Alternatives to Dassault Rafale

[JBH22]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

God, who writes such crap?

Taking into consideration the Capital expenditure, training, time to build the whole Rafale logistics in IAF it makes me also wonder why go for it.

See agreed there may be some incremental advantages but frankly it can be easily mitigated with more SU-30Mki or Mig-29 as pointed out, plus investing in Tejas gives us a swadeshi industry.

The cost Rafale is mind boggling and can we really afford it? Knowing depleted squadrons and HAL delay in absorbing tech and producing it.

 

[HMS Astute]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

F35 costs 3x more than Rafale. :shocked:

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

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

Hardly true. I have seen my share of articles that criticize Rafale and I know and understand all the disadvantages of Rafale too.

However the article here is full of pseudo-random crap. I get the feeling this guy was tutored by ersakthivel for some reason.

Btw, he's posted stuff he doesn't understand about Marut as well. What he wrote here is wrong. There were multiple programs for the engine and a development program with other countries involved, we simply couldn't afford it at the time and the ones we could were canceled. The foreign aircraft came at more affordable prices and we needed a proven aircraft at lesser expense.

And what the F is he talking about Brazil and Israel being aerospace powers. He craps and everybody should listen? Both the countries import their fighter requirements.

And the IAF is spending money to set up the production line. Also, unlike IN's version, the IAF's version was very well funded and required no financial assistance. The IN version OTOH needed to go through a whole round of bureaucratic hurdles for approval, it was easier for them to spend immediately instead. And true to their word, actual funding for the N-LCA by the MoD came many years IN's investment in the LCA program. And after years of investment the N-LCA prototype has hardly seen much flight time. Had they waited, then N-LCA wouldn't even have been flying today. At the time when the decision to spend on LCA was considered, the IN had no other program to spend on. The Mig-29K was already done. And spending on LCA provided the IN with brownie points that neither the MoD nor the IAF could reject since IN wanted to expand their fighter fleet to 100. LCA provided the platform for that. IN did not have the resources to spend like the IAF on aircraft. If you look at Admiral Arun Prakash's words while he was in service (or was it another Naval Chief?), IN operationally requires a Rafale, while they will induct LCA only because it is an Indian aircraft. It's not like IAF spending some money on LCA will speed up the process anyway. They are part of the stakeholders for the assembly line anyway, where IAF and IN share 50% (25% each) and HAL shares 50%. As for support, if it wasn't for IAF, nothing would have happened to date. LCA would still have been a paper plane. Look up who helped set the NFTC in 1994. The LCA was supported by every single air chief since 1983.

And expecting ADA to develop a canard version of the LCA Mk2 is borderline insane. Does he really expect ADA will be able to attach a canard to the LCA and induct it in just 5 years? Heck the bureaucratic procedures alone with take 3 or 4 years, followed by an entire cycle of design, R&D, flight testing and IOC which will take another 9 years, best estimate. A new tranche of the Typhoon will see the addition of LERX on the aircraft. Even this simple device took years because the first flight with it was in 2007. They are only adding the LERX today. That's a good 7 years ago. If advanced nations took so long to make the decision what makes you think ADA can do it in a hurry?

And his howitzer analogy is completely wrong since the Indian version being developed by Kalyani (which is technology transferred from another competing US company) is equivalent to the M777. Is the LCA Mk2 equivalent to the Rafale? No. And does the author understand that? No. Should I explain more why his analogy is wrong? Anybody who proposes to replace the Rafale with LCA simply does not understand why the Rafale is needed. Air Marshal Matheswaran had explained that to the other officers too, and if you haven't noticed they did not argue further. LCA simply does not provide the capabilities IAF needs from Rafale.

Anyway, I came across this article on a different forum. I though I should post it.

Fighter pilots wore diapers and flew non-stop for more than nine hours to carry out the Indian Air Force's farthest and longest bombing exercise recently - symbolising the IAF's extended reach.

They flew Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters to destroy mock targets in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

A senior IAF officer told HT, "The fighters dropped air-to-ground ordnance for the first time on an uninhabited island in the Andamans. We want to exploit the location of these islands to train fighter pilots for extreme missions."

Six fighter planes were launched from air force bases in Bareilly and Pune for the experimental long-haul mission. Russian Ilyushin-78 refuellers flew from Agra to tank up the Sukhois during the flight over the Bay of Bengal.

The officer said long-range missions would be planned regularly from now on to push the limits of technology and human endurance.

Fighter pilots may have to get used to carrying more loads in their diapers. The officer said future missions would be more complex, requiring them to stay airborne for 12 to 15 hours. "We can keep the fighters airborne for as long as we want.

Refuellers are a game-changer," he said. The Air Force has started providing diapers to pilots as 'standard clothing'.

Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, said, "The IAF seems to be gearing up for expeditionary missions. Human endurance should not be a limiting factor in the cockpit."

Dassault Rafale Coped Well With Mali Mission - RP Defense

We were flying 800 miles from N'Djamena just to get there, on day and night roundtrips lasting up to nine hours," said Lt. Col. Francois Tricot, commanding officer of EC02.030, one of two French Air Force Rafale squadrons that were involved.

"A Rafale can multi-fire the AASM quickly, and we launched 12 from two aircraft within a minute on one mission. They hit targets dispersed over a wide area–munitions storage areas, training camps, and a headquarters," said Tricot.

LCA can't do any of these missions. Basically what the IAF is trying to say is they need 400-500 aircraft like MKI. But they don't want to rely only on MKI, hence why they need Rafale also. It is strategically wise to have two baskets for your eggs.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

See agreed there may be some incremental advantages but frankly it can be easily mitigated with more SU-30Mki or Mig-29 as pointed out, plus investing in Tejas gives us a swadeshi industry.

As explained in my previous post, Rafale's capabilities are not incremental. Nine to 16 hour missions shooting multiple targets at once, these are not incremental capabilities, these are new generation capabilities. Capabilities that did not exist the previous decade when an LCA fighter was the workhorse of many air forces. You can't compete with an airforce that keeps its fighters airborne for so long.

Also Rafale can fire 6 AASMs at once at 6 targets, something even MKI does not do today. A group of 4 Rafales can inflict more damage to an airbase than an entire squadron of LCA. So how is this an incremental capability?

Tejas is not swadeshi as long as the engine is imported. It's the most important part of the aircraft. Rafale will be purely swadeshi in comparison. Swadeshi means, made in India, not just designed in India. The Chinese consider the J-11 to be an indigenous aircraft. For all intents and purpose, that is true. They have completely indigenized the Flanker in China, similar to how it was with the Mig-21 in the '70s, which they even exported to other countries by giving it the name F-7, or J-7 in China. Basically, J-7 and J-11 are swadeshi products for China. The Chinese will deploy more heavy fighters than we can within this decade, that much is well known. Fighters that can handle long endurance missions.

The cost Rafale is mind boggling and can we really afford it? Knowing depleted squadrons and HAL delay in absorbing tech and producing it.

That is the cost for the capability required. And it is actually affordable considering the cost is pretty standard now.

And a lot of the stuff being deployed on Rafale is in development in India today. We can absorb the tech.

 

[Killzone]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

As explained in my previous post, Rafale's capabilities are not incremental. Nine to 16 hour missions shooting multiple targets at once, these are not incremental capabilities, these are new generation capabilities. Capabilities that did not exist the previous decade when an LCA fighter was the workhorse of many air forces. You can't compete with an airforce that keeps its fighters airborne for so long.

Also Rafale can fire 6 AASMs at once at 6 targets, something even MKI does not do today. A group of 4 Rafales can inflict more damage to an airbase than an entire squadron of LCA. So how is this an incremental capability?

Tejas is not swadeshi as long as the engine is imported. It's the most important part of the aircraft. Rafale will be purely swadeshi in comparison. Swadeshi means, made in India, not just designed in India. The Chinese consider the J-11 to be an indigenous aircraft. For all intents and purpose, that is true. They have completely indigenized the Flanker in China, similar to how it was with the Mig-21 in the '70s, which they even exported to other countries by giving it the name F-7, or J-7 in China. Basically, J-7 and J-11 are swadeshi products for China. The Chinese will deploy more heavy fighters than we can within this decade, that much is well known. Fighters that can handle long endurance missions.



That is the cost for the capability required. And it is actually affordable considering the cost is pretty standard now.

And a lot of the stuff being deployed on Rafale is in development in India today. We can absorb the tech.

What BS!! Rafale will be fully Swadeshi ? LMAO
Then why will our money go to France if we buy Rafale ?
Just this one sentence pours cold water over credibility of any argument you make.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

I hate to say this, after reading the arguments, I am not convinced Rafale is a mistake at all.

It could just be me.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

What BS!! Rafale will be fully Swadeshi ? LMAO
Then why will our money go to France if we buy Rafale ?
Just this one sentence pours cold water over credibility of any argument you make.

Who's saying all of our money will go to France?

As a matter of fact, France will make major investments into the Indian economy, up to 50% of the contract value, while also spending most of the money for Rafale within India. Basically, India earns more in this deal since Indian industries will directly benefit from any French investment.

What we will be paying directly for are the first 18 Rafales which will be made in France. The rest are to be made in India. That's 108 jets. You do the math about how much money will stay in India. Or are you saying the setting up of infrastructure, salaries of workforce, setting up partners for raw materials etc will all go to France?

It is simple math. 100-(18/108*100). 83%. That's percentage of money that stays in India. Who do you think has to setup factories and other infrastructure, train workforce, and pay their salaries. It will all come from Dassault, which will in turn come from MoD. The end recipient of the majority of the money is an Indian.

Value of total deal/2. This value of money is added back into the economy from French pockets.

So, that's 83% of the money to manufacture the Rafale + 50% of the value of the deal which is put back into the country.

If we assume the total deal is $20 Billion. 83% of this is $17 Billion. So, $17 Billion is put back into the economy. Then 50% of the $20 Billion is $10 Billion. So, actual money put back into the economy is $27 Billion.

Basically the country makes a profit of $7 Billion. Out of which the $17 Billion is lost on an aircraft with awesome capabilities which directly benefits the industry. The $10 Billion that is invested will create more jobs, generate more experience and develop the aerospace industry in a big way. So, the money invested is not lost, but will create profits for Dassault and partners along with their Indian partners and subsidiaries.

We don't know the actual value of the deal or how much Dassault will actually make, but it won't be smaller than 20% of the actual value that will go back to Dassault.

Please try to understand how these deals work before jumping up and down to criticize it. I hope now you understand why the aerospace industry is so excited about the Rafale deal. And I hope now you understand why this deal is important for both the IAF and also the industry.

The total money spent on LCA to date is around $1.5 Billion including the engine. This has been spent since 1985. The actual RoI has been negligible.

The Su-30 deal was worth $12-15 Billion spent over close to 20 years today. The Su-30 deal did not come with offsets clause and the RoI is zero since there is only a small margin of profit to be made in the deal which will benefit HAL and some of the industries to which work has been outsourced.

In comparison, other than the money spent to manufacture Rafales, other than the profits to be made by HAL and outsourced companies, the total money Dassault will insert into the Indian economy will be worth $10 Billion, maybe more maybe less, in just a span of half a decade, which is up and over the main contract. Do you realize how this will boost our aerospace industry? Nope. Looking at your post you can't even imagine it. Just frigging try to grasp this little fact. A large company like Dassault investing $10 Billion directly into our market. That's more money than the whole country has invested in an incredibly short time in the aerospace sector in the last 50 years. It is possible we may never even see a bigger one time investment like this ever again.

Everybody and their uncles know exactly how important this deal is to the country. And they all know why offsets was increased to 50% only for this particular deal.

Take the example of the deal for C-17s. This had a 30% offsets clause. Boeing had to invest a substantial amount of money back into the economy. So, what did they do? They setup our first engine testbed facility. Yeah, it is the first in the country, before that we had to send our engines to Russia for testing. This apart from a new wind tunnel.

C-17s for India: 10 Aircraft by 2015

On Boeing's part, it will invest 30% of the $4.1 billion contract in Indian civilian and military industries. The Letter of Offer and Acceptance is reported to specifically include the build-out of a high-altitude engine test facility and trisonic wind tunnel facility at India's DRDO. Rumors place those projects' cost at $500 million, but the long-term value to Indian research may be higher.

I hope you understand now what this means to our country.

With just a small deal for C-17s we managed to get a facility that we had no hopes of creating quickly on our own. The Americans practically gift-wrapped the facility and laid out the red carpet to welcome us to the world of high technology research. All because we bought some transport aircraft for the IAF. Do you think India has the kind of money to spend so much on a facility when we have spent even lesser in the entire LCA program over the last 20 years? You tell me if this deal was in our favor or not.

If such a small deal had such a large benefit, now imagine what that MRCA deal can do to our aerospace sector!!! The bigger the size of the contract, the bigger are the benefits to the Indian industry. And in the whole scheme of things, the MRCA deal to the govt is but a paltry amount that is spread over 40 years while the research benefits made through Dassault will stay with us forever.

Naturally, the technologies Dassault develops by investing here will make it back to France and the Indian partners will earn directly from French military business. So, Dassault invests and we eventually make the profits.

Swadeshi enough for you? Is my argument credible enough for you? Ever heard of a better deal? Is it too good to be true? If you understood, please explain this to our more "enlightened" members on our forum along with the author of that piece of crap.

Now you know why the MRCA is called the "mother of all deals."

 

[Killzone]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

snip"

Who the hell said ALL the money will go to France ?
Not me.
Seems you are arguing against yourself.


I objected to laughably ridiculous assertion that Rafale will be a swadeshi fighter while LCA with phoren engine will be not.
Also I would like to know from are you pulling numbers like this and I quote
It is simple math. 100-(18/108*100). 83%. That's percentage of money that stays in India.

What BS is that/Just because we will license manufacture 108 aircraft in India mean 83 % of money will stay in India ? Jesus F Christ!
The money spent in creating manufacturing infra and actual manufactuing is included in the 50% offset genius!

Then why this hullabalo by France saying even 50% offsets is difficult because of inability of Indian industry to absorb tech
Do you know saying things like Rafale will be desi fighter jet and 83 % of money will stay in India make you sound so stupid and immediately discredits anything you are trying to say/
What the hell are you smoking.

Another gem from the DFI technocrat


If we assume the total deal is $20 Billion. 83% of this is $17 Billion. So, $17 Billion is put back into the economy. Then 50% of the $20 Billion is $10 Billion. So, actual money put back into the economy is $27 Billion.

Basically the country makes a profit of $7 Billion. Out of which the $17 Billion is lost on an aircraft with awesome capabilities which directly benefits the industry. The $10 Billion that is invested will create more jobs, generate more experience and develop the aerospace industry in a big way. So, the money invested is not lost, but will create profits for Dassault and partners along with their Indian partners and subsidiaries.

Wow Sir I think you have discovered a great way to help out our nation.
Its so easy we give France 20 Billion. France spends 17 billion in India to make Rafale.
On top of that France also spends 10 billion to develop Indian aerospace Industry, create jobs etc.
Wow France is so stupid.

We should sign a new MMRCA deal every month.



Do you know Saudi Arabia recently purchased 72 Typhoons for about 61 million dollars per plane with minimal ToT and offsets.
Really puts into perspective the proposed sale of inferior Rafale at 150 million per plane with 50% offsets turning out at 75 million per plane.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

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

No anything that even mildly supports tejas is,

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Hardly true. I have seen my share of articles that criticize Rafale and I know and understand all the disadvantages of Rafale too.

However the article here is full of pseudo-random crap. I get the feeling this guy was tutored by ersakthivel for some reason.

Typical of the jackshit you post here, Actually I posted some other view points and he said thank you,

Effective combat range with effective weapon load will depend upon the criteria called fuel fraction, i.e weight of internal fuel/empty operational weight of the fighter.

In this area even tejas mk1 better than gripen C.

Then a question arises why range of tejas was often quoted less, it may be due to the reason that new super sonic center line fuel tank was not validated till IOC-2, Even without that The press information beruau release clearly stated that the combat range of tejas is 500 Km. It means a combat range in excess of 1000 Km in a low penetration fuel consuming flight into enemy territory, with extra fuel allocation for take off, a few minutes of high fuel consuming close combat and high fuel consuming After burner thrust .

But other fighter makers give misleading combat range figures with minimum weapon config and high altitude(less fuel consuming flight path) with no allocation for close combat and AB thrust and low penetration mode.

Roughly the fuel fraction above will give us effective combat utilization of the fighter.

Su-30MK: 34.9%（Empty weight: 17,700 kg，Internal fuel: 9,500 kg）

Rafale: 31.4% ~ 33.6%（Empty weight: 9,500 ~ 10,220 kg，Internal fuel: 4,680 ~ 4,800 kg）

JAS-39NG: 30.6%（Empty weight: 7,100 kg，Internal fuel: 3,130 kg）

MIG-35: 28.6%（Empty weight: 12,000 kg，Internal fuel: 4,800 kg）

Tejas: 27.0%（Empty weight: 6,500 kg，Internal fuel: 2,400 kg）

JF-17: 26.3%（Empty weight: 6,450 kg，Internal fuel: 2,300 kg）

JAS-39C: 25.0%（Empty weight: 6,800 kg，Internal fuel: 2,268 kg）

This is a fair comparison of fuel fractions with just internal fuel , and the same percentage will more or less reflect with external fuels also,

So Tejas mk-1(which still has 400 KG of flight test equipment on board, removal of them will lead to even better fuel fraction) itself has much better fuel fractions than grippen C/D with more TW ratio and lower wing loading,

Tejas mk-2 will easily compare to RAFALE which has just 4 percent more in fuel fractions than Tejas mk-1.

So in indian conditions there won't be no issues with range of tejas mk-1 or mk-2 in useful combat configuration if we take into account that four tejas can be operated for one RAFALE if we include total lifecycle costs and upgrade costs,

So there is no way Tejas can be faulted on weapon load or range. A full read of the link above will show how fighter makers abroad indulge in word play when it comes to range and load figures!!! , to fool the people.
Also indian hot atmospheric conditions sap close to 10 percent of engine thrust and 12 percent of wing lift.

So most of the fancy , combat specs ,pay load and range figure mentioned in the glossy brochure wont be achieved in indian climatic conditions.

All tejas specs are for indian hot climate, but other fighter maker's specs are for IDSA temp which is far less than indian atmospheric temp.

Close coupled canards are discarded in all fighters from latest fighters from Russia(SU-35) and F-35, F-22 from US, because of RCS concerns arising from latest gen ASEA radars,

the cranked delta of tejas also does the same job done by canards i.e vortex creation o delay flow separation.

And LEVCONS(like in PAKFA) can do the job of canards without giving extra radar reflection like canards.

canards also have may tricky control issues like force coupling and pilot induced oscillation which restrict the efficiency of wing.

And there are many types of canard arrangements like close coupled on rafale and long momentum arm like typhoon , each of them having their own tricky control issues.

canards were considered on F-35 and later dropped.

Even for the evolution of F-16 ino F-16 XL its designers chose cranked delta like tejas , with concerns over RCS emissions from canards. Also in canard arrangements canards are designed to stall before the main wing, so the main wing never achieves its full efficiency.

There are already some videos on the net with two gripen pilots facing the pilot induced oscilation problem peculiar to canards and let the plane crash unable to recover from it.

Eventhough later it was claimed that this problem was resolved, we don't know how it was done or whether any flight envelope restrictions were added because of this.

That is the reason why US and Russian fighter designs always rejected canards in their latest 5th gen fighters and are employing compound delta with levcons(same arrangement proposed for tejas mk2).

The Chinese J-20 was a copy of the rejected mig 1.44 delta canard stealth version(in favour of LEVCON , compound delta in pakfa exactly present in tejas mk2).

So redesigning tejas with canards will be an extremely job throwing its induction into jeopardy.
Also the reason cited by ADA for not including canards was,
1.it will add 3 feet to fuselage length,
2,It will add more weight .
3.During wind tunnel testing for the small airframe design of tejas , it did not give any considerable performance enhancement for the above two penalties it imposed.
It is pertinent to note that gripen C which had canards is 300 Kg more in empty weight in tejas and 3 feet longer in length.

In indian hot atmospheric condition which already saps 12 percent engine thrut and lift this added weight and drag will make tejas further underpowered.

Also in a quest to make gripen E more of an MMRCA new fairings were added to it further increasing drag and now it weighs more than 7 tons in empty weight.

But the path chosen for tejas mk2 is very simple. Add 0.5 meter in fuselage to smoothen the cross section increase between 4 and 5 meter lengths in fuselage and retain the same design and go for further weight reduction by increasing the percentage of composites to more than 50 percent.
It will make teja mk2 far more effective and developmental path would be very short and less complex with no time over run

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my above comments, This was his reply,

I am not technically proficient in these matters, but I have, I think, good intuition on most matters technological and strategic, and can grasp the basics fast. Should have mentioned the Levcons built into the navalized variant of Tejas as the most suitable Mk-2- AMCA option. Regret not doing so. But thank you for response(s) on this and other issues re: Tejas/MMRCA on earlier occasions. Between the contributions to this blog by you and @RV, have learned an awful lot about combat aircraft architecture and technologies — as no doubt have the other readers of this blog. Thanks again!

he accepts that he is not technically proficient at these issue, unlike the false prophecy you peddle here.

http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/08/favour-tejas-to-meet-iaf-needs/

Btw, he's posted stuff he doesn't understand about Marut as well. What he wrote here is wrong. There were multiple programs for the engine and a development program with other countries involved, we simply couldn't afford it at the time and the ones we could were canceled. The foreign aircraft came at more affordable prices and we needed a proven aircraft at lesser expense.

And what the F is he talking about Brazil and Israel being aerospace powers. He craps and everybody should listen? Both the countries import their fighter requirements.

Well many guys wants to keep india forever an importer of dubious utility , exorbitant cost weapons when suitable alternatives are available in cost effective combo

And the IAF is spending money to set up the production line.

How many billions?

Also, unlike IN's version, the IAF's version was very well funded and required no financial assistance.

From 1989 to 1993 the project was on a sleep mode due to funding crunch.
original funding asked for was 4000 crores with concurrent production mode with a dedicated LSP based production line, in 1984 itself
what was granted was 200o crores with two Tds first, few PVs later and LSPs later in a staggered production mode with the half funding of 2000 crores,
That too happened after Abdul kalam heavily intervened to save the project from the teeth of IAF resistance.
So funding delays leading to project delays and further escalating into Nuclear related sanction delays and FSED phase-2 delays were hard wired into the project to delay delivery at the correct time period.
However hard you try to lie through your way, it wont help.

The IN version OTOH needed to go through a whole round of bureaucratic hurdles for approval, it was easier for them to spend immediately instead. And true to their word, actual funding for the N-LCA by the MoD came many years IN's investment in the LCA program. And after years of investment the N-LCA prototype has hardly seen much flight time.

Challenges on the naval version are well known and we now have mk2 thanks only to navy promptly giving 1000 funding in 2009 itself.

Had they waited, then N-LCA wouldn't even have been flying today. At the time when the decision to spend on LCA was considered, the IN had no other program to spend on. The Mig-29K was already done. And spending on LCA provided the IN with brownie points that neither the MoD nor the IAF could reject since IN wanted to expand their fighter fleet to 100.

SO who funds the sub ans surface ship projects of the navy?
Good that navy showed the sagacity, so that we now have tejas mk2 mostly due to their lead. Otherwise our sea lane's air defence will be a crippled child forever with the IAF running after a few in number exorbitant budget busting import buys forever making the local mil industry an orphaned child.

Navy knows that it cant even sustain half its force levels of today had they adopted the gravy train run approach by IA and IAF.

LCA provided the platform for that. IN did not have the resources to spend like the IAF on aircraft. If you look at Admiral Arun Prakash's words while he was in service (or was it another Naval Chief?), IN operationally requires a Rafale, while they will induct LCA only because it is an Indian aircraft.

Operationally IN may even require F-35, but they know sensible investments and induction based support is the only way to safe guard the country's future.

It's not like IAF spending some money on LCA will speed up the process anyway. They are part of the stakeholders for the assembly line anyway, where IAF and IN share 50% (25% each) and HAL shares 50%. As for support, if it wasn't for IAF, nothing would have happened to date. LCA would still have been a paper plane. Look up who helped set the NFTC in 1994. The LCA was supported by every single air chief since 1983.

IAF never spent a nickel on tejas till 2006. It continued to sabotage the project till 2006 by not putting even a project management team in ADA. And only did so in 2006 knowing that tejas is close to finish .

And from 2006 it raised more than 250 request for actions that delayed the program. had IAF put in a thousand crore in 1990s and put a project management team in 90s itself when the TDs and PVs were designed the program would have been far more speedier.

It was not me , but IAf guy Philip Raj Kumar who made this comment .

And expecting ADA to develop a canard version of the LCA Mk2 is borderline insane. Does he really expect ADA will be able to attach a canard to the LCA and induct it in just 5 years? Heck the bureaucratic procedures alone with take 3 or 4 years, followed by an entire cycle of design, R&D, flight testing and IOC which will take another 9 years, best estimate. A new tranche of the Typhoon will see the addition of LERX on the aircraft. Even this simple device took years because the first flight with it was in 2007. They are only adding the LERX today. That's a good 7 years ago. If advanced nations took so long to make the decision what makes you think ADA can do it in a hurry?

Tejas needs no canards, look at the comments section of the article.
They are not adding LREX . They are adding LEVCONS as it is present in PAKFA.
Surprising you calling the article crap without even knowing whether ADA was adding LEVCONS or LREX!!!!!
And even the LEVCONs are proposed only for naval version now.
As Su-35 has demonstrated even cobra's can be done without canards. canards are just vortex control devise as cranked delta lay out and LEVCONs are.
And ASEA radar can easily trace canard fighters from a distance greater than non canard fighters however much any one can claim otherwise.

And his howitzer analogy is completely wrong since the Indian version being developed by Kalyani (which is technology transferred from another competing US company) is equivalent to the M777. Is the LCA Mk2 equivalent to the Rafale? No. And does the author understand that? No. Should I explain more why his analogy is wrong? Anybody who proposes to replace the Rafale with LCA simply does not understand why the Rafale is needed. Air Marshal Matheswaran had explained that to the other officers too, and if you haven't noticed they did not argue further. LCA simply does not provide the capabilities IAF needs from Rafale.

Even F-22 will be ideal for the capabilities IAF has in mind. can we afford it ?
We are inducting a 4.5th gen fighter in 5th gen time frame with 5th gen costs is what any Airmarshal won't tell you,
that too when all its jobs can be done by SU-30 MKI and tejas mk2 combo in adequate numbers at less than half the cost.

Anyway, I came across this article on a different forum. I though I should post it.

It has already been posted here ,

Dassault Rafale Coped Well With Mali Mission - RP Defense


LCA can't do any of these missions. Basically what the IAF is trying to say is they need 400-500 aircraft like MKI. But they don't want to rely only on MKI, hence why they need Rafale also. It is strategically wise to have two baskets for your eggs.

A judicious combo of tejas mk2 and su-30 MKI can do them all.

You are yet to reply why two french rafales with two external fuel tanks each and no weapons ,

needed 5 refuelling for their 10.5 hour long 10000 Km trip from france to reunion islands?

Sure they must have had their tanks full at take off.

So it amounts to a total of 6 fuel loads for a 10000 Km flight with no weapon loads and only two external fuel tanks,

range comes only to 1500 Km around.

Why?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nce-in.org/Strategic-force-projection-Rafales

In an impressive demonstration of its strategic reach, two Rafales – supported by a C-135 FR air refueller – flew on a very long-distance practice exercise to the French island, Reunion, in the southern Indian Ocean. The Rafales' non-stop flight, which took 10 hours and 35 minutes and involved five inflight refuellings, was directed by the French Strategic Air Forces (FAS) Command.

Taking off on 22nd April 2014 at 5.00 am from Istres, the Rafale Bs arrived the same afternoon in Saint-Denis, the administrative capital of Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. The very next day, they participated in a joint-services Close Air Support (CAS) exercise with the 2nd Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment stationed in La Réunion.
This mission formed part of regular exercises conducted by the FAS aimed at maintaining the proficiency of its crews in executing very long-range missions. It also demonstrated the ability of the FAS to intervene in any location whatsoever.

Is that anything to do with tropical hot tepmeratures or what?

I am asking this question to you for the third time. if you think karnard was tutored by me, why don't you tutor us on these little nuggets?

The press information bureau report of tejas IOC-2 also says that tejas can fly to distances 1700 Km non stop. (It does not mentions whether it is with combat load or on internal fuel only or external load ). But by the time of IOC-2 , tejas mk1(with much lesser internal fuel load than mk2) had only validated two exteranl fuel tanks.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Who's saying all of our money will go to France?

As a matter of fact, France will make major investments into the Indian economy, up to 50% of the contract value, while also spending most of the money for Rafale within India. Basically, India earns more in this deal since Indian industries will directly benefit from any French investment.

What we will be paying directly for are the first 18 Rafales which will be made in France. The rest are to be made in India. That's 108 jets. You do the math about how much money will stay in India. Or are you saying the setting up of infrastructure, salaries of workforce, setting up partners for raw materials etc will all go to France?

It is simple math. 100-(18/108*100). 83%. That's percentage of money that stays in India. Who do you think has to setup factories and other infrastructure, train workforce, and pay their salaries. It will all come from Dassault, which will in turn come from MoD. The end recipient of the majority of the money is an Indian.

Value of total deal/2. This value of money is added back into the economy from French pockets.

So, that's 83% of the money to manufacture the Rafale + 50% of the value of the deal which is put back into the country.

If we assume the total deal is $20 Billion. 83% of this is $17 Billion. So, $17 Billion is put back into the economy. Then 50% of the $20 Billion is $10 Billion. So, actual money put back into the economy is $27 Billion.

Basically the country makes a profit of $7 Billion. Out of which the $17 Billion is lost on an aircraft with awesome capabilities which directly benefits the industry. The $10 Billion that is invested will create more jobs, generate more experience and develop the aerospace industry in a big way. So, the money invested is not lost, but will create profits for Dassault and partners along with their Indian partners and subsidiaries.

We don't know the actual value of the deal or how much Dassault will actually make, but it won't be smaller than 20% of the actual value that will go back to Dassault.

Please try to understand how these deals work before jumping up and down to criticize it. I hope now you understand why the aerospace industry is so excited about the Rafale deal. And I hope now you understand why this deal is important for both the IAF and also the industry.

The total money spent on LCA to date is around $1.5 Billion including the engine. This has been spent since 1985. The actual RoI has been negligible.

The Su-30 deal was worth $12-15 Billion spent over close to 20 years today. The Su-30 deal did not come with offsets clause and the RoI is zero since there is only a small margin of profit to be made in the deal which will benefit HAL and some of the industries to which work has been outsourced.

In comparison, other than the money spent to manufacture Rafales, other than the profits to be made by HAL and outsourced companies, the total money Dassault will insert into the Indian economy will be worth $10 Billion, maybe more maybe less, in just a span of half a decade, which is up and over the main contract. Do you realize how this will boost our aerospace industry? Nope. Looking at your post you can't even imagine it. Just frigging try to grasp this little fact. A large company like Dassault investing $10 Billion directly into our market. That's more money than the whole country has invested in an incredibly short time in the aerospace sector in the last 50 years. It is possible we may never even see a bigger one time investment like this ever again.

Everybody and their uncles know exactly how important this deal is to the country. And they all know why offsets was increased to 50% only for this particular deal.

Take the example of the deal for C-17s. This had a 30% offsets clause. Boeing had to invest a substantial amount of money back into the economy. So, what did they do? They setup our first engine testbed facility. Yeah, it is the first in the country, before that we had to send our engines to Russia for testing. This apart from a new wind tunnel.

C-17s for India: 10 Aircraft by 2015


I hope you understand now what this means to our country.

With just a small deal for C-17s we managed to get a facility that we had no hopes of creating quickly on our own. The Americans practically gift-wrapped the facility and laid out the red carpet to welcome us to the world of high technology research. All because we bought some transport aircraft for the IAF. Do you think India has the kind of money to spend so much on a facility when we have spent even lesser in the entire LCA program over the last 20 years? You tell me if this deal was in our favor or not.

If such a small deal had such a large benefit, now imagine what that MRCA deal can do to our aerospace sector!!! The bigger the size of the contract, the bigger are the benefits to the Indian industry. And in the whole scheme of things, the MRCA deal to the govt is but a paltry amount that is spread over 40 years while the research benefits made through Dassault will stay with us forever.

Naturally, the technologies Dassault develops by investing here will make it back to France and the Indian partners will earn directly from French military business. So, Dassault invests and we eventually make the profits.

Swadeshi enough for you? Is my argument credible enough for you? Ever heard of a better deal? Is it too good to be true? If you understood, please explain this to our more "enlightened" members on our forum along with the author of that piece of crap.

Now you know why the MRCA is called the "mother of all deals."

I hate to say this, after reading the arguments, I am not convinced Rafale is a mistake at all.

It could just be me.

This is how wheels of fate turn for forever client states, substitute America for china and russia for india, when in future french will be trading in trillions with china and china fielding dozens of N subs with ICBMs.

Even during the kargil war when the push came to the shove french did not provide the required emergency assistance in rigging LGBs for Mirage-2000's famed Munthko Dalo strike on Kargil. It was local juggad which remedied the situation.

Dedefensa.org : Le Rafale est autant visé que le Mistral

Regarding the draft contract, it does not concern only the Rafale in its current state. As written by one of our correspondents, the consequences of refusing to deliver the Mistral to Russia would be absolutely disastrous for the Rafale deal in India. Nicolas Sarkozy then president, had scuttled the Brazilian contract when he torpedoed under U.S. pressure the agreement on the Iranian issue through mediation by Brazil and Turkey [debatable]

Today, according to unofficial sources, India delay the signing of the MMRCA contract waiting the delivery of Mistral to judge the degree of autonomy of France vis-à-vis America, and its reliability as a strategic partner in the technological and military fields over the next 30 years, as the contract lays the foundation.

Our correspondent says that this agreement will represent the most extraordinary transfer of technology between two nations since the Soviet assistance to China in the early 1950s. The issues are high. With such a partnership as the one that emerges between France and India, France and India will share a technological standard for decades.

French and Indians will work together to its modernization (eg for the Mid Life Upgrade of the platform).[...] More; the integration of the indian production chain to the French one would significantly reduce the price of the aircraft and could help to win markets, including in the BRICS countries. New development will be funded and amortized over larger series,[...]

from Nik in BR,

Just sharing some reference points with everyone to understand how much is 20 billion $

- Equivalent to funding 'ALL' of DRDO for 10~15 years (budget @ 3~5% on 40 B base over last decade)
- FDI investment in India across all sectors comes to $ 20 billion per year
- 7% of our long term debt. China has 3x FOREX reserves for its foreign debt. Ours is not even 1x.
- About 10 % of our usable Forex reserves. Giving away 10% of hard earned wealth for 100 shiny jets is criminal

 

[Immanuel]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

True, there are many false marketing claims for the Rafale, looking at the fact they flew 10K Kms and needed 5 refuels + 1 to begin with i.e a range of 1600 km with no weapons and two fuel tanks quite clearly shows Rafale doesn't have the famed deep legs as claimed since the start. Also such long range distances are covered flying at very high altitude i.e over 30K feet at optimal fuel burning cruise speed to minimize fuel consumption, these claimed long ranges would be much lower when slung with weapons flying in low in deep strike missions.

 

[power_monger]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

I hate to say this, after reading the arguments, I am not convinced Rafale is a mistake at all.

It could just be me.

Sir respecting your opinion,rafale lovers claim many things which are plain lies. one point is mass production of rafale. till date only 130 rafales are produced which counts to 6 per year which is not great. Contrary we have guys here in the forum who claim super fast production of rafale.And people remember convienently forget that it is HAL which has to manufacture rafale.

Another point is of snecma engine,every time F404 engine of GE is dragged when talking about Tejas while convinently ignoring the fact that snecma is manufacturer of the engine and core of the engine will not be manufactured here.Things ike these are just not highlighted in the same vein when the same drawbacks of tejas are highlighted using trumpets.

unfortunatly delay in tejas FOC is not helping things. once FOC of tejas happens,we will be able to get concreate data about it and rebute arguments here.until then whatever being told will simply be brushed as a fantasy.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

What BS is that/Just because we will license manufacture 108 aircraft in India mean 83 % of money will stay in India ? Jesus F Christ!
The money spent in creating manufacturing infra and actual manufactuing is included in the 50% offset genius!

No, it isn't, smartass.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/cont...ture-india-civilian-and-select-defence-radars

TheJVC will be dedicated to the design, development, marketing, supply and supportof civilian and select defence radars for Indian and Global markets.

This is offsets, dumbass.

RIL-Dassault to make business jets

A joint venture between France's Dassault Aviation and Reliance Industries Ltd will build components and eventually assemble Falcon business jets in India.

This is offsets, dumbass.

BEL, French firm Sagem to work in production of naval parts - Economic Times

France, to explore co-operation in the production and supply of navigational sensors, inertial navigational system and optronic masts to the Indian Navy for its various platforms under consideration for future induction.

This is offsets, dumbass.

So, large radars, the Falcon business jet and naval instruments, the IAF will put all of this on Rafale and fly it around. How about stop being a dumbass now?

There are tons more in the offing that we do not yet know of.

The 50% offsets is independent of the Rafale deal. The manufacturing and setting up of infrastructure is part of the Rafale's main contract, not offsets.

There were no offsets in the MKI deal, dumbass. Who do you think setup the manufacturing facilities in India? It was Sukhoi.

Then why this hullabalo by France saying even 50% offsets is difficult because of inability of Indian industry to absorb tech

Who gives a flying F. They wanted a negotiations advantage which didn't work out. They are going to comply with all the rules we have placed. That's why only cost negotiations are taking place today while all the other reports have been submitted already.

Do you know saying things like Rafale will be desi fighter jet and 83 % of money will stay in India make you sound so stupid and immediately discredits anything you are trying to say/
What the hell are you smoking.

I could smoke anything I want and still make smarter comments.

So you tell me how much will France earn?

We should sign a new MMRCA deal every month.

We are.

Do you know Saudi Arabia recently purchased 72 Typhoons for about 61 million dollars per plane with minimal ToT and offsets.

Arab countries are dumb. Don't compare the two.

And that's 61 Million GBP, dumbass. That's $100 Million per jet without ToT and industrial production and even maintenance. The maintenance contract was separate and costed another 1.8 Billion GBP until 2017. This is not even counting the inflation rate of 2-3% on the contract which is the norm. Calculate that for 10 years since the deal was signed in 2005 and then compare that to Rafale.

That gave me 82 Million GBP for each aircraft or $137 Million per jet. $137 Million without ToT, industrial production and maintenance. Hil-----ing-larious.

Really puts into perspective the proposed sale of inferior Rafale at 150 million per plane with 50% offsets turning out at 75 million per plane.

Yeah, it does. Since you are barking up the wrong tree, throwing completely wrong figures around.

Go look up the Swiss air force assessment on Rafale and why they put the jet above Typhoon in every parameter. Jesus F Christ!

Wow Sir I think you have discovered a great way to help out our nation.
Its so easy we give France 20 Billion. France spends 17 billion in India to make Rafale.
On top of that France also spends 10 billion to develop Indian aerospace Industry, create jobs etc.
Wow France is so stupid.

This is how business works, dumbass. When companies invest in India, they do so for the sake of profits. The MRCA deal forces the company to invest in India.

Maybe the Americans were stupid when Intel setup a R&D facility in Bangalore. Maybe the Japanese are idiots for wanting to invest $90 Billion in infrastructure in the country.

Maybe Amazon are run by a bunch of idiots since they want to invest $2 Billion in the country.

Oh, look. It's the Chinese. The biggest bunch of idiots among the lot. They only want to finance 30% of our infrastructure projects and want to invest at least $300 Billion.

Dassault seem to be looking more and more like an idiot since they will be investing only 50% of the MRCA deal.

France is sooooooo stupid. I never realized until today.

 

[Twinblade]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

I hate to say this, after reading the arguments, I am not convinced Rafale is a mistake at all.

It could just be me.

Trusting HAL, ADA and DRDO's timelines would an even worse mistake. Whatever can go wrong in their projects, inevitably goes wrong and yet they have the gall to repeatedly lie about their project deadlines, even at stages when the outcome should be clearly visible with no 'technological' challenges left (ie Tejas serial production roll out). Lies, damn lies and Tejas deadlines.

 

[power_monger]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Trusting HAL, ADA and DRDO's timelines would an even worse mistake. Whatever can go wrong in their projects, inevitably goes wrong and yet they have the gall to repeatedly lie about their project deadlines, even at stages when the outcome should be clearly visible with no 'technological' challenges left (ie Tejas serial production roll out). Lies, damn lies and Tejas deadlines.

Could not agree more.

 

[JBH22]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Dedefensa.org : Le Rafale est autant visé que le Mistral

,

As they say devil lies in the details so it is surprising that Rafale Mid life upgrade is projected to be in 2025 so suppose we go for this plane and first squadron is in place by 2020 then it means five years later we must gear up for another round of upgrade.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

True, there are many false marketing claims for the Rafale, looking at the fact they flew 10K Kms and needed 5 refuels + 1 to begin with i.e a range of 1600 km with no weapons and two fuel tanks quite clearly shows Rafale doesn't have the famed deep legs as claimed since the start. Also such long range distances are covered flying at very high altitude i.e over 30K feet at optimal fuel burning cruise speed to minimize fuel consumption, these claimed long ranges would be much lower when slung with weapons flying in low in deep strike missions.

Huh? I don't think you understand what that means.

Efficiency is the key here. They don't fill the tanks up to the brim during such ferry range flights where fuel is preserved to the maximum. Fuel is managed so it provides the best performance figures possible.

They did not fill all of the aircraft up and then empty the tank before refueling again. They would keep around, say, 75%, use up enough fuel up to 50 or 40% and then refuel again to get it back to 75% and repeat the process 4 more times.

In actual missions, the refueling process would be different depending on the missions.

Naturally, in DPS missions the range is much smaller, said to be 3600 Km in a hi-lo-hi profile.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

As they say devil lies in the details so it is surprising that Rafale Mid life upgrade is projected to be in 2025 so suppose we go for this plane and first squadron is in place by 2020 then it means five years later we must gear up for another round of upgrade.

ALA's MLUs are supposed to be happening during the time. Ours will happen after 2030, maybe even 2035.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Sir respecting your opinion,rafale lovers claim many things which are plain lies. one point is mass production of rafale. till date only 130 rafales are produced which counts to 6 per year which is not great. Contrary we have guys here in the forum who claim super fast production of rafale.And people remember convienently forget that it is HAL which has to manufacture rafale.

The actual production line size in France is for 30 jets a year. The ALA/MN has not submitted a requirement for more than 11 a year. They can always increase the numbers anyway.

The production line should have been open for 22 years. 22 years ago, Rafale was still in flight testing. Google will tell you when Rafale's production started.

Another point is of snecma engine,every time F404 engine of GE is dragged when talking about Tejas while convinently ignoring the fact that snecma is manufacturer of the engine and core of the engine will not be manufactured here.Things ike these are just not highlighted in the same vein when the same drawbacks of tejas are highlighted using trumpets.

Snecma has announced publicly that the M88 will be manufactured entirely in India. 100%, including the core.

unfortunatly delay in tejas FOC is not helping things. once FOC of tejas happens,we will be able to get concreate data about it and rebute arguments here.until then whatever being told will simply be brushed as a fantasy.

"Concrete data" is already available for LCA. Even after FOC of Mk2, nothing will change based on the amount of information already available. Most of the relevant specs are already out for Mk1.