Know Your 'Rafale'

[Sancho]

This is a classical example of "Damm if u do, Damm if u dont" philosphy.

Wrong, it's about right and wrong! The government had all the options to do it the right way and make a deal for 126 fighters =>

1. 126 x Rafales under original MMRCA deal
2. 126 x Rafales or EF, under G2G deal
3. 126 x SE MMRCA under a re-issued SPM tender

All this were possible right ways to deal with the IAF requirement, but the government chose to do it the wrong way, by making a deal that failed to meet all the objectives and doesn't give IAF the capability to defend the country!

There is always an option additonal orders.

There is no option clause in the contract and the government chose to re-issue the SE MMRCA first and later make a U turn back to the MMRCA again, which all could had been avoided as shown above.

126 may be the ideal number but we dont have unlimited budget.

Why people always use this nonsense as an argument? Basic math tells us, that 36+114 is more than 126. So if we have the money for 150 fighters, we must have had money for 126 Rafales in the first place!

As to the 7 types of planes IAF is flying, didnt this question arise when we bought Jaguars or Mirages in limited numbers??

Because back then, we had no options! We had to take what was available to us and that was mainly Russian. US and several European fighters were not n offer for, so we had to take what we could get, under the conditions the foreign countries dictated. The MRCA tender and even more so the MMRCA tender, for the first time put us in the leading position, to demand things and the world came to us to offer fighters to our requirements. But IAF was always clear about the aim to reduce fighter types and logistical burden.

 

[Sancho]

Oh yes, a statement by a serving Air Chief and deputy air chief is desperation.

Anything that does not agree with your view must be "desperation" and "bad" isn't it?

He even confirms what I say, that IAF wanted 126 fighters, that IAF still requires more medium class fighters, that LCA is not capable enough to defend the country alone and needs more capable fighters above it...

But he justifies the low number, by avoiding to answer why only 36 were procured, just as he is using SAMs as a substitute for fighters, which makes no sense! That are arguments of a desperate Chief, that doesn't want to lose the few capable fighters he got, due to political controversy or procedural mistakes.

 

[mayfair]

Nope those arguments are not of a desperate chief.

He never said that LCA is not a capable fighter

On the contrary he says

We’re looking at 12 squadrons of the Light Combat Aircraft Mk.2

This was his statement

“By providing the Rafale and S-400, the government is strengthening the Indian Air Force to counter the short falls of our depleting numbers.”

He's not justifying low numbers of Rafale. On contrary he's saying that the deal along with the impeding S400 purchase is a shot in the arm for the IAF.

 

[mayfair]

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...launches-10-point-defence-of-rafale-deal.html

Days after the Indian Air Force leadership went on the record to declare India’s 2016 Rafale deal a far better arrangement than the one under negotiation by a previous government — the heart of a political storm gripping the election-bound country — things went further today. Making its defence of the Rafale deal official, in the only way the military can, a formal presentation today led by an IAF Air Marshal put forth a 10-point list of reasons why 2016 deal was cleaner, better and more economical than any earlier one.

Here’s a slide from the presentation made a short while ago on Wednesday by Air Marshal SBP Sinha, currently chief of the IAF’s Central Command and earlier Deputy Chief during negotiations for the aborted earlier attempt to purchase 126 Rafales:

 

[Prashant12]

Wrong, it's about right and wrong! The government had all the options to do it the right way and make a deal for 126 fighters =>

1. 126 x Rafales under original MMRCA deal
2. 126 x Rafales or EF, under G2G deal

Both are same and expensive, plus you yourself admitted:

Dassault messed up the MMRCA negotiations, because they didn't wanted to be accountable, for their own mistakes!

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/know-your-rafale.32861/page-719#post-1449914

India cannot buy Eurofighter because of blacklisting of Leonardo-Finmeccanica.

3. 126 x SE MMRCA under a re-issued SPM tender

No. Because of fear of single vendor situation.

Why people always use this nonsense as an argument? Basic math tells us, that 36+114 is more than 126. So if we have the money for 150 fighters, we must have had money for 126 Rafales in the first place!

Who told you india will buy 114 Rafales?

Parrikar said India could not afford 126 Rafales. “We must remember that Rafale is a top-end, multi-role fighter… but it is quite expensive.

“Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under “Make in India”, that is also possible. If we build another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21”, said Parrikar.

https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2015/04/india-could-also-buy-light-fighter-to.html

 

[Sancho]

He never said that LCA is not a capable fighter

=>

He's not justifying low numbers of Rafale.

It's even quote under the video, in case you missed it.

He is linking Rafale and S400 to counter the shortfall, which as said makes no sense. Fighter can't be replaced by SAMs.

 

[Prashant12]

A desperate IAF is trying to defend the bad Rafale deal, by justifying low numbers with historical purchases of former governments and that the procurement of S400 SAMs, next to the Rafales can counter the depleting numbers.

Full video:

Desperate ?

Yes because two successive UPA governments and 10 years in power failed to clinch the 126 MMRCA deal.

Facts!

He is linking Rafale and S400 to counter the shortfall, which as said makes no sense. Fighter can't be replaced by SAMs.

True. Hence 36 Rafale, 123 Tejas MK1A , 201 Tejas MK2 and additional 40 Su 30 under procurement.

 

[Sancho]

Both are same and expensive

And therefore the money for the procurement must be available and the "we don't have the money" excuse doesn't make sense.

India cannot buy Eurofighter because of blacklisting of Leonardo-Finmeccanica.

That depends if the government keeps that blacklisting, but as we have just seen with Denel now, they accept fines to bail companies out of blacklistings too.

No. Because of fear of single vendor situation.

1. There were 2 fighters in the tender
2. the SPM has the option to go on with a single vendor solution
3. as we all now, the Rafale deal was a single vendor deal too.

So that's no excuse either.

Who told you india will buy 114 Rafales?

Where did I said 114 Rafales?

And as always, your random posting of unrelated links doesn't mean anything.

 

[mayfair]

He is linking Rafale and S400 to counter the shortfall, which as said makes no sense. Fighter can't be replaced by SAMs.

See the statements before

Dhanoa said, “What we do not have are the numbers, against a sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons, we are down to 31. Even when we do have 42 squadrons, we will be below the combined numbers of two of our regional adversaries.”

Invoking the squadron strengths of China and Pakistan, Dhanoa said, “Pakistan has over 20 fighter squadrons, with upgraded F-16s, and inducting J-17 from China in large numbers. China has 1,700 fighters, including 800 fourth generation fighters. But we do not have the numbers, with fighter squadrons down to 31 from sanctioned 42.”

“By providing the Rafale and S-400, the government is strengthening the Indian Air Force to counter the short falls of our depleting numbers.”

So he is very clear that we are well below the numbers for a two-front warlike scenario and even at that sanctioned strength the numbers will be less that the combined fleet.

This is what an IAF source had to say about S400

The S-400 is an integrated, highly-mobile system of radars and missiles of different ranges to address multiple threats. "Deploying one weapon system allows you to cover an entire spectrum of aerial threats," a senior IAF officer explains. Its 'Tombstone' radar can acquire up to 300 targets nearly 600 km away. Which means, from their locations in India, the system can peer deep inside Pakistani territory and pick up aircraft as soon as they are airborne. Deployed along the eastern border with China, the missile system can easily monitor fighter jets taking off from airfields along the Tibetan plateau.

Do note, he specifically speaks about "Deployed along the eastern border with China, the missile system can easily monitor fighter jets taking off from airfields along the Tibetan plateau."

It is clear that IAF views S400 as a formidable defence against PLAAF assets in Tibet region. ACM Dhanoa's statement MUST be viewed in the same context.

 

[Prashant12]

And therefore the money for the procurement must be available and the "we don't have the money" excuse doesn't make sense.

IF we had money then why UPA government refused sign deal ?

That depends if the government keeps that blacklisting, but as we have just seen with Denel now, they accept fines to bail companies out of blacklistings too.

Then why not procure 'Black Shark' torpedoes for scorpene submarine ?
Finmeccanica has been blacklisted along with AgustaWestland.

Denel was blacklisted 13 years ago and it cleared all charges in 2014.

1. There were 2 fighters in the tender
2. the SPM has the option to go on with a single vendor solution
3. as we all now, the Rafale deal was a single vendor deal too.

1. True. But IAF never had any interest in F16 and Saab Gripen had tied up with Adani which was unacceptable to Govt.
2. No.
3. 36 Rafale was purchased based on MMRCA Selection.

Where did I said 114 Rafales?

Check:

Why people always use this nonsense as an argument? Basic math tells us, that 36+114 is more than 126. So if we have the money for 150 fighters, we must have had money for 126 Rafales in the first place!

And as always, your random posting of unrelated links doesn't mean anything.

Not random links but your random lies.

 

[scatterStorm]

=>




It's even quote under the video, in case you missed it.

He is linking Rafale and S400 to counter the shortfall, which as said makes no sense. Fighter can't be replaced by SAMs.

Nobody is talking about replacements over here, it's a "Stop Gap measure" Period
Bottom line: As much as Chief Dhanoa likes the Ideas of true requirement of squadrons for IAF to protect the country --> 42. He (IAF) can't have it, as he mentioned in the video that large bids to induct jets do affect the economy as a whole as well, especially for a developing nation, which is true … we ain't USAF.

As for S-400 they are there to defend, for offence Rafael's will do. All this shit political local-storm rant from Congress vis-à-vis BJP … (They use to cry, bitch and moan too) had pushed aside the agenda of protecting the nation. IAF is not a virgin Mary as well, they like French hoes now, previously it was the Russian hoes. ( I hope you do get the analogy).

True story about our "desi maal" (Tejas), it comes in as a dowry. Take it or leave it. It's when this desi maal must be invested heavily should bare the fruits in future. Disappointing is … no mention of AMCA

 

[indus]

Wrong, it's about right and wrong! The government had all the options to do it the right way and make a deal for 126 fighters =>

1. 126 x Rafales under original MMRCA deal
2. 126 x Rafales or EF, under G2G deal
3. 126 x SE MMRCA under a re-issued SPM tender

All this were possible right ways to deal with the IAF requirement, but the government chose to do it the wrong way, by making a deal that failed to meet all the objectives and doesn't give IAF the capability to defend the country!

If 126 Rafales were possible why didnt UPA finalise it till 2014. Rafale was chosen L1 in 2012. What negotiations were they doing for 2 yrs and why were they unsucessful.
How could 126 EF could be purchased when they were costlier than Rafales, as it was L2. You were vowing for less logistical burden, by your logic Isnt EF even more difficult to mantain considering its a 4 nation project.
SEMrca was tried but single vendor situation of Gripen made it failure.
Its not as if only Rafales have to defend the country entirely. There are other fighters as well in inventory while Rfl comes as a stop gap measure.

Why people always use this nonsense as an argument? Basic math tells us, that 36+114 is more than 126. So if we have the money for 150 fighters, we must have had money for 126 Rafales in the first place!

36 is a done deal. 114 isnt a done deal yet. It will require 4-5 yrs to materialise and payments will be due later. Basic math tells us that we dont need to hold up money for 150 fighters as on today. If we had money for 126 planes UPA would have signed a deal back then. Basic math also tells us that cost escalations happen due to rupee devaluation over time. Its okay if u dont like the Rafale deal but dont post BS for the sake of it.

 

[scatterStorm]

What I think about S400s is that it's just like a deterrent. If 1 battery is placed in J&K PAF as to think 100 times before doing anything, Same goes for Chinese at Tibetan Plateau. Actual engagements would only be possible if the adversaries saturate S400 batteries first, which is unlikely as whatever they throw at S400 … it will be shot down. Beside S400 can engage at the same time and can identify friendly's so you have a sword and sheath.

 

[BON PLAN]

A desperate IAF is trying to defend the bad Rafale deal, by justifying low numbers with historical purchases of former governments and that the procurement of S400 SAMs, next to the Rafales can counter the depleting numbers.

Full video:

The sole desesperate here is you !
Rafale is a good deal. And I'm sorry to say that you will be frustrated in the next future because you will see some other batchs coming.

 

[Sancho]

So he is very clear that we are well below the numbers for a two-front

True, but that has nothing to do with his statements on medium tech LCAs, that has to work under an umbrella of high tech fighters.

This is what an IAF source had to say about S400.

Lol and again, that has nothing to do with his statement, that Rafale and S400 with counter the shortfall.
Why are you shifting away from his and your earlier statements?

 

[BON PLAN]

Who told you india will buy 114 Rafales?

Nothing is made, but :
The RFP is tailored made for Rafale.
There is already a factory in India, meaning the rafale may be the faster in the MII race.
All other plane will need to pay for fixed costs and indigenisation, except Rafale.

It smels good !

 

[BON PLAN]

Yes because two successive UPA governments and 10 years in power failed to clinch the 126 MMRCA deal.

Welcome in India !

 

[WolfPack86]

Nothing is made, but :
The RFP is tailored made for Rafale.
There is already a factory in India, meaning the rafale may be the faster in the MII race.
All other plane will need to pay for fixed costs and indigenisation, except Rafale.

It smels good !

This time well it be cheaper or it cost highly.

 

[BON PLAN]

This time well it be cheaper or it cost highly.

The first batch of 36 costs India 7.9 € billions.

Another batch of 36, saying with one new air base accomodated (not fully necessary), with the same weapon package (it could be a little bit lighter), and the same performance based logistics pakage will cost in the 5.5 € billions.
Remove 0,9 € billion if a 3rd base is not required.

 

[Sancho]

If 126 Rafales were possible why didnt UPA finalise it till 2014.

1st of all, what aboutism doesn't help the issue! You can't justify one action with the one of someone else. What counts is, why the Rafale deal was made and what the result of it is.

Secondly, UPA and NDA negotiated the same MMRCA deal with Dassault and both confirmed non compliance of Dassault to be the issue for the deadlock. So both couldn't sign the deal for the same reasons!

How could 126 EF could be purchased when they were costlier than Rafales, as it was L2.

L1 and L2 only relate to the MMRCA tender and evaluation of the proposals. It has no relation to a separate G2G deal.

You were vowing for less logistical burden, by your logic Isnt EF even more difficult to mantain considering its a 4 nation project.

Logistical burden by being forced to operate more types of fighters with different techs, spares, weapons. 36 Rafale + 114 SE MMRCA, would mean more logistics than 126 Rafale or EF.

SEMrca was tried but single vendor situation of Gripen made it failure.

Nonsense, we didn't even issued the RFI, so where was the single vendor evaluation? Also SPM has a single vendor option and the Rafale deal was a single vendor deal too. So that is no excuse

Its okay if u dont like the Rafale deal but dont post BS for the sake of it.

It's actually the other way around, I like Rafale the fighter, but that doesn't mean I have to play dumb and blind over a bad deal, that doesn't support IAF the way it was planned. That's why excuses like lack of money, single vendor issues doesn't hold their own. You simply can't justify a deal, that had such a bad result for IAF and the aviation industry.