LCC is impossible to calculate. LCC in French service will be different from LCC in Indian service. There are no good benchmarks for calculating LCC.
The only figures which can be trusted is what the vendor signs on.
Know Your 'Rafale'
- Thread starter A.V.
- Start date
The only figures which can be trusted is what the vendor signs on.
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
Eurofighter did give the figures that they have, but seems Dassault did not and these nos were given by former but then ACM Browne and thats why the Rafale won
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
After Bharat Karnad came with article on 6th March 2015 in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS,
Terminate the Rafale Deal - The New Indian Express
there is another article in support of the IAF views by Ex-AVM Manmohan Bahadur also in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS.
A Rafale Fable - The New Indian Express
My first view is something is really wrong in the direction of the news paper, two different views and the second article calling the first article as LAME. Now often does that happen except in Congress party? I guess The New Indian Express is going Congress party way. And no its not Democractic but lack of proper direction from the editor or maybe in case of someone putting in paid news.
I was writing an article replying in a way to the Air Vice Marshall when I got bored, I shall however complete the reply later and post it.
Seems only Dassault and IAF is hopeful of the deal, and the rest seems to be waiting for the final nail in the coffin.
Last edited by a moderator:
A newspaper can publish claims by both sides. Nothing wrong with it.
IAF stand is that they get to choose what they want. The problem is the vendor takes advantage of this stand.
The issue is really simple - a fleet that can be maintained for 40 years. This can only happen if domestic industry can build the parts.
IAF stand is that they get to choose what they want. The problem is the vendor takes advantage of this stand.
The issue is really simple - a fleet that can be maintained for 40 years. This can only happen if domestic industry can build the parts.
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
Ex-AVM Manmohan Bahadur published this article in The New Indian Express.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/A-Rafale-Fable/2015/03/13/article2710276.ece
And the following is my view on that article.
This is a nice article, very much pro IAF (I cannot say pro Reality) a few days back when the article of Bharat Karnad came in there are people who questioned the timing (and I wonder too) but then even the timing of this article is interesting when MoD recently said that Rafale deal is in question as its too expensive.
A. Was the original requirement of IAF not for single engine plane to replace MiG-21? Why cant Tejas II replace the Mig-21 ? What is wrong with a single engine interceptor being replaced by single engined MRCA. Why has it suddenly become that IAF now needs another twin engined MRCA ? Which plane takes over the job or Air interception? why does the AVM think its not correct? IT is straight like for like replacement, the cost of buying, using, maintaining is much cheaper than that of Rafale so why is it not possible to replace it. AVM should know that the original requirement was to replace MiG-21 with numbers and not by debated MRCA.
B. When the AVM talks of Medium weight MRCA etc, it sounds little skiddish and immature, because these planes are going to be used on land, and the weight class is really not important unless it was a transport plane, for fighters what counts is Engines (nos and capability), the weapons it can carry and fuel it can carry) Surely the AVM does not wish to enrol IAF planes in some sparring competitions (which we do not know about) where there different weight classes in this? By the way one of his peers has been on record saying that in order to stop the entry of Su-35 (and planes of flanker family) hence the upper weight limit was decided, it was not decided that we need an Medium weight plane, After all the service is Air force which uses land based runaways and not carrier where the weight of planes is important, or has the AVM after his retirement lost his wisdom too?
Su-30 MKI having higher weight is an advantage in a way as it can carry fuel and yet carry weapons on its 12 pylons, Rafale meanwhile has to use 1-3 pylons to carry fuel tanks, thus there would be 11-13 pylons available, thus having more pylons is not really an advantage, but what Rafale has to sacrifice to be able to fly the range that Su-30 MKI can do using its internal fuel.
Su-30 MKI Range: 3,000 km (1,620 nmi)
Rafale Range : 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Thus what the AVM would notice that Su-30 MKI with its internal fuel alone, and 12 stations will be able to carry out the mission which the Rafale will need 3 extra fuel tanks installed and that limits it to 11 stations and most of these stations will not be able to carry Heavy A2G missiles
Thus for Su-30 MKI & Rafale
4 Light pylons : The wing tip pylon and the pylon next to it will be carrying primarily WVR Missiles.Thus 4 WVR A2A missiles.
4 heavy pylons : And of these pylons (2 centreline and two on inner wing) are qualified for heavy loads,
4- 6 remaining : qualified for medium loads (for Su-30 MKI)
Thus when people talk of the advantages of Rafale in Deep strike and Air superiority, it seems to be a myth at least on the payload levels. Because as explained above Rafale will have to have 3 drop tanks to go 3000 kms + thus thats 11 pylons available 4 light and rest medium. On other hand, Su-30 MKI will be having the Heavy, medium and light pylons available for weapons as suggested. Thus the actual warload for deep operations, Su-30 MKI has 1-3 more (2 more using MERs)
About the question of Brahmos, the AVM does not mention knowing there are 2 versions of Brahmos for IAF. Now, Dassault seems eager to offer to put Brahmos M (the mini version still under development) which even the MiG-29 and MiG-29K in service of IAF and IN should be able to fire too, 3 each, but Su-30 MKI is expected to carry 5 of these. Also the other Brahmos A whose trials are going on and for using which Govt did approve the upgrade package for the 40 Su-30 MKI, that missile is simply too big for the small Rafale to carry. So, how you expect Dassault to put on Brahmos A on Rafale which is
too big for it. Maybe now you know why.
C. Further, IAF is the user (Air force of India) and if the user requires to put some weapons on a platform then the manufacturer of the platform should conform to it. But if the manufacturer refuses to conform based on their worries, maybe we are talking to the wrong manufacturers. And in this case the matter is simple and should be know to AVM, we start talking to Eurofighter consortium, and if they agree, we simply cancel the RFP, and go for an govt-govt discussion to procure Eurofighter and of course based on lower prices. This is not magic but pure economics and diplomacy working together for the interest of the nation. Or simply that he does not understand the diplomacy/economics of it? After all the AVM did say that Eurofighter and Rafale were both short listed by IAF and Rafale was selected only because it had lower overall cost, but if we can get one of the two short listed planes at much lower cost, IAF has no reason to object, or does IAF start to question its testing and trails?
D Does the air chief know that French airforce still use Mirage 2000 I believe they have 315 Mirage 2000 operational, and about 91 Rafales (he can check the nos) thus the french air force has Ratio of 3.46 Mirage 2000 for about 1 Rafale, the operational number is at least 3 : 1, which also relates to 3 single engine fighter planes to 1 twin engine, if India purchases Rafale, than what would be the ratio of Single engine planes to Twin engine, 270 Su-30 MKI + 50 MiG 29 + 126 Rafales, which is about 446 Twin engined planes, and the single engine plane will only be Mirage 2000 (48-49) and 40 Tejas as of now. Thus the Ratio will be anywhere between 1 : 9 OR 1/5 as case may be, rather in favour of twin engine planes. I did not add the Jaguar to the list of twin engine planes there. Did the Air Vice Marshal wonder why France which calls Rafale its premier plane still operates Mirage 2000 in more nos than its Rafale fleet? Maybe the AVM does know about flying, but not about the economics of doing it, after all IAF is being given Billions of dollars of money as per the budget. and for that the so called "arm chair experts" have a better insight.
Adding a note to AVM, Would it not better for French to just retire the older Mirage 2000 and go for more Rafales as a matter of fact the French govt itself is reducing the order to 4 planes a year. And that is one of the desperation which made the French govt loan money to Egypt to buy its plane.
E. The AVM does mention about Armchair experts, unfortunately for him, there are a lot more now and more keen to know what one of the service on whom the defence of the country rests on. On related note which I do wish to ask the AVM, why does IAF procure only Rs 50 crore of spares for its 200 plane Su-30 MKI fleet when the yearly requirement is Rs 3450 crore and then complaints the planes are grounded and the availability rate is less. AVM should know that each machine requires spares and the top plane in IAF which protects the Indian skies depends is critical requirements, so how does the AVM answer to the fact of not keeping required spares, does it not equal to sabotaging the national security, and that too by the very service that is supposed to keep by total incompetence? AVM should know that the spares are ordered by the Top brass and hence the incompetence charge is answerable by his peers, the top brass of IAF. How does AVM answer this charge? This charge is on record Sir. Further your peers have no shame to ask for budget of Rs 507 crores for 5 years for 75 pilatus planes, but has no shame or self respect when they just keep spares of Rs 50 crores for 200 Su-30 MKI. How does AVM answer to the armchair experts? Unfortunately for the AVM there is a lot of information available to understand and analyse and there are various sources if one keeps and openmind, but when someone is hell bent on just defending the comment of the peers based on what I could say for the lack of right word, Blind ego where the top brass feel that whatever decision they take should be accepted as the word of God, is not true. It has already come in public domain and on record where one of your peers ACM Browne had manipulated figures for ensuring that Pilatus wins, and now it has come to light, how does the people of the country trust the service that has such leaders who resort to manipulating numbers for their own selfish motives? I hope you have a case to justify this? maybe something like saying "means to reach an end?" Does it not look very similar to some rulers who for their petty titles supported the British and kept our nation a slave for about 200 years?
What does the AVM think of his peer the ACM NAK Browne manipulating nos in Pilatus (and possibly Rafale) being selected as L1, the matter of Pilatus is already in focus, and Rafale will be soon, what is his opionion about his peer? Give him PVC or Bharat Ratna? Let the AVM be free to express.
F. I do blame IAF top brass for the lack of vision, it is important rule that when you buy a weapon, you buy it to win the future war and not the present war. So how does procuring Rafale, a 4th gen plane and pitting them against 5th gen plane going to assure that Rafale wins? You think Rafale can, then on what basis?
The AVM did a nice interesting analysis and its true, we cannot fight China, with the existing nos of Su-30 MKI, how is so sure that Rafale will do well against the 5th Gen planes and also Su-35S? Surely at this point he is an arm chair expert like most. Further does AVM understand or know that numbers is a quality itself, and the war with China will be that of Attrition with the Chinese bringing in more numbers than the IAF can ever hope to put on and focus on two different ends of the country. You think IAF can defeat the PLAAF (the 5th gen, Su-35 Su-30 MKK and J-10 ) with Rafale? Does the AVM with his infinite widsom does not know that IAF cannot win the war of attrition with PLAAF? Not with Su-30 MKI or with Rafale. War of attition can be won with numbers and that would be Tejas. Where the role given to them would be that of Air interception thus these planes fight within their strengths. Does the armchair expert need to tell the AVM that one should decide which battles to fight and when to fight? Strategies are important. Let me remind the AVM of an example of battle of Thermoplaye where the few hundred strong Persian army was stopped dead in its tracks by few thousand hoplites who just held the critical point. Let me point out to AVM, if we fight PLAAF the way they want to, we shall lose, and history has shown that in abundance, but if we fight to our strengths, we can surely pull off in the war of attrition with China, and we can do that well without Rafale as distraction. Further Rafale is not technologically superior to Su-35 or Su-30 or J-20 at best its competitive, but at the same time the cost is exhorbitant. Thus in a way, Rafale by its quality will not be able to be victorious over 2 Su-35 simulatanously, and at its cost it is not going to be cheap to add an important quality that wins war of attrition called NUMBERS. I do not think the AVM needs to be adviced about Strategies, but believe me there are lot of arm chair experts who think more about them and consider different scenarios than the AVM.
G. Does the AVM know the cost of 1 Rafale is going to be roughly US$ 175 million a plane based on number given by RM does the AVM have the economics of it? Further the AVM talked about Rafale having smaller wings and that Su-30 MKI has bigger wing and so Rafale can fit in present blast pens but Su-30 MKI will need a new one. My question is that IAF has been using Su-30 for more than 15 years, why did they not build good blast pens for Su-30 MKI? What the hell were they waiting for? Is it not your
forces incompetence? Specially that of the top brass? Further does the AVM know how much it would need to build blast pens for 300 Su-30 MKI ? would be it more than US$ 9.45 billion? I dont think so, it would be less than US$ 200 million, the price of 1.15 Rafale, IT is strange that the AVM talks of saving US$ 200 million but does not mind spending US$ 20 billion on Rafale, lack of wisdom?
H. Questions have also been raised professional competence of the Price Negotiation Committees (PNC) as well as the top brass of IAF for that matter. IAF for the matter of lack of common sense. Firstly the RFP is so complex that there are chances of manipulations (which have reportedly been done by your peer)
I. The AVM does talk of how not procuring Rafale will doom the nation, but does not talk of topic of servicing and maintaining the plane which incidentally is also reponsibility of IAF. IAF is the only service where planes like Mirage 2000 and Su-30 have availability issues. Su-30 MKI is not junk, but THE INABILITY OF IAF TO UNDERSTAND THAT MAINTAINING AND SERVICING A PLANE IS AS IMPORTANT AS BUYING IT, has junked the plane. Most experts (from militaries around the world and armchair experts) have confided that Su-30 MKI is one of the best plane in the world, but when the question of its availability rate comes for which IAF is responsible, I am sure the AVM would have something to shed the light on, does he? Or does he not agree with my statement that "MAINTAINING AND SERVICING A PLANE IS AS IMPORTANT AS BUYING IT" if he does not agree then he might well explain why the availability rate of Mirage 2000 and Su-30 MKI is so low in IAF than other air forces and who is responsibile for this low availibility rate?
Being in service gives you some insight, but it does not make the AVM the wisest man around and if he thinks so then he is plain ignorant. Indians have faith in its armed forces, specially the soldiers and the fighting men, except in the top brass, as in many cases that have come to light recently who have been found to be indulging in kickbacks and setting up their retirement funds. There was an ex-army chief who was offering kickbacks for TATRA trucks, there was a Naval Admiral involved in some shady deals, and there is report of your peer involved in manipulations of figures. So in light of all the scams coming to light, and the timing of your article which does just rants about IAF being the need, but does not offer the real problem inside the IAF that has been making the service incompetent. When the Air Chief goes on record saying "there is no plan B" specially when the MoD is going through its decision, that is considered as going against the MoD in particular and Govt in general. The Services are financed by the Govt and are under the authority of the president (and hence the parliament), but if the Air Chief feels he cannot lead the air force if Govt of India rejects Rafale in some case and plans to induct Su-30 MKI and Tejas II then the air chief is free to forward his resignation letter suggesting that he does not want to be responsible for a force which is not as per his liking, he is at the liberty to do so at his own accord and make way for a leader who can understand the strength of his force, and develop tactics and strategies given the asset that he commands.
Footnote:
There could be some minor mistakes in some details, but rest of the main details and view, I stand by them till I feel there is need for correction.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/A-Rafale-Fable/2015/03/13/article2710276.ece
And the following is my view on that article.
This is a nice article, very much pro IAF (I cannot say pro Reality) a few days back when the article of Bharat Karnad came in there are people who questioned the timing (and I wonder too) but then even the timing of this article is interesting when MoD recently said that Rafale deal is in question as its too expensive.
A. Was the original requirement of IAF not for single engine plane to replace MiG-21? Why cant Tejas II replace the Mig-21 ? What is wrong with a single engine interceptor being replaced by single engined MRCA. Why has it suddenly become that IAF now needs another twin engined MRCA ? Which plane takes over the job or Air interception? why does the AVM think its not correct? IT is straight like for like replacement, the cost of buying, using, maintaining is much cheaper than that of Rafale so why is it not possible to replace it. AVM should know that the original requirement was to replace MiG-21 with numbers and not by debated MRCA.
B. When the AVM talks of Medium weight MRCA etc, it sounds little skiddish and immature, because these planes are going to be used on land, and the weight class is really not important unless it was a transport plane, for fighters what counts is Engines (nos and capability), the weapons it can carry and fuel it can carry) Surely the AVM does not wish to enrol IAF planes in some sparring competitions (which we do not know about) where there different weight classes in this? By the way one of his peers has been on record saying that in order to stop the entry of Su-35 (and planes of flanker family) hence the upper weight limit was decided, it was not decided that we need an Medium weight plane, After all the service is Air force which uses land based runaways and not carrier where the weight of planes is important, or has the AVM after his retirement lost his wisdom too?
Su-30 MKI having higher weight is an advantage in a way as it can carry fuel and yet carry weapons on its 12 pylons, Rafale meanwhile has to use 1-3 pylons to carry fuel tanks, thus there would be 11-13 pylons available, thus having more pylons is not really an advantage, but what Rafale has to sacrifice to be able to fly the range that Su-30 MKI can do using its internal fuel.
Su-30 MKI Range: 3,000 km (1,620 nmi)
Rafale Range : 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Thus what the AVM would notice that Su-30 MKI with its internal fuel alone, and 12 stations will be able to carry out the mission which the Rafale will need 3 extra fuel tanks installed and that limits it to 11 stations and most of these stations will not be able to carry Heavy A2G missiles
Thus for Su-30 MKI & Rafale
4 Light pylons : The wing tip pylon and the pylon next to it will be carrying primarily WVR Missiles.Thus 4 WVR A2A missiles.
4 heavy pylons : And of these pylons (2 centreline and two on inner wing) are qualified for heavy loads,
4- 6 remaining : qualified for medium loads (for Su-30 MKI)
Thus when people talk of the advantages of Rafale in Deep strike and Air superiority, it seems to be a myth at least on the payload levels. Because as explained above Rafale will have to have 3 drop tanks to go 3000 kms + thus thats 11 pylons available 4 light and rest medium. On other hand, Su-30 MKI will be having the Heavy, medium and light pylons available for weapons as suggested. Thus the actual warload for deep operations, Su-30 MKI has 1-3 more (2 more using MERs)
About the question of Brahmos, the AVM does not mention knowing there are 2 versions of Brahmos for IAF. Now, Dassault seems eager to offer to put Brahmos M (the mini version still under development) which even the MiG-29 and MiG-29K in service of IAF and IN should be able to fire too, 3 each, but Su-30 MKI is expected to carry 5 of these. Also the other Brahmos A whose trials are going on and for using which Govt did approve the upgrade package for the 40 Su-30 MKI, that missile is simply too big for the small Rafale to carry. So, how you expect Dassault to put on Brahmos A on Rafale which is
too big for it. Maybe now you know why.
C. Further, IAF is the user (Air force of India) and if the user requires to put some weapons on a platform then the manufacturer of the platform should conform to it. But if the manufacturer refuses to conform based on their worries, maybe we are talking to the wrong manufacturers. And in this case the matter is simple and should be know to AVM, we start talking to Eurofighter consortium, and if they agree, we simply cancel the RFP, and go for an govt-govt discussion to procure Eurofighter and of course based on lower prices. This is not magic but pure economics and diplomacy working together for the interest of the nation. Or simply that he does not understand the diplomacy/economics of it? After all the AVM did say that Eurofighter and Rafale were both short listed by IAF and Rafale was selected only because it had lower overall cost, but if we can get one of the two short listed planes at much lower cost, IAF has no reason to object, or does IAF start to question its testing and trails?
D Does the air chief know that French airforce still use Mirage 2000 I believe they have 315 Mirage 2000 operational, and about 91 Rafales (he can check the nos) thus the french air force has Ratio of 3.46 Mirage 2000 for about 1 Rafale, the operational number is at least 3 : 1, which also relates to 3 single engine fighter planes to 1 twin engine, if India purchases Rafale, than what would be the ratio of Single engine planes to Twin engine, 270 Su-30 MKI + 50 MiG 29 + 126 Rafales, which is about 446 Twin engined planes, and the single engine plane will only be Mirage 2000 (48-49) and 40 Tejas as of now. Thus the Ratio will be anywhere between 1 : 9 OR 1/5 as case may be, rather in favour of twin engine planes. I did not add the Jaguar to the list of twin engine planes there. Did the Air Vice Marshal wonder why France which calls Rafale its premier plane still operates Mirage 2000 in more nos than its Rafale fleet? Maybe the AVM does know about flying, but not about the economics of doing it, after all IAF is being given Billions of dollars of money as per the budget. and for that the so called "arm chair experts" have a better insight.
Adding a note to AVM, Would it not better for French to just retire the older Mirage 2000 and go for more Rafales as a matter of fact the French govt itself is reducing the order to 4 planes a year. And that is one of the desperation which made the French govt loan money to Egypt to buy its plane.
E. The AVM does mention about Armchair experts, unfortunately for him, there are a lot more now and more keen to know what one of the service on whom the defence of the country rests on. On related note which I do wish to ask the AVM, why does IAF procure only Rs 50 crore of spares for its 200 plane Su-30 MKI fleet when the yearly requirement is Rs 3450 crore and then complaints the planes are grounded and the availability rate is less. AVM should know that each machine requires spares and the top plane in IAF which protects the Indian skies depends is critical requirements, so how does the AVM answer to the fact of not keeping required spares, does it not equal to sabotaging the national security, and that too by the very service that is supposed to keep by total incompetence? AVM should know that the spares are ordered by the Top brass and hence the incompetence charge is answerable by his peers, the top brass of IAF. How does AVM answer this charge? This charge is on record Sir. Further your peers have no shame to ask for budget of Rs 507 crores for 5 years for 75 pilatus planes, but has no shame or self respect when they just keep spares of Rs 50 crores for 200 Su-30 MKI. How does AVM answer to the armchair experts? Unfortunately for the AVM there is a lot of information available to understand and analyse and there are various sources if one keeps and openmind, but when someone is hell bent on just defending the comment of the peers based on what I could say for the lack of right word, Blind ego where the top brass feel that whatever decision they take should be accepted as the word of God, is not true. It has already come in public domain and on record where one of your peers ACM Browne had manipulated figures for ensuring that Pilatus wins, and now it has come to light, how does the people of the country trust the service that has such leaders who resort to manipulating numbers for their own selfish motives? I hope you have a case to justify this? maybe something like saying "means to reach an end?" Does it not look very similar to some rulers who for their petty titles supported the British and kept our nation a slave for about 200 years?
What does the AVM think of his peer the ACM NAK Browne manipulating nos in Pilatus (and possibly Rafale) being selected as L1, the matter of Pilatus is already in focus, and Rafale will be soon, what is his opionion about his peer? Give him PVC or Bharat Ratna? Let the AVM be free to express.
F. I do blame IAF top brass for the lack of vision, it is important rule that when you buy a weapon, you buy it to win the future war and not the present war. So how does procuring Rafale, a 4th gen plane and pitting them against 5th gen plane going to assure that Rafale wins? You think Rafale can, then on what basis?
The AVM did a nice interesting analysis and its true, we cannot fight China, with the existing nos of Su-30 MKI, how is so sure that Rafale will do well against the 5th Gen planes and also Su-35S? Surely at this point he is an arm chair expert like most. Further does AVM understand or know that numbers is a quality itself, and the war with China will be that of Attrition with the Chinese bringing in more numbers than the IAF can ever hope to put on and focus on two different ends of the country. You think IAF can defeat the PLAAF (the 5th gen, Su-35 Su-30 MKK and J-10 ) with Rafale? Does the AVM with his infinite widsom does not know that IAF cannot win the war of attrition with PLAAF? Not with Su-30 MKI or with Rafale. War of attition can be won with numbers and that would be Tejas. Where the role given to them would be that of Air interception thus these planes fight within their strengths. Does the armchair expert need to tell the AVM that one should decide which battles to fight and when to fight? Strategies are important. Let me remind the AVM of an example of battle of Thermoplaye where the few hundred strong Persian army was stopped dead in its tracks by few thousand hoplites who just held the critical point. Let me point out to AVM, if we fight PLAAF the way they want to, we shall lose, and history has shown that in abundance, but if we fight to our strengths, we can surely pull off in the war of attrition with China, and we can do that well without Rafale as distraction. Further Rafale is not technologically superior to Su-35 or Su-30 or J-20 at best its competitive, but at the same time the cost is exhorbitant. Thus in a way, Rafale by its quality will not be able to be victorious over 2 Su-35 simulatanously, and at its cost it is not going to be cheap to add an important quality that wins war of attrition called NUMBERS. I do not think the AVM needs to be adviced about Strategies, but believe me there are lot of arm chair experts who think more about them and consider different scenarios than the AVM.
G. Does the AVM know the cost of 1 Rafale is going to be roughly US$ 175 million a plane based on number given by RM does the AVM have the economics of it? Further the AVM talked about Rafale having smaller wings and that Su-30 MKI has bigger wing and so Rafale can fit in present blast pens but Su-30 MKI will need a new one. My question is that IAF has been using Su-30 for more than 15 years, why did they not build good blast pens for Su-30 MKI? What the hell were they waiting for? Is it not your
forces incompetence? Specially that of the top brass? Further does the AVM know how much it would need to build blast pens for 300 Su-30 MKI ? would be it more than US$ 9.45 billion? I dont think so, it would be less than US$ 200 million, the price of 1.15 Rafale, IT is strange that the AVM talks of saving US$ 200 million but does not mind spending US$ 20 billion on Rafale, lack of wisdom?
H. Questions have also been raised professional competence of the Price Negotiation Committees (PNC) as well as the top brass of IAF for that matter. IAF for the matter of lack of common sense. Firstly the RFP is so complex that there are chances of manipulations (which have reportedly been done by your peer)
I. The AVM does talk of how not procuring Rafale will doom the nation, but does not talk of topic of servicing and maintaining the plane which incidentally is also reponsibility of IAF. IAF is the only service where planes like Mirage 2000 and Su-30 have availability issues. Su-30 MKI is not junk, but THE INABILITY OF IAF TO UNDERSTAND THAT MAINTAINING AND SERVICING A PLANE IS AS IMPORTANT AS BUYING IT, has junked the plane. Most experts (from militaries around the world and armchair experts) have confided that Su-30 MKI is one of the best plane in the world, but when the question of its availability rate comes for which IAF is responsible, I am sure the AVM would have something to shed the light on, does he? Or does he not agree with my statement that "MAINTAINING AND SERVICING A PLANE IS AS IMPORTANT AS BUYING IT" if he does not agree then he might well explain why the availability rate of Mirage 2000 and Su-30 MKI is so low in IAF than other air forces and who is responsibile for this low availibility rate?
Being in service gives you some insight, but it does not make the AVM the wisest man around and if he thinks so then he is plain ignorant. Indians have faith in its armed forces, specially the soldiers and the fighting men, except in the top brass, as in many cases that have come to light recently who have been found to be indulging in kickbacks and setting up their retirement funds. There was an ex-army chief who was offering kickbacks for TATRA trucks, there was a Naval Admiral involved in some shady deals, and there is report of your peer involved in manipulations of figures. So in light of all the scams coming to light, and the timing of your article which does just rants about IAF being the need, but does not offer the real problem inside the IAF that has been making the service incompetent. When the Air Chief goes on record saying "there is no plan B" specially when the MoD is going through its decision, that is considered as going against the MoD in particular and Govt in general. The Services are financed by the Govt and are under the authority of the president (and hence the parliament), but if the Air Chief feels he cannot lead the air force if Govt of India rejects Rafale in some case and plans to induct Su-30 MKI and Tejas II then the air chief is free to forward his resignation letter suggesting that he does not want to be responsible for a force which is not as per his liking, he is at the liberty to do so at his own accord and make way for a leader who can understand the strength of his force, and develop tactics and strategies given the asset that he commands.
Footnote:
There could be some minor mistakes in some details, but rest of the main details and view, I stand by them till I feel there is need for correction.
Last edited:
PaliwalWarrior
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 844
- Likes
- 319
well most of the mebers and people did not dwell upon some recent news & its import
the News first
IAF to come out with its own vision & concept for stand off strike weapons
i think some member had posted a thread here on this forum in last week timeframe
now the Importance of this news
this news items shows that IAFs thinking is shifting from sending aircrafts close in to strike ground targets. But since the operational requirements for such roles will be there so they are thinking towards moving to stnad off precision weapons to fulfill the requirements
now what the stand off strike weapons usage will mean is
there will be lesser risk to weapon launch aircraft
there can be relaxed SQR for aircraft in these roles than those current SQR
means that the low level penetration & superb close ground strike requirements may not be there at all in the future because the aircraft will be launching stand off precision weapons ( such as recently developed glide bomb ) which may need to be released from altitude
if this is the direction that IAF thinking is taking than
most of the points which are being touted in favour of rafale
- better ground strik ability
- better low ground bombing - low altitude handling
- low level penetration abilitiy
and which is being pointed out that such abilities are not present in other comparable aircraft to the degree that it is available in Rafale -
may not be Necesary in the new battle / weapons concept to which IAF is moving
so even LCA Tejas etc will become as much effective in ground strike roles using standoff weapons
the News first
IAF to come out with its own vision & concept for stand off strike weapons
i think some member had posted a thread here on this forum in last week timeframe
now the Importance of this news
this news items shows that IAFs thinking is shifting from sending aircrafts close in to strike ground targets. But since the operational requirements for such roles will be there so they are thinking towards moving to stnad off precision weapons to fulfill the requirements
now what the stand off strike weapons usage will mean is
there will be lesser risk to weapon launch aircraft
there can be relaxed SQR for aircraft in these roles than those current SQR
means that the low level penetration & superb close ground strike requirements may not be there at all in the future because the aircraft will be launching stand off precision weapons ( such as recently developed glide bomb ) which may need to be released from altitude
if this is the direction that IAF thinking is taking than
most of the points which are being touted in favour of rafale
- better ground strik ability
- better low ground bombing - low altitude handling
- low level penetration abilitiy
and which is being pointed out that such abilities are not present in other comparable aircraft to the degree that it is available in Rafale -
may not be Necesary in the new battle / weapons concept to which IAF is moving
so even LCA Tejas etc will become as much effective in ground strike roles using standoff weapons
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
To write to the Indian express editor, I need to structure it well so that it is point by point reply, as I said that I was in a hurry to reply and hence this unstructured reply where you might see few points mixed,
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
A weapon that can allow you to have a clear edge over your enemy is a good weapon.
Few examples are:-
Philip (Father of Alexander the great) came up with concept of Sarissa (15 to 21 ft long spears) that helped them to make their Phalanx more dangerous and offensive.
The mongols had their composite bow and the horseback archers which were the shock troops of their time,
The Ottomans with their cannon for the seige of Constantinople these were weapons that gave edge to their users, and yes these users created a doctrine which these armies took advantage of and cause a paralysis to the thinking of their enemy. These weapons were supreme till the the opponents found out ways to counter them.
It was sometime ago that I did say on this forum that CAS is thing of the past, we should stop thinking CAS on the lines of Stukas and A-10s. Guns are not accurate and do not offer the colateral damage as an accurate bomb. Thus A-10 designed around the GAU-8 was only to break the morale of "facing a gun that can destroy a tank" but if you seen the video, there were lot of misses of the shells fired at least by 50%. Also to fire the gun, one has to line up with the target making the path predictable, and hence easy to be intercepted even by AA gun, Specially if its not the first run. The Glide bomb on other hand is weapon of the presend and future where the ground based operatives advise the position of the targets (and can even light up the target with LASER) then the bomb guides itself autonomously towards the target, just by making some cheap modifications (by adding the gliding kit and sensors) a dumb bomb can be converted to a smart weapon that can be fired from Stand off range hence removing the platform from any sort of risk, thus giving better results.
Imagine a plane like Tejas having LITENING POD, 5 X Tri/Quad Glide bombs, and 2 A2A missiles like python that can overwhelm enemy positions with 15-20 Glide bombs, it would be in a way the single engined MRCA we were looking for.
CAS is a misunderstood meaning, the term "Close" in CAS earlier during second world war and post second world war meant that the plane had to fly close to positions and risk being hit at the cost of delivering its load most accurately, the more the height you fly, the less accurate they are. But the "Close" more accurately means how accurately a flying asset can deliver the strike package with as low CEP as possible. Why would TEJAS not be deemed as CEP though even if it flies at height of 30,000 feet be able to aim and hit targets with CEP of less than 5 metres? Would it not be CAS? I do not see the logic in planes flying low to deliver their weapons and risk being destroyed. Further the lower you fly, the less chances of correcting as the time from release to impact is less but when its lauched from height and distance, accuracy can be achieved with proper course corrections.
The most important is achieving air superiority / air dominance, the moment you achieve it, even piston engined HTT-40 with few Glide bombs can comply with CAS or strike that too from stand off range and this is an ACHIEVEMENT.
It is good that IAF are coming up with their own glide bombs, but isnt DRDO doing the same already? If I am not mistaken then last December 2014, DRDO tested a 1000 kg glide bomb. We are already having a glide bomb with Range of 9kms called Sudarshan. So this IAF initivative though commendable, is still repitition of work. What are the intentions of IAF? To produce it themselves, or to give the design and follow on order to Private companies? Does it have the mandate of the MoD for doing so?
PaliwalWarrior
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 844
- Likes
- 319
well IAF is not coming up with thier own glide bombs
IAF is coming out with thier vision for use of STANDOFF WEAPONS
since India tested its own glidebomb last december i used it as an example for standoff weapons
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
You please check the photos of Aero India 2015, there was IAF stall and they had a glide bomb with was developed by people of IAF and it had a Kevlar skin,
This is the one I am talking about http://i.imgur.com/rqHrJGk.jpg
Also this http://i.imgur.com/rMTYsBI.jpg?1
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
There is a saying in tamil that goes like "a wise man's lies can stand for eight days at the most."
this is not the first time man mohan bahadur is doing,
MMRCA Misgivings Unfounded - The New Indian Express
Once Man Mohan bahadur said that tejas has less than a third of Rafale's range meaning tejas may be having a range between a third or fourth of rafale.
now he says that rafale has three times the range of SU-30 MKI!!!
Does that mean Su-30 MKI and tejas has the same range.
Does he mean that Su-30 MKI and tejas has more or less the same range?
it beats me how an ex -IAF guy can make such dubious statement.
Statements like these obviously expose the scam that MMRCA deal is . No prize for guessing each of the mega deal in UPA regime was a mega scam. And this one wont be any different.
MMRCA was a straight 126 Mirage-2000 buy. Now we have tejas mk1 which beats mirage-2000 in many key respects according to NTSE chief Riaz khokhar.So there is no need for MMRCA. Especially 4.5th gen heavy component is filled to the brim by Su-30 MKI and with 5th gen FGFA about to arrive.
if objective is mig, jag replacement tejas mk1 and mk2 can more than easily ful fill the need.
So you can always see that most of the rafale backers are always hell bent on discrediting tejas or su-30 MKI routinely , because truth hurts.
With tejas production line and su-30 MKi production line already established there is no need for rafale n IAF.
I have asked this question again and again, here in this forum and in comments section of,
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/MMRCA-Misgivings-Unfounded/2014/08/02/article2359756.ece
Till date no one has answered.
I have once again raised this question in the latest piece by bahadur Saab,
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/A-Rafale-Fable/2015/03/13/article2710276.ece
What is rafale's range in indian hot climate with its full MTOW with fair mix of fuel and weapons?
Why are people intently confusing ferry range with combat radius? What is the motivation behind this motivated campaign to repeat such obvious lies?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
Nothing wrong in publishing both the views,
but what is wrong is the newspaper never thinks it is worth their while to commission an independent Aviation expert to give a balance view.
may be they don't want to kill the goose that lays a golden egg every month!!!
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
And I was waiting for my order of Tandoori !!!
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
You know the motivation, of course post Retirement earnings.
Based on what the ex AVM says, I start to believe that the pilots in IAF are good, but the moment they start to fly desks, thats when they change their loyalties. It is known fact that Su-30 MKI with its internal fuel alone can fly the range that Rafale has to do with 3 drop tanks.
Thus as I said, Su-30 MKI wtill will be with 12 weapons on stations and 11 if its Brahmos A, where as Rafale will be with 11 and no heavy pylon.
The more the "service experts" give their comments, more lies we can see. but the best part is that they show off their rank as something of a credential, but then claim something of a fantasy and expect people to believe. Very similar to Manmohan singh claiming there were no scams at all. After a while people started to realize that he is lying. the AVM has other interests and which in a way seem to support/fund him for his Valuable comments. What the AVM fails to realize is that information is available thanks to internet, and he is surely not the wisest.
Khagesh
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,274
- Likes
- 870
I have a relation in an Army family. A Lt. Col. relative in the IA has told me something about how the whole thing works. He categorizes himself as an average to above average and he does not expect to go very high up the ladder. I personally think he can go somewhat higher because he is full time dedicated to his job. Not even planning for an early exit. And he is still quite young.
I am forming the opinion, that certain kinds of people even in the armed forces just slither their way into the lucrative positions. Then politicos and retired personnel cum agents notice them and force things to work to the favour of these younger people.
smestarz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,929
- Likes
- 1,056
It is very much there in Indian armed forces, as you might know Army is supposed to be one of the underpaid services and that is why they want the ONE RANK ONE PAY scheme to be implemented, but you would be surprised that almost 70% of the Top brass (brigadier level and up) have their own Kothis in few of the posh locations. Their children are studying in foreign countries and they spend lavishly on parties.
Being in armed forces one does have to quickly mend relations with politicians. For example a purchase of a product, the Armed forces will sign it as requirement (like Rafale) and then the politicians sign the deal, both of them are paid in some ratio) the former Defence Minister AK Anthony has a letter from ex-ACM Browne saying that Pilatus is cheaper and will be cheaper to buy and operate, but as it seems the case its otherwise, Pilatus is both expensive to buy and to maintain. Based on this I can say
a) The top brass are incompetent to do their jobs, and for giving the top positions there should be some exams to know the ability and skills.
b) the Top brass are willing to lie even at the cost of compromising the national security which goes by the rules and in doing so lines their pockets.
The lower soldiers and the officers till battalion and regiment commanders have a sense of patriotism, but the moment they get fully behind the desk, they start to find ways to count money.
Last edited:
Lions Of Punjab
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 652
- Likes
- 926
Parrikar Puts his Foot Down, No Compromise on Rafale Deal
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has conveyed to the French government and defence equipment manufacturer Dassault that conditions on the price and RFP (request for proposal) of the purchase of Rafale multi-medium role combat aircraft were non-negotiable.
In riposte to a question on the long-delayed deal with the French firm for 126 fighter jets — often called the mother of all deals — Parrikar on Tuesday said, "We have conveyed our stand to them (France) very clearly. Simultaneously, they have to tell us whether they can do it or not. We can't keep on waiting."
Parrikar's French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian had visited India last month to attend a meeting with delegates from both sides, including top executives from Dassault, in a last ditch effort to save the deal. However, little progress has been made so far. Earlier, Parrikar had said if the on-going deadlock continued, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would strengthen the existing Su-30Mki fleet to meet the IAF's requirements.
Citing cost escalation, Dassault has refused to take 'full responsibility' of the 108 fighters to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) as per the original tender.
Sources within the MoD privy to the development said the cost of the project had shot up to over $20 billion from the initial $ 12 billion, when the tender was floated in 2007.
The cost negotiation committee set up to finalise the modalities of the deal in February, 2012, has not reached a consensus so far.
Parrikar Puts his Foot Down, No Compromise on Rafale Deal | idrw.org
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has conveyed to the French government and defence equipment manufacturer Dassault that conditions on the price and RFP (request for proposal) of the purchase of Rafale multi-medium role combat aircraft were non-negotiable.
In riposte to a question on the long-delayed deal with the French firm for 126 fighter jets — often called the mother of all deals — Parrikar on Tuesday said, "We have conveyed our stand to them (France) very clearly. Simultaneously, they have to tell us whether they can do it or not. We can't keep on waiting."
Parrikar's French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian had visited India last month to attend a meeting with delegates from both sides, including top executives from Dassault, in a last ditch effort to save the deal. However, little progress has been made so far. Earlier, Parrikar had said if the on-going deadlock continued, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would strengthen the existing Su-30Mki fleet to meet the IAF's requirements.
Citing cost escalation, Dassault has refused to take 'full responsibility' of the 108 fighters to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) as per the original tender.
Sources within the MoD privy to the development said the cost of the project had shot up to over $20 billion from the initial $ 12 billion, when the tender was floated in 2007.
The cost negotiation committee set up to finalise the modalities of the deal in February, 2012, has not reached a consensus so far.
Parrikar Puts his Foot Down, No Compromise on Rafale Deal | idrw.org
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rafale in Croatian Air Force | Military Aviation | 10 | |
| W | Rafale and F 18 super hornet shortlisted by Indian navy | Indian Navy | 21 | |
|
Indian Navy more likely to select F 18 than rafales | Indian Navy | 164 | |
|
|
Greek Rafale vs Turkish EF 2000 Who has the Technolocal Edge | Military Aviation | 5 |
