons loads," he said, fitting them for a strategic defense role that some air forces may find less relevant than it was at the height of the cold war.

Still, by 2030, many countries will need to renew their combat aircraft fleets including some, like India and Japan, that may face significant strategic challenges. Saudi Arabia may finalize its Typhoon deal at the Farnborough Airshow, and analysts say other likely customers in the near future include Morocco and Brazil.

Excluding the United States, Russia and China, the open export market is estimated by analysts at around 3,000 aircraft. France traditionally holds between 10 percent to 15 percent of this market. Based on political preferences and past performance, France could hope to export about 300 Rafales, analysts say.

The last statement is turning out to be true. 126+63 itself makes up a huge number out of the 300 and then there's the 72 (36+36) from Qatar and 60 from UAE.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

The 4 part video posted on the MRCA deliberations is very illuminating. Some highlights ,

1.The evaluating group doesn't know how to calculate life cycle costs. SP Tyagi says they asked E Sreedharan for that. SO their evaluating metrics are made up on the fly, Just think about the monumental stupidity of this method.

Guys evaluating platforms without the clear idea of lifecycle cost , Don't they know that IAF has a budget and it never gets 60 percent of what it wants. SO if you buy a super expensive fighter for just six squads how is that rational? Do they think that the 126 rafales good enough for the all future needs of IAF. Where eill the budget for FGFA and AMCA will materialize?

2.The only reason for the weight cut of of 30 tons in the contract was named as "medium" was to keep the "heavy fighters" out !!!!. but there is nothing wrong in evaluating fighters with empty weight of 7 tons, 9 tons, 10 tons, and any tons till 30 tons for the MMRCA,What is the strategic doctrine behind this?


3.The RFP wwritten had the objectives of meeting the requirements of the IAF and serve in building an industrial-aerospace infrastructure in the country!!!!!.By killing reasonable tejas mk2 numbers our MMRCA RFP writers are trying to build the aerospace industry of the nation!!!! Is there a better joke than this?

They want to build our trainer tech with pliatus, heavy fighter tech with SU-30 MKI, medium fighter tech with Rafale and kill of the only original 4.5th gen product tejas mk2 in high numbers. These guys don't know what building techsis all about.

They built their DPSA tech by killing off efforts for HF-24 marut engine by importing Jags and Mig-23s,27s. No they want to reduce tejas mk2 to lab rat status and build the fighter tech with french help .

Modi should put these guys in charge of DRDO and HAL and they will build indigenous indian tech with each and every 126 number fighter purchase from every fighter making country in the world. And we will be leaders in tech development. Envy of the world.

It is no wonder that another tech dummy former IAF chief once boasted that they can pulla a MMRCA winner rabbit from their magician hats called base repair depots within a decade!!! Immediately contradicted by his deputy though.

SOme one has to tell these guys that with 8 per year roll out 120 IAF tejas offers no incentive to any private sector giant to enter into mil aviation industry. And it will be stunted for two more decades. And the same sordid drama will be played out again after two decades by crushing AMCA between the FGFA and another future product from TOT donating western country, in the same way tejas mk-2 getting crushed by mirage-2000 upgrade contracts and Rafale buy.



4. 6:30: AM Jimmy Bhatia: We will need 50 squads to deter Pak + China, With 126 rafales at 20 billion dollar , we wil never even reach 40 squads in any immediate future..

5. 7:25: Brig G. Kanwal: If a war breaks out 80-90% it will be in the mountains. 60-70% chance it will remain in the mountains. To achieve these military goals, india will need massive air fire power - since ground forces would be limited to maneuver in the mountains. Is the IAF ready for this? War will be mostly fought on the border mountains IAF knows it. but it is the IAF which is fantasizing in fighting a war deep inside Tibet with 126 mythical beasts called rafales in a territory filled with S-300, S-400 Awacs and 5th gen J-20s and J-31s.

By diverting 20 billion dollars towards their own mahabharatha war IAF will critically deprive Indian Army soldiers their much needed support in the form of tejas mk2 which was built exactly for that purpose. the tejas mk2 cleared the leh cold high altitude trials with ease and four of the 6 MMRCA contenders failed this test of taking off with meaning full loads from Leh within a specified runway length.

And 300 to 400 tejas mk2 will be excellent for this purpose with a bigger ASEA radar than rafale , Range does not count here as most of the actions will be border strikes. We can always have Su-30 MKI, Nirbhay for deep strike.



5.12: 30: Nitin Gokhale (NDTV): Priority to build what we need. We do not have funds for 45 squads (perhaps he meant 42)The IAF's 20 billion rafale buy is just opposite of that. When 300 to 400 tejas mk2s will bolster the airspace of india and will be of immense help in close air support to the ground troops facing the music , IAF is spending 20 billion dollar on rafale , whose each and every job can be performed by Nirbhay and SU-30 MKI.


6. 13:43: Maj Gen A. Mehta: 1999 IAF was not prepared to fight in the mountains.Only Mirage-2000 was fit for bombing in Himalayas. IAF found that out in the hard way. And for the LGB requirement it was the same DRDO guys(on whom a budhead is heaping a ton load of sh!t here along with israelis who helped it out, while french played cool). If IAF does not learn their lesson even after this.

God knows when it will learn. SO IAF will miss the numerically superior fleet of tejas mk2 by pumping forex into rafale. Is it wise. With FGFA just around the corner why is IAF splurging on rafale whose very job an be done by other platforms in IAF? Has IAF forgot that 126 rafales can not be in all the places all the time where 300 to 400 tejas can be present? IAF is not fighting some esoteric war like the one french fought with non existant enemy airforce in mali, Libiya and Afganistan. In a two front war for india it will be the numbers that count. Not 126 rafales.
C
7.14:15: Barbora: Agrees. many IAF fighters could not fire certain ammo beyond a certain altitude, but at Kargil IAF was innovated. On Squads: Old sqauds are limited in what they could carry (1 ton as an example). Today the new platforms carry 10 tons. Over time the # of squads sanctioned varied from 39.5 - 42 - 44 (and in 1974 there was a report suggesting 55 squads - if required). But the newer platforms can carry a lot and change their requirements in the air. States that he feel that IAF cannot afford more than 30 squads (??????????).

But how much they carry when taking off from Leh and other future high altitude makeshift air fields in two front war? That is why this rafale can deliver 9 tons across 3000 Km BS is totally irrelevant here. IAF has Nirbhays, Agnis, SU-30 MKIs and in future UCAVs for such deep strikes, FGFA is following hot on the heels(it will start entering squadron service just when rafale induction is over!!!) , which is especially made for this role . But by spending this huge 20 billion dollar on rafale IAF is killing off the prospects of 300 to 400 tejas providing invaluable service in the Himalays in any two front wars. Is it well thought out?

certainly No. because MMRCA started out as a straight 126 Mirage-2000 buy after Mirage did well in IAF, But the tragedy is MMRCA is going to do the exact opposite of this capability that was previously sought. It is going to kill 300 to 400 tejas mk1 and mk2 which will be far far better than Mirage-200 at those altitudes by diverting money to Deep strkie rafales.

SO modernizing jags and delaying tejas is not going to do any world of good for IAF in any future IAf war , for which tejas was designed with exceptionally low wing loading than Mirage-2000, higher thrust to weight ratio than mirage-2000 ?

I have also posted my above comments in the following link,
http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/02/counter-response-to-air-marshal-barbora-and-others/#comment-10659

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Counter-response to Air Marshal Barbora, and others | Security Wise
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere in my article – "Why Rafale is a big mistake" did I raise any question about the rigorous testing regime the IAF employed to shortlist the aircraft in the running for the MMRCA slot, and yet the former Vice Chief of the Air Staff, in what's presumably the institutional response to my piece, makes it, nonsequiterishly, the centre-piece of his response – a tactic to divert from my main theme.

Nor is the American F-35 and its price the issue. This aircraft is a horrendously costly aircraft, which I have time and again trashed as a possible IAF option in my writings and even in a luncheon meeting (where other Indian commentators were present) with the US Assistant Secretary of Defence.

F-35 is, as many in the US describe it, a boondoggle and "white elephant" – expensive to acquire, inordinately difficult to maintain in service and at, trillion dollars, unaffordable even for the United States in terms of its lifetime costing – and the last thing that IAF should have on its mind.

It is another matter that in the run-up to the Rafale announcement many senior officers in the IAF and many more commentators in the media were actually gung-ho about this aircraft and championed its acquisition (in lieu of the F-16/F-18)!

But Barbora has been more honest than his service colleagues who have published their responses. Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam, was deployed by the IAF on a previous occasion when I called for terminating the Rafale deal as wasteful in extremis (See ""Stop wasteful military deals", New Indian Express, November 1, 2013 featured elsewhere in this blog and at Stop wasteful military deals - The New Indian Express. Subramaniam reacted (See his "Undermining national security", New Indian Express, November 7, 2013 at Undermining national security - The New Indian Express, by warning that such writings undermine national security – as if national security, other than being a special preserve of the uniformed brass, was some delicate exotic hot-house orchid that can weather no critical storm.

Further, his doubts about the Tejas – the weaknesses in which project is due not little to IAF's refusal to own up and be accountable for this project – were substantively answered by a flood of on-line reaction commentaries by technically proficient and knowledgeable writers who backed my contention that Tejas can be the answer to IAF's prayers (and which commentaries have since mysteriously disappeared from the New Indian Express website (!) but are retained for posterity on this blog – refer the air force section in this blog).

But senior airmen are in a habit of not grappling with the central issues that are raised, jagging off, for example, into this analyst's honest mistake of spelling CAS' name as Saha, rather than the correct Raha, etc. Consider in this respect Air Vice Marshal (retd) Manmohan Bahadur's critique of my case for a strategic bomber "Strategic bomber for IAF", New Indian Express, February 7, 2014 on this blog and at Strategic Bomber for IAF - The New Indian Express.

He veered off on a tangent saying how difficult it is to produce a strategic bomber indigenously when the country cannot even manufacture a trainer plane, etc, when actually what I had suggested was leasing (as we do nuclear attack submarines) Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber from Russia as the manned strategic delivery option.

In this diversion, he, of course failed to address the larger point about the IAF leadership in the early 1970s fouling up by not accepting the Tu-22 Backfire bomber Russia was keen India offtake, and what it revealed about the lack of the "strategic" sense of the IAF, etc..

To the extent this was taken up, Bahadur sought to pooh-pooh it by sloghing the responsibility off to the Government, referring to the straitened financial circumstances the country was in at the time, the trend of policy, and other such extraneous factors when actually the Tu-22 could have been secured on the same terms as was the MiG-23BN, which was IAF's choice! ("Fallacies of strategic bomber", New Indian Express, February 11, 2014 Fallacies of Strategic Bomber - The New Indian Express

Unlike, Subramaniam and Bahadur, the more senior and apparently more responsible, ex-VCAS Barbora, is candid in acknowledging that costs are a factor, and that the unit cost of any fully loaded 4th generation fighter is presently in the $300 million-$400 million range, which is precisely the price range I said Rafale falls in.

However, notwithstanding the quite extraordinary expenditure involved, which Barbora does not dispute, he is for acquiring it because, well, the long selection process was swell, IAF's need has to be filled and, though he does not say it in so many words (see his last para), how Rafale in IAF's inventory will raisie India's stock in "the comity of nations"!

The Indian defence industry was crippled at the start by IAF's hankering for Western combat planes. The fully locally developed HF-24 and its follow-on Mk-2, were ruthlessly killed off by IAF, doing away what little chance India had of emerging as an independent aerospace power in the manner that Brazil and Israel have done in recent years.

The IAF's role in ending the Marut project in the early Seventies to favor purchase of the Jaguar Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft (which as I pointed out at the time can, ironically, penetrate deep or strike hard but cannot do both at the samke time!) and its subsequent reluctance to nurse an in-country combat aircraft R&D and production project, especially the Tejas, lest its umbilical linkage to imported aircraft be severed, is there for all to mull over.

Tejas, it must be remembered is a DRDO-driven programme. These are touchy issues for the IAF that I often bring up in my writings, and which are at the core of why India, fatally for a country with pretensions to great power, remains an arms dependency, but which issues no commentators from IAF want, for obvious reasons, to tackle.

What thus ends up being reiterated is the official service line, repeated ad infinitum, for example, (again) by AVM (retd) Manmohan Bahadur ("MMRCA misgivings unfounded", New Indian Express, August, August 2, 2014 at MMRCA Misgivings Unfounded - The New Indian Express), who is apparently, IAF's designated batter.

He writes re: Rafale as MMRCA that "Costs, albeit important, don't decide acquisitions; it is the capability one desires that is the driving factor and it's our misfortune that HAL has not delivered this to the nation. The IAF just looks at getting the right product to safeguard the national skies, as it is its duty to do so." His and IAF's contention thus is that costs to the exchequer should be of less concern than IAF having the Rafale in its stable! And, moreover, as is the service's wont, he covers up for IAF's acquisition visioning and strategizing failures by telescoping IAF's urgent needs with DRDO-HAL's shortcomings.

The question the Indian government confronts is whether to take the easy way out and meet the MMRCA requirements but only half-way (80 or so Rafales) as is the first indication from the Modi regime, or will it bite the bullet, as it were, and decide to end for once and for all the policy of pell-mell importation of unbearably expensive aircraft, and order IAF to take charge of the Tejas programme and rationalize its force structure with just two main lines of combat aircraft, the mainstay Tejas Mk 1 for air defence, Mk 2 in the MMRCA role, and the Su-30 and FGFA Su-50. There's no other way.

The pleas by the likes of Bahadur to "let the professionals do their job of recommending what is good for the defence of the nation" would be reassuring if the IAF brass actually knew what they were doing, or that they are even clear about the nonsense designation of the Rafale as "medium" combat aircraft.

That IAF is in the dark on most such issues and the entire MMRCA schemata mainly reflects IAF's mindless procurement thinking and confusion, may be evidenced in a 4-part video uploaded on youtube of a Vayu-Strategic Post hosted seminar on Indian airpower, July 4, 2014, the relevant 2nd part of this seminar is available at StratPost | Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable II - YouTube.

All the IAF luminaries – ACM (retd) SP Tyagi on down, it is obvious, have no clue about what "life costing" metrics are all about, and routinely talk down Russian aircraft, but are mute when informed about the intricacies of lifetime costing of aircraft and about the fact of the 44% availability of Rafale in the French AF, which matches the availability of the Su-30 in IAF. This last is in the 4th part of the above seminar at StratPost | Vayu-StratPost Air Power Roundtable III - YouTube.

There's even more damning stuff about, such as the scale of "commissions"", etc. on offer or already deposited which, as one of my well-informed correspondents writes, tongue barely in cheek, would put the Rafale in the "heavy" class. And there's lots more — all there for the BJP government to examine, enough reason, in any case, for it to revisit the matter of MMRCA, and just how and why the Rafale deal will not only beggar the country – not that the IAF cares — but take down the Tejas programme and the nascent Indian defence industry with it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

India's Rafale Fighter Jet Deal in Final Lap, Awaits Government's Nod - NDTV

New Delhi: The Indian Air Force or IAF may lose its traditional conventional edge against Pakistan if the contract to buy 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft or MMRCA is not clinched immediately, senior IAF officials told Defence Minister Arun Jaitley at an extensive briefing recently. (Defence Minister Briefed on Indian Air Force's Operational Preparedness)

 

[saurabhkumarsingh]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Well I read that India seriously needs to extend its current fleet of jets and the only convincing options available are Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon ( Tejas still being in development phase ).
The the fight was between Typhoon and rafale. But I have read somewhere that India needs these fighters for combating Pakistan ( India havn't gone into war with China since 60's and they havn't interveined in any Indo-Pak conflicts) . Since Pakistan has been provided with the jets of other Islamic states in 71 war , its justifiable that might again get the same provisions done in future. Since the " other Islamic States " do operate Typhoon , its not advisable for India to get the same. ( afterall whats the point if you have to combat with the adversary having same jet). So India decided to went on with Rafale though some may claim its inferior to Typhoon.

 

[Pulkit]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

we have another option SU MKI... and just for info Tejas MK1 is at FOC stage.... so that option is still open...
Regarding Rafale... No where we are denying its ability we are questioning its utility and cost....

Yes we have not fought with China since 60's but that doesnot mean we will never...
Rafale was asked as ultimate requirement in the case of 2 side war.... if we are not gonna ever have a war with China so no need to spend 20Billion on Rafale....
Tejas MK1 will be more than sufficient against Pakis...with a mix of SU...

+
we are questioning the timing as FGFA is 5-8 years away and AMCA is 10-15 years and Tejas MK2 5-8 Years....


rafale is also available to Islamic states....


"In January 2012 the French Defence Minister said that both Kuwait and Qatar were waiting to see if the UAE first purchased the Rafale and that Kuwait would look to buy 18–22 Rafales" refer Wiki

Well I read that India seriously needs to extend its current fleet of jets and the only convincing options available are Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon ( Tejas still being in development phase ).
The the fight was between Typhoon and rafale. But I have read somewhere that India needs these fighters for combating Pakistan ( India havn't gone into war with China since 60's and they havn't interveined in any Indo-Pak conflicts) . Since Pakistan has been provided with the jets of other Islamic states in 71 war , its justifiable that might again get the same provisions done in future. Since the " other Islamic States " do operate Typhoon , its not advisable for India to get the same. ( afterall whats the point if you have to combat with the adversary having same jet). So India decided to went on with Rafale though some may claim its inferior to Typhoon.

 

[Ripples]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

What the hell is going on guys. I just fail to understand why so much commotion over this rafale vs Lca ? Never expected this forum to stoop to this level of ignorance. Even if LCA mk II fructifies well ahead in time even then what LCA has gotta do with Rafales ? Being pro indigenisation does not mean being stupid. Since I cant make a car i will rather use an indigenous Tv !!! Is that the kind of reasoning that we need? Pathetic to see that pakistani forums are no longer so very different from an Indian one. For every air threat pakistani answer is a more and more upgraded and some fictitious MK 1000 version of jf 17. Similarly to replace everything India now seem to have Tejas MK 5000.
From previous one week I am getting utter frustrated and bored by following this thread and so I will try to point out a few things those have already been iterated several times but may not be in a very coherent and precise manner.

1. Before I begin let me confess that i am neither a DRDO / HAL fanboy nor I have any special thing for IAF. All that I like to follow is evidence and the logical deductions based on that.

2. Just like any other design, the design of Tejas has it's inherent structural limits. These limits not only restrict the scope for future up gradations they also mark a final line for any scaled up bigger dimension version of Tejas. For those who do not understand technicalities well enough let me explain a bit more. Ants are known to carry weight several times more than it's own weight but when we look at animal world how many large species can we spot which can do something close to that ? none. This is because world and its restrictions are not linear. In simple terms, more often than not a doubly harder task may not be accomplished just by doubling the effort !!! Laws of nature often do not follow "unitary method" . So who ever thinks that in future a much larger version of Tejas can be built are entirely wrong. There may be some big Tejas Mk X,Y,Z but the similarity will only be namesake and will be an entirely new fighter by its own right . At present, under no circumstances , Tejas is or will ever be a fighter such as refale. But this certainly does not imply that many critical technologies of Tejas can not be extrapolated towards the making of a new fighter which can very well be as capable as Rafale or may be more. The concept of Tejas was to replace mig 21/mig 27/jaguar and not just mig 21. That is why Tejas design has significant multirole traits. So only way we can be real is by sticking to the original plan.

3. The need for MMRCA, as we see today has undergone several paradigm shifts in the past decade and a half. A need that was initially recognised to address the replacement of mig 21 is no longer the same anymore. Even though many defence officials keep harping about the shortfall of squadron numbers and the urgent need for MMRCA the real reason is not just to ramp up the jet count.

4. At present, the importance of MMRCA lies in offering IAF a true 4.5 gen fighter which can keep IAF well ahead of anything that china can develop in the foreseeable future (under this category of 4.5 gen) and if we were to believe the evaluations that took place around the world then there could be nothing as suitable as Rafale for the job.

5. Up to this point MMRCA and the rise of Rafale seems all good and tidy but things starts to get complex very fast as soon as we factor in the advent of 5th gen fighter jets. The 5th generation fighter technology will mark a unprecedented jump in over all combat effectiveness and this gap can never be narrowed down significantly with any amount of deep up gradation of a 4.5 gen fighter. Generational gap has never been so distinct !!! Very high degree of stealth of the aggressor will blunt an otherwise much more potent defender with higher range and weapon load. Such differences never existed between 3rd and 4th gen fighters. Therefore after having delayed the MMRCA by years we have allowed the very reason behind the requirement to become pointless. With Chinese J 20 already in advanced stage of development the focus should be entirely upon the 5 th gen which can automatically take care of every other previous generation fighters. This is where Rafale start to loose its significance from Indian POV unless someone is ready to endorse the insider news of Mr. BARBORA who somehow knows that "China is not as strong as people like to believe they are "

6. While discussing military matters we often go hyper and start loosing the sight on most practical constraints lying before such as money. In StratPost it was repeatedly stated that IAF simply does not have the kind of money to cater three highly expensive medium to heavy class jets in the form of Rafale,SU 30 mki and FGFA that too in big numbers as envisaged. Then what do we do to counter Chinese Stealth fighters? Having unreasonable dream requirements/plans and delaying the induction by years up to decades just to some how arrange cash from some where can not be said to be a great way to go about it . When we look around this is what is happening with every major deal of Indian armed forces. We believe or not we just don't have money.

7. So will it not be a better idea to save this billion 20$ and invest it towards acquiring 5th gen technology rather than purchasing something which is already in the process of obsolescence from Indian POV or producing LCA which is just not in the same niche ? Unless we all are completely wrong here and Rafale is just a 5th gen fighter in disguise or Mr.Barbora is assessing the chinese capability correctly the most logical spending of money should be to invest heavily to develop selective indigenous capabilities and rest for the FGFA. Indigenisation must be achieved in avionics , ( jet engine , which will be a very very hard & lengthy goal to achieve but we must begin right now) A2A A2G weapons such as BVRAAM , PGM etc. Challenge will not just be making them but making them light and accurate. To achieve this goal we will also need substantial investment in metallurgy and nanotechnology. Rather rather keeping our fingers into every damn thing and then goofing up every where it is better to master the tech involving the weapons where as Russian FGFA will provide IAF with a platform that can carry those weapon. This work at the top will trickle down and shower the fighter jets at the lower echelon with an enormous scope for in house top class up gradation. India needs at least 25 years to produce a 5 th gen fighter completely on her own. So rather that wasting precious time and money on mismanaged projects and making tall claims it is better to finish what we have already began and made some progress. Avionics is certainly one such very promising fields.

 

[Jagdish58]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Winston Churchill, as the First Lord of Admiralty in 1911, is credited with "technological prescience" by British commentators for building the 12-inch gunned Dreadnought-class battleships. When the First World War began, the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet was the British force to keep Kaiser Wilhelm II's seaward ambitions in check even as an unprepared army was mowed down by the German juggernaut, in the opening phase.
Remarkably, the Churchillian kind of prescience was manifest in Jawaharlal Nehru's nursing a weapons-capable nuclear energy programme because he believed India could not afford to miss out on the "nuclear revolution" as it had done the "gun-powder revolution" consequenting in its enslavement. And, in the conventional military field, it was evident in his seeding an indigenous defence industry with combat aircraft design and development at its core. Nehru imported, not combat aircraft but, a leading combat aircraft designer—the redoubtable Kurt Tank, progenitor of the Focke-Wulfe warplanes for Hitler's Luftwaffe. Tank succeeded in putting an HF-24 Marut prototype in the air by 1961 and in training a talented group of Indian designers at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

By the time the Tank-trained Raj Mahindra-led team designed the successor Marut Mark-II, Nehru was gone and neither Lal Bahadur Shastri nor his successor, Indira Gandhi, unfortunately had the strategic vision or technological prescience to provide political support for it. Indira permitted the purchase of the British Jaguar aircraft for low-level attack, leading to the termination of the Marut Mk-II optimised for the same mission. It ended the chance of India emerging early as an independent aerospace power in the manner Brazil and Israel have done in recent years. The inglorious era of importing military hardware was on. The resulting vendor-driven procurement system has decanted enormous wealth from India to arms supplier states—Russia, UK, France, the United States, Israel and Italy.

Arun Jaitley, the BJP finance minister-cum-defence minister, is saddled with the familiar problem of too many high-cost government programmes and too little money. He has an opportunity to reduce the huge hard currency expenditure involved in buying foreign armaments and reverse the policy of ignoring indigenous options and private sector defence industrial capability. He can give the lead to the Indian military as the British Treasury had done to the Admiralty in 1918-1938 by pushing for the development of aircraft carriers when the Royal Navy was stuck on the Dreadnought.

There are two far-seeing decisions he can take. With the US bid of $840 million for 150 M-777 light howitzers (without technology transfer) rejected as cost prohibitive, Jaitley can instruct the army to test and induct the modern, ultra-light heliportable gun, to outfit the new offensive mountain corps, produced jointly by a private sector company and an American firm, Rock Island Arsenal, that'll cost less than half as much. And he could terminate the Rafale contract and, importantly, restore responsibility for the Tejas programme to the IAF, which was kept out of it by the science adviser—SA—to defence minister V S Arunachalam in the 1980s. It will mean IAF funding further developments in the Tejas programme from its own R&D budget which, according to an ex-senior defence technologist, can be increased to any amount, and was the course of action recommended by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and SA. It will render IAF accountable to Parliament.

The choices before the BJP government are stark. Is it pragmatic to channel in excess of $30 billion to Paris that'll keep the French aerospace sector in clover and help amortise the multi-billion Euro investment in developing the Rafale, which has no customers other than IAF? Or, use the present difficulties as an opportunity to fundamentally restructure the Indian military aviation sector? This last will involve getting (1) HAL to produce the low-cost (`26 crore by HAL's reckoning) Tejas Mk-1 for air defence with 4.5 generation avionics, low detection, and other features, for squadron service, and to export it in line with prime minister Narendra Modi's thinking and to defray some of the plane's development costs, and (2) ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights) and having it ready for production by 2019—the dateline for Rafale induction.

With the Rafale potentially out of the picture and IAF left with only a limited-capability Tejas for air defence, security needs for the next 15 years until the Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft enters IAF in strength, can be met by buying additional Su-30s and MiG-29s off-the-shelf and/or contracting for larger numbers of the Su-30s to be built by HAL with a deal to get the private sector to manufacture the required spares in-country, all for a fraction of the cost of Rafale. Some Service brass do not care for Russian aircraft but Su-30MKI and MiG-29 are already in IAF's employ, and are rated the two best warplanes available anywhere (barring the discontinued American F-22) for combat and air defence respectively. A new Su-30MKI, moreover, costs $65 million, which is slightly more than what India forks out for upgrading the 30-year-old Mirage 2000.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace. The Tejas air defence variant will have entered squadron service and the larger Mk-2, close behind, occupied the MMRCA slot. The lessons are that indigenous weapons projects demand integrated effort, weapons designers need to be less diffident and Indian military ought to helm indigenous armaments projects. Jaitley can ensure these things happen.


Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs | idrw.org

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Favour Tejas to Meet IAF Needs | idrw.org

God, who writes such crap?

 

[Jagdish58]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

God, who writes such crap?

Any thing that opposes Rafale deal is a crap for you:thumb: Which can't be helped