Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

Parrikar said that it was India's fault, not Dassault's fault.

=>

In December 2014, the French Defence Minister came visiting and as expected raised the issue of conclusion of contract negotiations in the MMRCA case with Parrikar who told him that conclusion of the contract was held up on account of the vendor not confirming compliance to the terms of the RFP. This was followed up by a formal letter from Parrikar to the French Defence Minister stating that it would be really useful for Dassault Aviation to confirm compliance to the terms of the RFP and the terms of the bid submitted by them at the earliest.

The single vendor situation is never the question here. Dassault was selected over 7 years back.

The deal for 36 fighters was made in 2015 and against the DPP rules, which makes it an unavoidable question after DM Sitharaman confirmed EFs compliance.

 

[BON PLAN]

I want France to push harder for Rafale deal with India and including technology transfer also delivering 36 rafales before 36 months. Did France started building Indian Rafales.

The MII is on track with the Dassault Reliance agrement.
It is said that every new order (even less than 90) will be made (50% ? 99% ?) in india. The content of Indian components will depend of the Qty ordered, like Su30 I think.
Some components will remain totally sourced by France I think, like engines blades or some electronic VHF cards. Even some forging parts (ie under carriage) need very specialised tools and machines and it will be uneconomic to dupplicate these. But if Indian is ready to pay the price for that....

 

[BON PLAN]

That's common sense! A larger radar diameter provides more performance, that's why a 13 years old larger BARS PESA, offers as much range as a 5 year old smaller RBE 2 AESA.
Captor M had superior detection range than RBE 2 PESA and the same advantage will be visible again with Captor E and around 1400 TR modules as well. Btw, the radar is flying since 2016.

Radar was never an advantage of the Rafale, since Dassault / Thales designed it with a smaller nose diameter in favour for a fully integrated FSO and SPECTRA passive detection. That's why IRST and GaN SPECTRA upgrades would had been more important for Rafale to maintain it's edge, than repeating to have the first AESA in Europe.

1400 T/R ? any source ?

T/R quantity is one thing.
The overall power another (first gen RBE2AESA, with US T/R, worked from 9 to 14.4 Kw. ie the actual RBE2AESA with European T/R can run with higher power than today's one)
The software quality a third.
The treatment chain quality, back the T/R, another.

If all is equal, a greater antenna is most potent than a smaller one.
But all is not equal, and Thales has 20 years of airborne AESA behind it. Unchallenged experience in west europe....

 

[BON PLAN]

The deal for 36 fighters was made in 2015 and against the DPP rules, which makes it an unavoidable question after DM Sitharaman confirmed EFs compliance.

A deal with the L1. It's not a detail.
And before beiing the L1, it was among the two technically shortlisted.
It would have been another history if Modi have clinched a deal for a plane other than EF or Rafale.

 

[Kshithij]

=>



The deal for 36 fighters was made in 2015 and against the DPP rules, which makes it an unavoidable question after DM Sitharaman confirmed EFs compliance.

This was a reaction to the breaking of vigilance rules of previous government. As per the rules, it is incorrect to negotiate with anyone other than lowest bidder. But, the previous MoD added another condition after tender to include assembly in HAL which was charged at 3 times the cost of Dassault, thereby making the deal more expensive. SO, this was Indian mistake. To compensate the wasted time, a quick decision was taken. This has been explained by Parrikar.

 

[Sancho]

1400 T/R ? any source ?

You should do your homework before talking about things:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/eurofighter-ef-2000-typhoon.76395/page-4#post-1386627

If all is equal, a greater antenna is most potent than a smaller one.

Finally! Size matters, experience or radar modes can't counter that.

A deal with the L1. It's not a detail.

Lol, there was no L1 or L2 in the deal for 36 fighters, because it was a single vendor deal. So you just pointed out the problem, that makes the deal looks shady, unless the PM comes up with a proper explanation.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

You should do your homework before talking about things:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/eurofighter-ef-2000-typhoon.76395/page-4#post-1386627


Finally! Size matters, experience or radar modes can't counter that.



Lol, there was no L1 or L2 in the deal for 36 fighters, because it was a single vendor deal. So you just pointed out the problem, that makes the deal looks shady, unless the PM comes up with a proper explanation.

Firstly it was a Govt. to Govt. deal which means no middleman involved. With no lobby involved the chances of corruption go significantly down. Also the costing is inclusive of maintenance contracts, localisation, upgrades and adaptability to indian missiles.

Secondly you are dealing with an OEM that is actively pursuing upgrades and modifications to the existing French fleet as well as gaining new users. By comparison all Eurofighter Typhoon users are buying F 35s because the fighter will not be survivable against newer emerging threats like the S 400 and upcoming S 500 with widespread proliferation.

Third on 5 April 2016, Kuwait signed a contract with Leonardo valued at €7.957 billion (US $9.062 billion) for the supply of the 28 aircraft, all to third tranche standard. Qatar bought 24 Eurofighters for
£6bn or $7bn to $8bn on 10th of this month. In September last year, India and France concluded a €7.87-billion government-to-government deal for 36 Rafale jets in flyaway condition scheduled to be delivered between 2019 and 2022.

The deal has a 50% offset clause to be executed by Dassault and its partners in India amounting up to ₹30,000 crore. If you believe that the original $12 billion price tag for 126 MMRCA will be available you are stupid as the prices were evaluated around 2005 levels!

Fourth Rafale was built with SPECTRA and FSO that will be crucial for survival in a contested zone. The AESA is around 1000+ T/R which compares favourably to Gripen E and even Captor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_11.pdf

Fifth I love the butthurt involved with the failed MSM gaslighting around a wire article which assumes secrecy for corruption. The mentality of the libtards is clearly reflected.

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/has-india-paid-more-for-the-rafales/20171201.htm

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Firstly it was a Govt. to Govt. deal which means no middleman involved. With no lobby involved the chances of corruption go significantly down. Also the costing is inclusive of maintenance contracts, localisation, upgrades and adaptability to indian missiles.

Secondly you are dealing with an OEM that is actively pursuing upgrades and modifications to the existing French fleet as well as gaining new users. By comparison all Eurofighter Typhoon users are buying F 35s because the fighter will not be survivable against newer emerging threats like the S 400 and upcoming S 500 with widespread proliferation.

Third on 5 April 2016, Kuwait signed a contract with Leonardo valued at €7.957 billion (US $9.062 billion) for the supply of the 28 aircraft, all to third tranche standard. Qatar bought 24 Eurofighters for
£6bn or $7bn to $8bn on 10th of this month. In September last year, India and France concluded a €7.87-billion government-to-government deal for 36 Rafale jets in flyaway condition scheduled to be delivered between 2019 and 2022.

The deal has a 50% offset clause to be executed by Dassault and its partners in India amounting up to ₹30,000 crore. If you believe that the original $12 billion price tag for 126 MMRCA will be available you are stupid as the prices were evaluated around 2005 levels!

Fourth Rafale was built with SPECTRA and FSO that will be crucial for survival in a contested zone. The AESA is around 1000+ T/R which compares favourably to Gripen E and even Captor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_11.pdf

Fifth I love the butthurt involved with the failed MSM gaslighting around a wire article which assumes secrecy for corruption. The mentality of the libtards is clearly reflected.

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/has-india-paid-more-for-the-rafales/20171201.htm

Additional sourcing.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...crore-in-rafale-deal/articleshow/61760997.cms

 

[Kshithij]

Firstly it was a Govt. to Govt. deal which means no middleman involved. With no lobby involved the chances of corruption go significantly down. Also the costing is inclusive of maintenance contracts, localisation, upgrades and adaptability to indian missiles.

Secondly you are dealing with an OEM that is actively pursuing upgrades and modifications to the existing French fleet as well as gaining new users. By comparison all Eurofighter Typhoon users are buying F 35s because the fighter will not be survivable against newer emerging threats like the S 400 and upcoming S 500 with widespread proliferation.

Third on 5 April 2016, Kuwait signed a contract with Leonardo valued at €7.957 billion (US $9.062 billion) for the supply of the 28 aircraft, all to third tranche standard. Qatar bought 24 Eurofighters for
£6bn or $7bn to $8bn on 10th of this month. In September last year, India and France concluded a €7.87-billion government-to-government deal for 36 Rafale jets in flyaway condition scheduled to be delivered between 2019 and 2022.

The deal has a 50% offset clause to be executed by Dassault and its partners in India amounting up to ₹30,000 crore. If you believe that the original $12 billion price tag for 126 MMRCA will be available you are stupid as the prices were evaluated around 2005 levels!

Fourth Rafale was built with SPECTRA and FSO that will be crucial for survival in a contested zone. The AESA is around 1000+ T/R which compares favourably to Gripen E and even Captor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_11.pdf

Fifth I love the butthurt involved with the failed MSM gaslighting around a wire article which assumes secrecy for corruption. The mentality of the libtards is clearly reflected.

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/has-india-paid-more-for-the-rafales/20171201.htm

But, why secrecy? Why not tell the content of the deal? I have no problem with accepting Rafale as the lowest bidder as it was chosen by previous govt. Previous govt delayed unnecessarily and caused problems.

But, why not speak about the actual terms and conditions? Why purchase infrastructure of 72 planes? Why Su30 was rejected?

 

[Compersion]

hows relations going with france and russia these days.

 

[Sancho]

Firstly it was a Govt...

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

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

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

 

[Sancho]

Why Su30 was rejected?

Because it's not medium class, we already have enough of them according to IAF and adding more, would only add capabilities IAF already has, so no operational, nor industrial benefits.

 

[Kshithij]

Because it's not medium class, we already have enough of them according to IAF and adding more, would only add capabilities IAF already has, so no operational, nor industrial benefits.

Rafale has lower capability than Su30. And, if there is little ToT, there is no meaning in saying it will help industry. It will actually drain Indian money and trouble industry

 

[Sancho]

Rafale has lower capability than Su30. And, if there is little ToT, there is no meaning in saying it will help industry. It will actually drain Indian money and trouble industry

Getting Meteor into IAF alone will be a major improvement for the defence of the country against China, or a 2 front war, which the MKI can't provide. But then again, just 36 Rafales with Meteor makes no difference either.
And even if the Rafale offset return is a poor one, at least we got the Kaveri consultancy, which more MKIs couldn't had provided either.

The upgraded MKI can be a great fighter, if we focus on the right capabilities, but just keep adding more doesn't make you stronger. We did that with the Jags and kept producing more, just because we had the production line, but today they hardly have operational value for IAF.
Not to mention that operation costs and maintainability of any MMRCA should be more favourable that MKIs as well.

So there were plenty of reason to go for MMRCA, but none to go for just 36 in a bad single vendor deal.

 

[Kshithij]

Getting Meteor into IAF alone will be a major improvement for the defence of the country against China, or a 2 front war, which the MKI can't provide. But then again, just 36 Rafales with Meteor makes no difference either.
And even if the Rafale offset return is a poor one, at least we got the Kaveri consultancy, which more MKIs couldn't had provided either.

The upgraded MKI can be a great fighter, if we focus on the right capabilities, but just keep adding more doesn't make you stronger. We did that with the Jags and kept producing more, just because we had the production line, but today they hardly have operational value for IAF.
Not to mention that operation costs and maintainability of any MMRCA should be more favourable that MKIs as well.

So there were plenty of reason to go for MMRCA, but none to go for just 36 in a bad single vendor deal.

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

MKI is both air superiority as well as ground attack plane. It has fuel storage of 9 tons and 11 ton payload. It can travel all the way to Iran and come back with internal fuel and hence doesn't consume hardpoints for fuel tanks. The Super Su upgrade is not necessary. Even without that, it still is a fantastic plane.

The maintenance for Su30 is cheaper as it is a cheaper plane. Its parts are also cheap and mostly made in India. Only fuel cost is high.

 

[Adioz]

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

MKI is both air superiority as well as ground attack plane. It has fuel storage of 9 tons and 11 ton payload. It can travel all the way to Iran and come back with internal fuel and hence doesn't consume hardpoints for fuel tanks. The Super Su upgrade is not necessary. Even without that, it still is a fantastic plane.

The maintenance for Su30 is cheaper as it is a cheaper plane. Its parts are also cheap and mostly made in India. Only fuel cost is high.

What about sortie rate? Rafael, with its modular construction, can provide 2X sortie rate of Su-30MKI. This is especially important if you consider low number of airbases in Eastern Air Command.
And off-topic, but the Super Su-30MKI is needed. We need planes to stay current, not wait for them to start becoming obsolete before we start thinking about upgrades. Upgrades allow an upgradation in tactics, and upgradation in tactics and subsequent dissemination of new tactics takes time.

 

[Kshithij]

What about sortie rate? Rafael, with its modular construction, can provide 2X sortie rate of Su-30MKI. This is especially important if you consider low number of airbases in Eastern Air Command.
And off-topic, but the Super Su-30MKI is needed. We need planes to stay current, not wait for them to start becoming obsolete before we start thinking about upgrades. Upgrades allow an upgradation in tactics, and upgradation in tactics and subsequent dissemination of new tactics takes time.

Su30 is current enough. There is no need for extra engine. Radar improvement may be welcome, but engine is unnecessary. Moreover, the cost is too heavy that it is better to buy new Super Su30 directly instead of upgrade.

Rafale may have higher sortie rate, but Su30 is much cheaper. IT costs only 35 million in forex. So, numbers can be increased. Airbases is not an issue. We can always make another base from a barren land.

 

[Adioz]

Su30 is current enough. There is no need for extra engine. Radar improvement may be welcome, but engine is unnecessary. Moreover, the cost is too heavy that it is better to buy new Super Su30 directly instead of upgrade.

Rafale may have higher sortie rate, but Su30 is much cheaper. IT costs only 35 million in forex. So, numbers can be increased. Airbases is not an issue. We can always make another base from a barren land.

Airbases are an issue. Airbases are not just barren land, that is an Advanced Landing Ground. You need to spend on maintenance infra, SR-SAM for airbase protection, other airfield hardening measures like Hardened Aircraft Shelters and dispersal (which requires more land). Then you need Garuds for airfield security, and you need 2X the maintenance personnel. Then you need to set up an Air Station for the families, all the facilities for them. Now coming to the most expensive and valuable resource: you need 4X the pilots.

How you reach the conclusion that engine upgrade is unnecessary is beyond me. A fighter is built around its engine.

 

[Kshithij]

Airbases are an issue. Airbases are not just barren land, that is an Advanced Landing Ground. You need to spend on maintenance infra, SR-SAM for airbase protection, other airfield hardening measures like Hardened Aircraft Shelters and dispersal (which requires more land). Then you need Garuds for airfield security, and you need 2X the maintenance personnel. Then you need to set up an Air Station for the families, all the facilities for them. Now coming to the most expensive and valuable resource: you need 4X the pilots.

How you reach the conclusion that engine upgrade is unnecessary is beyond me. A fighter is built around its engine.

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

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

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

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

 

[Adioz]

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

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

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

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

I understand your beef with Forex loss. I have similar concerns. However, we cannot disregard the fact that the IAF operates with a fixed budget. It cannot be made to spend 10X more just because most of the money spent (on Su-30MKI instead of Rafale) is now staying within the country.

And we do indeed have "underutilized airbases", they are ALGs. But ALGs do not provide full-spectrum capabilities even in wartime. Yes making airstrips falls under making infrastructure, but airfield ≠ airbase. And Airbase is not civilian infra spending. Converting an airfield into an airbase, the amount is paid out of the Air Force budget. Since there are no economic returns to be had from airbases (over and above what the airstrip was already providing), we can not indefinitely scale up the amount of airbases. Fighters can fly out of both, but airbases are where hey can be based. ALGs are primarily for landing supplies and rushing troops or equipment to forward locations.

Coming back to your land issue, no Sunderban are not wasteland. And again, land is not the issue (although it actually is one of the prime reasons for delays).

Coming back to engine upgradation: If the IAF decides after conducting its cost-benefit analysis that engine upgrade is not that pressing a requirement, then I have no problem. Can you give me an official source stating this as a fact? Or is it just your assumption based on Wikipedia and not a cost-benefit analysis? If its the latter, I'll have to disagree, at least until an official statement on the matter is out.