What's new

Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2]

Darin 3 upgrade is good enough for the role its envisioned.. I am saying this based on points below

  • Jags has already completed two MLU, and is now heading for their third MLU.
  • Darin (Display Attack Ranging Inertial Navigation) is one of the new feature added to the existing avionics package
  • Jag currently lacks a reliable Radar system instead uses the IRST & OLS(Optical Locator Systems).
  • India is currently equipped with three different variants, the maritime version charged with the surveillance of the coast and the Deep Penetration bomber currently in use with the Air force and the one under Strategic Forces Command for tactical nuclear strikes.
  • The air force version is equipped with ground attack munitions, Martel ARM along with R 550 Magic Air to Air Missiles and two on board cannons.
  • Primarily used for deep penetration, SEAD DEAD and CAS
  • In lo lo lo profile mission with two Martel ARM missiles it can strike targets beyond 1000 km.
  • The Darin III allows the jags new weapons like AGM 88 HARM missiles for SEAD role, more powerful LGB/PGM's with CBU-105 (Censor Fuzed Weapon).
  • The Jaguar comes with RLG inertial navigation and a digital terrain mapping system which is a very good alternative to terrain hugging and avoidance Radar systems.
  • The Jaguar also comes with Israeli Litening pods for better recon and pin point ground attack missions with using of LGB/PGM. The DARIN III comes with IADS suites which allow the Jaguar escape from any kind of Airborne and Ground threats.
  • The Maritime version comes with Radar named Agave which can fire Sea Eagle Anti Ship missile, a primary maritime strike aircraft for IAF.
  • This can be upgraded into DARIN III Standard with newer Israeli ELTA Radar, which is capable to fire the new Generation Harpoon Anti Shipping Missiles from Jaguar IM Aircraft.
  • The SFC Jaguars comes with nuclear strike Missions. More than 20+ Aircraft's are under SFC control and are capable of carrying out nuclear Gravity bombs.

article-0-14ED94F3000005DC-931_634x480.jpg


Source
SEPECAT Jaguar is India's only tactical nuclear carrying and Ground Attack Aircraft — Defence Update | Defence Update
Life of Soldiers: Jaguar DARIN III


Of course if you compare say a principal DPSA with similar features and similar mission profiles, the list of choices are very limiting.. In all practical sense, a Mini Awacs like MKI acting as director and escorting Jags is more than enough for their role. I am very happy if Jags role can be taken over by Rafales.. Practically it frees my escortee role and allows me a much wider usage of assets..

But then for the cost Jags provide a great value for money.... Those 2 guns are good enough when they fire to rip many things to shred...

Yes.
Now if India wants, can we restart the production of Jaguars?
 
Yes.
Now if India wants, can we restart the production of Jaguars?

This is the original production breakdown

production-breakdown.jpg

Jaguar production breakdown
Orange = Breguet, yellow = BAC, red = Rolls-Royce

What India did is
India is now the final user of the type, after an uncertain start. It took BAC more than 10 years to get the Indian Air Force to make their initial order, which was finally signed in late 1978. This was a large order for 130 aircraft, 35 to be built in the UK and the remainder to be licence built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Initial training was also carried out in the UK with the RAF Jaguar OCU. 14 Squadron were the first to form in July 1979, becoming fully operational in September 1980, followed by 5, 16, 6 and 27 Squadrons. The early Indian Jaguar Internationals (or 'Shamsher' as they are named in Indian service) were equipped as per RAF Jaguars, but the unreliable NAVWASS was soon upgraded to the DARIN inertial navigation system. Several aircraft were also upgraded with a French-built Agave radar in the nose and Sea Eagle air-to-surface missile capability for maritime strike purposes. Since then the type has followed a similar upgrade path to the RAF Jaguars, with DARIN II including further improved navigation kit, HUD and MFDs, HOTAS and improved RWR. The radar-equipped Jaguar IMs have had Israeli-built Elta 2032 radars installed also

Source Thunder & Lightnings - SEPECAT Jaguar - History

Aircraft were initially manufactured at HAL from knocked-down kits and then with most components being manufactured in-house.
Quarter Century of the Jaguar in India - Bharat Rakshak:Indian Air Force

The airframes were manufactured by SEPECAT (Société Européenne de Production de l'avion Ecole de Combat et d'Appui Tactique), a joint venture between Breguet and the British Aircraft Corporation, one of the first major joint-Anglo-French military aircraft programs.
Darin 3 Engines are new Honeywell F125INengines

SEPECAT Jaguar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interestingly Breguet later merged to form Dassault-Breguet, subsequently Dassault Aviation

So now you know if we want to restart the production whom we got to approach.. Yes it BAC and Dassault.. And Dassault would suggest Rafale line first then buy out Mirage line and then may be Jaguar line if anything is left of last mentioned too..

Its going to be cost intensive and with time and availability of better technology, the advancement can be seen with choice of Rafales now..

Perhaps our fascination for Dassault is not from now but historically with Jaguars which most says is British but actually British/French and Mirages French and Dassault name association has always made us comfortable with French fighters,,,
 
This is the original production breakdown

production-breakdown.jpg

Jaguar production breakdown
Orange = Breguet, yellow = BAC, red = Rolls-Royce

What India did is
India is now the final user of the type, after an uncertain start. It took BAC more than 10 years to get the Indian Air Force to make their initial order, which was finally signed in late 1978. This was a large order for 130 aircraft, 35 to be built in the UK and the remainder to be licence built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Initial training was also carried out in the UK with the RAF Jaguar OCU. 14 Squadron were the first to form in July 1979, becoming fully operational in September 1980, followed by 5, 16, 6 and 27 Squadrons. The early Indian Jaguar Internationals (or 'Shamsher' as they are named in Indian service) were equipped as per RAF Jaguars, but the unreliable NAVWASS was soon upgraded to the DARIN inertial navigation system. Several aircraft were also upgraded with a French-built Agave radar in the nose and Sea Eagle air-to-surface missile capability for maritime strike purposes. Since then the type has followed a similar upgrade path to the RAF Jaguars, with DARIN II including further improved navigation kit, HUD and MFDs, HOTAS and improved RWR. The radar-equipped Jaguar IMs have had Israeli-built Elta 2032 radars installed also

Source Thunder & Lightnings - SEPECAT Jaguar - History

Aircraft were initially manufactured at HAL from knocked-down kits and then with most components being manufactured in-house.
Quarter Century of the Jaguar in India - Bharat Rakshak:Indian Air Force

The airframes were manufactured by SEPECAT (Société Européenne de Production de l'avion Ecole de Combat et d'Appui Tactique), a joint venture between Breguet and the British Aircraft Corporation, one of the first major joint-Anglo-French military aircraft programs.
Darin 3 Engines are new Honeywell F125INengines

SEPECAT Jaguar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interestingly Breguet later merged to form Dassault-Breguet, subsequently Dassault Aviation

So now you know if we want to restart the production whom we got to approach.. Yes it BAC and Dassault.. And Dassault would suggest Rafale line first then buy out Mirage line and then may be Jaguar line if anything is left of last mentioned too..

Its going to be cost intensive and with time and availability of better technology, the advancement can be seen with choice of Rafales now..

Perhaps our fascination for Dassault is not from now but historically with Jaguars which most says is British but actually British/French and Mirages French and Dassault name association has always made us comfortable with French fighters,,,

Can we do it without Dassault?
I don't mean that don't take foreign help , as engines, some weapons, radars etc ....
But can we do it without Dassault.

Someone yesterday was talking with me about the way China took up its aerospace industry and the way we are doing. There are some pros and cons every where.

The person suddenly came upon this idea.

First , the Jaguars are a very very capable machines who serve India . In one word full Paisa Wasool.

And then there were talks ( which now are No where to be found ) about an aircraft with primary Air to Ground role, and secondary air to air role ( very basic ones, means just able to defend itself ).

He told that
» Can we restart the production of Jaguars? / YES
» Can we do it in a reasonable price? / YES
» Will it be effective ? / More than just effective
» Why not refine the design? Why not add a decent radar, more air to ground options, a new WVRAAM, and new decent avionics? / An opportunity for Private sector.

And build these new airframe?

I mean , if we look we need some 200 such aircrafts . Of course not at the cost of Rafale, but as a complement to it?

The low flying capabilities are second to only a very few aircrafts in the world.
Coupled with a good EW system, it will prove a shot in arm for India.

And an immense opportunity for private sector , who can be Proactive , rather than a reactive HAL.

BUT ALAS....
 
Can we do it without Dassault?
I don't mean that don't take foreign help , as engines, some weapons, radars etc ....
But can we do it without Dassault.

Someone yesterday was talking with me about the way China took up its aerospace industry and the way we are doing. There are some pros and cons every where.

The person suddenly came upon this idea.

First , the Jaguars are a very very capable machines who serve India . In one word full Paisa Wasool.

And then there were talks ( which now are No where to be found ) about an aircraft with primary Air to Ground role, and secondary air to air role ( very basic ones, means just able to defend itself ).

He told that
» Can we restart the production of Jaguars? / YES
» Can we do it in a reasonable price? / YES
» Will it be effective ? / More than just effective
» Why not refine the design? Why not add a decent radar, more air to ground options, a new WVRAAM, and new decent avionics? / An opportunity for Private sector.

And build these new airframe?

I mean , if we look we need some 200 such aircrafts . Of course not at the cost of Rafale, but as a complement to it?

The low flying capabilities are second to only a very few aircrafts in the world.
Coupled with a good EW system, it will prove a shot in arm for India.

And an immense opportunity for private sector , who can be Proactive , rather than a reactive HAL.

BUT ALAS....
A very good thought process and i agree with points you made..

BUT

Orange part Breguet now Dassault is the front of the jags..
Yellow part BAC fate has also changed
On 29 April 1977, BAC, the Hawker Siddeley Group and Scottish Aviation were nationalised and merged under the provisions of Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. This new group was established as a statutory corporation, British Aerospace (BAe).
British Aircraft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How will we make those 2 portions? If we make it without licencing it wont we infringe into IPR and patented stuff? If we do it without seeking permissions and involving the original holder of that part IPR + tech, wont we amount to stealing tech.. If suppose we are reverse engineering it and using it to produce a clone of jags, agaiin dont you think India's long position in global market of respecting IPR will be tarnished at one go....

Jags are a very capable platform.. But in Today''s time its almost in sunset timeline like 5 pm time for 645 pm sunset.. In era to come at least next 50 years, the platform like Jags either has to evolve to be on par with capable platforms like EF, Rafales,Su 35s at one end and other side touching quasi 5th Gen jets like Chinese 5th Gen, present PAKFA Stage 1, F35s at the other end of spectrum..

Evolving will need serious efforts implying money, R&D or off the shelf purchase and building it again from inside to outside.. Thats as good as re engineering it from the scratch.. On top inspite of its airframe being good for low flying, take it to wind tunnel and you will see far more optimised designs are possible..Rafale being one of the example from the same Dassault... If we want to make a variant out of it, the only way possible legally is to involve and at least get consent from BAe and Dassault to make a Jaguar NG.... They will agree for a royalty price perhaps...

But then the question to ask is if under MII we are having LCA, AMCA, Rafales, MKIs and later FGFA, where will you see Jags also being positioned..

A 200 Jags for dedicated ground attack/maritime/N strike roles means 10-12 squadrons.. that will mean a lot of capex spending for first upgrading it to Jaguar NG product and then building it ...

The better option is to build directly 200 Rafales which can not only take over that role but can do many more..

If we wanted to do it and make Jaguar NG we are at least late by 2-3 decades.. The wheels of time has flown too far ahead my friend..

Let me tag here few more ppl like @Abingdonboy @MilSpec @Taygibay @anant_s @mike2000 is back @anant_s
Perhaps these folks here can give a different view and help this out....

Guys, pls go through last 4-5 posts... Its about Jaguars.. Would love to hear your views too..
 
Last edited:
A very good thought process and i agree with points you made..

BUT

Orange part Breguet now Dassault is the front of the jags..
Yellow parwaAC fate has also changed
On 29 April 1977, BAC, the Hawker Siddeley Group and Scottish Aviation were nationalised and merged under the provisions of Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. This new group was established as a statutory corporation, British Aerospace (BAe).
British Aircraft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How will we make those 2 portions? If we make it without licencing it wont we infringe into IPR and patented stuff? If we do it without seeking permissions and involving the original holder of that part IPR + tech, wont we amount to stealing tech.. If suppose we are reverse engineering it and using it to produce a clone of jags, agaiin dont you think India's long position in global market of respecting IPR will be tarnished at one go....

Jags are a very capable platform.. But in Today''s time its almost in sunset timeline like 5 pm time for 645 pm sunset.. In era to come at least next 50 years, the platform like Jags either has to evolve to be on par with capable platforms like EF, Rafales,Su 35s at one end and other side touching quasi 5th Gen jets like Chinese 5th Gen, present PAKFA Stage 1, F35s at the other end of spectrum..

Evolving will need serious efforts implying money, R&D or off the shelf purchase and building it again from inside to outside.. Thats as good as re engineering it from the scratch.. On top inspite of its airframe being good for low flying, take it to wind tunnel and you will see far more optimised designs are possible..Rafale being one of the example from the same Dassault... If we want to make a variant out of it, the only way possible legally is to involve and at least get consent from BAe and Dassault to make a Jaguar NG.... They will agree for a royalty price perhaps...

But then the question to ask is if under MII we are having LCA, AMCA, Rafales, MKIs and later FGFA, where will you see Jags also being positioned..

A 200 Jags for dedicated ground attack/maritime/N strike roles means 10-12 squadrons.. that will mean a lot of capex spending for first upgrading it to Jaguar NG product and then building it ...

The better option is to build directly 200 Rafales which can not only take over that role but can do many more..

If we wanted to do it and make Jaguar NG we are at least late by 2-3 decades.. The wheels of time has flown too far ahead my friend..

Let me tag here few more ppl like @Abingdonboy @MilSpec @Taygibay @anant_s @mike2000 is back @anant_s
Perhaps these folks here can give a different view and help this out....

Guys, pls go through last 4-5 posts... Its about Jaguars.. Would love to hear your views too..

Yes that's one point , we need to get both BAE and Dassault on board.

Hmm, there are some very peculiar advantages of Jaguars, no doubt about it.
And yes 200 is too big.
My personal view was, ~2 squadrons for Navy and some aircrafts for our SFC ( Maybe ~1 squadron ). But I think the Su30s and Rafales will take up the SFCs need better.

But still I think the shore based Jaguars would have been great assets, we cannot place shore based anti ship missiles everywhere, and also have a vast number of islands to look upon. 1 Squadron in Andaman/Nicobar and one in south India, somewhere from where it can keep a watch at our western islands.

I still think even if we spend a little more and get Dassault and BAE on board, and build ~30new airframes for Navy with a slightly more powerful engine , a decent radar, avionics and more use of composites in the airframe .... it seems good.
This way , I mean we are not developing new Jaguar, but just building them with slight improvements.

We have around ~12 Jaguars for Maritime tasks, I think it's less.

Also I request some data on what type of license we got from them to build these aircrafts? I mean was there something like we can make only a limited number of aircrafts?

Also the person had pointed out about how China uses relatively cheaper JH7 for their navy for somewhat similar roles, a comparison will be welcome.
 
@Vauban Sorry forgot to tag you too..

Pls go through last few posts.. would love to hear your views on the Jags ..
 
"Let me fold that chute and stash it in that bush ... there we go! So ...

:help:
- Funny thing : the image of the new glass cockpit in that Jag infographic in post #1815 ...
is in fact that of the Rafale! Someone made a revealing lapsus iconae, wouldn't you say?

- From the following list of French fighters that helped build the IAF and made in Dassault ...
"Forgotten the very first was, young Jedi!" ( in my best fake Yoda voice ) : Toofani / Ouragan ( and Mystère IV BTW );

- Jags would be nearly impossible to build anew today my poor Ankit. None of the tooling remains?
There was a line to be bought of another bird the IAF really likes and that opportunity was passed ...
to protect an aircraft Made In India already. Instead, I'd suggest you lay in that bed you made : Tejas.


Thus, there was no need to call for an air assault PariK, you had it covered with this :
The wheels of time have flown too far ahead my friend..

end of transmission.

... now, darn map, what way to that target?"
"No need to look, Sarge : It's coming at us!"
"???"
 
Last edited:
Crossposting to keep a record here...

For some good data points

India to buy 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for INS Vishal | Page 3

My initial post where i said F35 is a dinosaur is not meant to be making fun of F35 rather bcz i dont feel its a right choice in any manner.. When i said Dinasaur (wrt to white elephant) i meant to say not only its unnecessarily huge cost, it lacks truly the cutting edge tech as most folks believe it has..
A simple comparison by Auspower by Dr Carlo Kopp

5th gen comparision.png



and for the people, something from proprietary side of Saab.. Of course Saab overestimates its own capabilities.. But keep a look out to understand few things in the graph

Saab.jpg

(credit to original poster in Keypub)

Now supercruise itself is a wrong representation by most fighters including F35s and Gripen NG prototypes. Again credit to the original poster who made me look at aerodynamics chapter again and again.. and this point below is absolutely correct.

The definition of supercruise is "sustained supersonic flight on dry thrust", which means the airflow has to be supersonic over the entire vehicle (which generally means greater than mach 1.1-1.2) and to sustain it, the aircraft has to be clear the massive rise in wave drag at transonic speeds.


Stright-Wing-Drag-Rise_Coefficient.jpg



Sadly, F35 fails by Supercruise definition and Dr Carlo Kopp is correct in giving a negative mark in that category...


++

Coming back to this original picture i want to point few more things here
Saab.jpg



If you look at Rafale vs F18 vs EF what you observe is that Rafale has better operational category to its competitor but interms of LCC EF is marginally cheaper.. Of course EF is not as upgraded as Rafale F3.. which may change the cost factor later with different configs..

So all people who are talking about F18s line in India operationally its going to be far costly then Rafales..

If you compare Rafale vs F35, yes F35 capability is pitted higher but look at the wide gap in LCC.. You think IN would like this "dinosaur".. When we keep hearing the jargon of having efficiency look at the whole produc.. high cost upfront and high cost back also..

Compare F35 with Su35, see how operational capabilities again rafale is marginally better and LCC cost a huge advantage in Rafales favour..Look directly below Su35, thats Su27. So Su MKI comes in between those 2 in terms of capabilities and is LCC wise costly..

So all folks talking about MKI being solution to everything can see its Saab who has done this analysis and is proprietary..

Rafale vs PAKFA a huge leap in capability and higher LCC..Thats why IAF will have a limited fleet but try higher operational availability..

Most folks forget 5th gen stealth coating needs means lot of downtime and essentially huge operational cost and is basically more of hangar queen...

+++
My post here is trying to break pre conceived notions about multiple things..
  1. Firstly 5th Gen huge number fleet is non sustainable (upfront cost and LCC cost)
  2. Performance is not as rosy as people think
  3. Capability gap does not mean all forces can have huge number of 5th gen jet
  4. Rafale and EF were very good choices in MMRCA
  5. Rafale ultimately for IAF and IN is a better choice from capability vs LCC trade off
  6. The Russian fighters are good but LCC cost this proprietary pic is the first and most concrete pictureproof i have seen.. read many places but i at least like this assessment... bcz it shows Gripen NG Better (which i doubt) but for that it definitely plots others pretty much accurately
 
Crossposting to keep a record here...

For some good data points

India to buy 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for INS Vishal | Page 3

My initial post where i said F35 is a dinosaur is not meant to be making fun of F35 rather bcz i dont feel its a right choice in any manner.. When i said Dinasaur (wrt to white elephant) i meant to say not only its unnecessarily huge cost, it lacks truly the cutting edge tech as most folks believe it has..
A simple comparison by Auspower by Dr Carlo Kopp

View attachment 293621


and for the people, something from proprietary side of Saab.. Of course Saab overestimates its own capabilities.. But keep a look out to understand few things in the graph

View attachment 293622
(credit to original poster in Keypub)

Now supercruise itself is a wrong representation by most fighters including F35s and Gripen NG prototypes. Again credit to the original poster who made me look at aerodynamics chapter again and again.. and this point below is absolutely correct.

The definition of supercruise is "sustained supersonic flight on dry thrust", which means the airflow has to be supersonic over the entire vehicle (which generally means greater than mach 1.1-1.2) and to sustain it, the aircraft has to be clear the massive rise in wave drag at transonic speeds.


View attachment 293623


Sadly, F35 fails by Supercruise definition and Dr Carlo Kopp is correct in giving a negative mark in that category...


++

Coming back to this original picture i want to point few more things here
View attachment 293622


If you look at Rafale vs F18 vs EF what you observe is that Rafale has better operational category to its competitor but interms of LCC EF is marginally cheaper.. Of course EF is not as upgraded as Rafale F3.. which may change the cost factor later with different configs..

So all people who are talking about F18s line in India operationally its going to be far costly then Rafales..

If you compare Rafale vs F35, yes F35 capability is pitted higher but look at the wide gap in LCC.. You think IN would like this "dinosaur".. When we keep hearing the jargon of having efficiency look at the whole produc.. high cost upfront and high cost back also..

Compare F35 with Su35, see how operational capabilities again rafale is marginally better and LCC cost a huge advantage in Rafales favour..Look directly below Su35, thats Su27. So Su MKI comes in between those 2 in terms of capabilities and is LCC wise costly..

So all folks talking about MKI being solution to everything can see its Saab who has done this analysis and is proprietary..

Rafale vs PAKFA a huge leap in capability and higher LCC..Thats why IAF will have a limited fleet but try higher operational availability..

Most folks forget 5th gen stealth coating needs means lot of downtime and essentially huge operational cost and is basically more of hangar queen...

+++
My post here is trying to break pre conceived notions about multiple things..
  1. Firstly 5th Gen huge number fleet is non sustainable (upfront cost and LCC cost)
  2. Performance is not as rosy as people think
  3. Capability gap does not mean all forces can have huge number of 5th gen jet
  4. Rafale and EF were very good choices in MMRCA
  5. Rafale ultimately for IAF and IN is a better choice from capability vs LCC trade off
  6. The Russian fighters are good but LCC cost this proprietary pic is the first and most concrete pictureproof i have seen.. read many places but i at least like this assessment... bcz it shows Gripen NG Better (which i doubt) but for that it definitely plots others pretty much accurately

This is the blunt truth which is most of the F35/Su 35/ Su30 fanboys are not willing to understand in the rafale deal.
1. IAF don't need Su35.. They already have Su30 and with upgrades, IAF is satisfied with it.
2. LCC of rafale is way cheaper than su35/su30.. Despite the fact that present deal may appear exorbiant...
3. Rafale/Su35 (4.5++ Gen planes) will not becoming irrelevant once major AF around the world gets 5th Gen planes, as 5gen is too costly to operate in major numbers by most countries barring USA and china, followed by Russia and India in decent numbers.
4. F35 in its present state is not fulfilling the 5 Gen criteria and also not able to do most of the jobs well, its like jack of all trades and mastr of none. What future holds we may not know. USA will be able to make it good plane to use under aircover of raptors/6th Gen plane.. About rest we dont know.

And u have explained all this with this post...
Nicely done.
 
This is the blunt truth which is most of the F35/Su 35/ Su30 fanboys are not willing to understand in the rafale deal.
1. IAF don't need Su35.. They already have Su30 and with upgrades, IAF is satisfied with it.
2. LCC of rafale is way cheaper than su35/su30.. Despite the fact that present deal may appear exorbiant...
3. Rafale/Su35 (4.5++ Gen planes) will not becoming irrelevant once major AF around the world gets 5th Gen planes, as 5gen is too costly to operate in major numbers by most countries barring USA and china, followed by Russia and India in decent numbers.
4. F35 in its present state is not fulfilling the 5 Gen criteria and also not able to do most of the jobs well, its like jack of all trades and mastr of none. What future holds we may not know. USA will be able to make it good plane to use under aircover of raptors/6th Gen plane.. About rest we dont know.

And u have explained all this with this post...
Nicely done.
Thank you Sir...

And may i know who you are my good sir ... a expat returning or a all together new member?
 
+++
Enjoy this reading....
Trivia question: Which country funded this write up?
+++

Fighters for the IAF: Creating paths to a dead-end


Our pseudonymous analyst Mark is back with his take on the story so far of the IAF’s quest for fighter aircraft.


French Armée de l’Air Dassault Rafale | Photo: StratPost

This Gujarati goes up to a shop and says, “Give me 126 apples for INR 1100.” The shopkeeper isn’t too pleased that he is getting so little for his prime golden apples plucked off the most prized trees in his orchard. But the market is bad so he expects to make money out of the trimmings and the basket and maybe sell him some nice cherries to go. So he starts putting them into the basket. Suddenly, the Gujarati changes his mind. He tells the apple seller, “You know what, forget it. Give me 36 for INR 1100.”

Those who know their Gujarati will tell you that no good Gujju even has such nightmares.

Yet, that about sums up how the Indian Air Force (IAF) is on the verge of achieving its dream of having those French birds called Rafale, 36 for the price of 126. The action on the no-name, no-format, no-logic 36 had started with the last government’s MMRCA (IAF tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft) process. That was handled more or less in the same fashion where you would ask your driver to go and buy a car he likes and he returns with a Ferrari.

Having inherited that tidy mess from the predecessor government, the incumbent one saw the issue squarely. And then proceeded to magnificently lose its way.

There were half a dozen inescapable realities that faced the Modi government:

First, we needed new planes. A rash of them. About 600 by any count by 2030.
Second, the LCA (Tejas Light Combat Aircraft) was a great patriotic flying machine that could at best be used for kamikaze manoeuvres in the event of a war, if HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) did manage to churn them out at a rate more than two a year.
Third, there was a clear mismatch between aircraft required and aircraft that were being sought. Yet another twin engine aircraft (indeed two) had emerged ‘victorious’ in an air force that was getting crippled by a continuous bleeding of single-engine MiG-21 aircraft.
Fourth, we just didn’t have enough money to spare to buy the 126 aircraft if one peeked at the numbers. The air force having smartly eliminated the single engines, had smugly put on the table one expensive and another even more expensive aircraft to choose from. There was clearly no irony in the self-congratulatory ‘we-should-patent-our-process’ back-slaps that a former air chief gave himself.
Fifth, the chosen aircraft was a bad choice in every way possible, especially when the LCA didn’t look like it would be able to make up the numbers. The French had no purpose larger than getting an order of 126 aircraft, maybe more. They had to sustain the aircraft and its ancillary industry back home. They had been virtually shepherded through the process by the IAF.


The only plausible reason that the Rafale had snuck through was because the other contenders were no better off: The F-16 and F-18 were long in the tooth; the Gripen NG and the MiG-35 were more on paper than flying aircraft and the Eurofighter was more or less on par with the Rafale and its original orders were getting whittled down due to prohibitive costs.

The other big point that was missed in the entire process was that you don’t buy aircraft like gizmos, you buy them with a larger objective – it’s not about choosing between an iPhone 6.5.3.2 and a Samsung 6.7.2.1 with a checklist.

A lot of water has flown under the bridge since and the Rafale looked like a bad, bad choice. The costs of the Rafale had turned out to be prohibitive. This government, unlike the last one, had come in with a clear industrial outlook to defense – it was quite clear that it would buy aircraft only if it resulted in actually implanting a whole industry in defense.

Without the ‘Public Sector’ and ‘Strategic Defense industry’ fetters shackling its mind, the Modi government figured that such a large outgo could be that one big shot needed to build a defense industry, create jobs and, along the way, ensure that there were sufficient numbers of big corporate beneficiaries for its political war chest.

In that context, the American and Swedish offers of transferring everything lock, stock and barrel looked enticingly welcome. The Gripen E had finally taken off from the drawing board and become a real aircraft that ticked all the boxes except one – global strategic weight. The Boeing F/A-18 offer looks just as tempting given that that India was also ramping up its aircraft carrier fleet and the Navy’s MiG-29 were spending more time resting on the ground than up in the sky. The reason why the older F/A-18 still held merit was simply because it provided the potential of a large industrial base shifting to India in a short duration – with little resistance from US domestic interests.

And, finally, the LCA was dead as a dodo as a frontline fighter. Urgent measures were needed to not only take the LCAs to their next generation but to create a platform where development was accompanied by the creation of a manufacturing framework. As things stood, they were bespoke aircraft where replacements for failed parts had to be literally machined together.

The best kept secret – rather, the big dung heap in the room that everyone in the know publicly refuses to mention (except now and then a CAG report that lets out a worm or two) – was that the aircraft’s biggest failing was that someone had forgotten to do the planning for standardized production. The aircraft that are flying are held together by customized pieces, literally machined and tailored. In cultured English, they call it bespoke fighters; in Hindi they call it jugaad.

It goes to the maturity of the current government that it took little stocktaking to figure out that Saint Antony had left behind such a complex web of particular interests that it needed a bold stroke to cut through.

There were four measures that were politically implemented:
First, the MMRCA shop was shut. An order of 36 was placed to mollify the French. But so closely held was this manoeuver that someone forgot to check how many aircraft actually made up an operational squadron. The G2G (government-to-government) route was born. No one stopped to question that, while the Rafale G2G order got acquiescence simply because it had emerged as the ‘top choice’ of the IAF in the MMRCA roulette, it would take more than the say-so of the prime minister to sign the next G2G.
Second, the LCA Mk II was given a quick burial to stop another round of interminable wastage.
Third, a large order was placed on the LCA. Giving the best example yet of ‘Fake In India’, India would now have five squadrons of aircraft in operation somewhere around the time Rahul Gandhi’s children graduate (This, despite some fairly scathing CAG criticism on the penchant for placing premature orders).

But what it did do was to give the government the room to go ahead and put in place its alternative route to a quick, robust India-led defense aerospace industry, which would more or less follow the same principles as the development of the auto industry in India.

Fourth, and this is where it is turning the thinking on acquisition on its head, there seems to be a very clear direction that a large fighter order to fill the gap of a single engine (after accounting for the mythical beast Tejas) would be principally directed at breeding an aerospace industry.

It seems evident that the gameplan is to get the organization that can best deliver the numbers, technology, spin-offs and industry. The winner or winners would be those who deliver an industry rather than the aircraft that caters purely to our top guns’ flights of fantasy.

Having, in a manner of speaking, cleared the decks, the process then proceeded to lose its way. The reasons are plentiful. None of the Indian private companies setting up ‘aerospace’ centers have the faintest clue of either the defense or aerospace business. Worse, there is growing suspicion that their interest is limited to being beneficiaries of a government-mandated handout where orders would be furnished and technology from partners would be served up on a platter.

One of the most scathing criticisms of the Tejas has been its poor indigenization rate – less than 35 percent of the aircraft is indigenous. In essence, there has to be a very large and significant investment in upstream companies that would deliver components.

Given those challenges, it is quite evident that the supplying company would have to play a very large role in creation of both the manufacturing capacity as well as upstream development. However, that may prove easier said than done since it would essentially involve foreign partners handing over the keys to the full production chain without any control over the company. Further, there would remain that vexatious issue of not being able to secure sovereign guarantees from an Indian majority-owned company.

Another part that the Modi government understands well – from its prior experience in Gujarat – is that it takes a whole slew of policy sops and more to get industries to set up: Open access, land at throw away rates, tax holidays, energy infrastructure, freeing of restraints on imported inputs and a very free hand. A drive from Ahmedabad to Surat would show the large units that have come up across the state from investments made by companies with diverse origins.

Take the case of the Tata Nano. Modi is said to have offered sops that totaled up to INR 30,000 crore to get the project to the state. Across the board, the Modi government in Gujarat made business an attractive proposition by literally seed funding enterprises with land, loans and cash assistance. Yet, in the defense sector, global firms are being asked to take the shirts off their backs and come to the party.

In effect, there is possibly the understanding that a simple DPP (Defense Procurement Procedure) will not do the trick – except possibly setting down the process for a G2G order. Even that may not prove to be a cakewalk. Any selection of this nature has to have some basis. The large discretion that the decision-maker exercises may well prove to be, as in the case of Bofors, a political albatross of gargantuan proportions. It becomes, potentially, even murkier when an Indian partner is involved. Given that few of those who have raised their hand can qualify to be Caesar’s wife, it would be another messy minefield to deal with.

When the government strode into this situation, they were thinking of what they had done in Gujarat very well – picked the player for the sector; given him land, loans, sops and cleared out the regulatory mess. The result was setting up of units in a remarkably short time. And then, as the deeper implications of what it meant to do the same thing in Delhi sank in, bit by bit, the non-process slowed down, got muddled and is now mumbling its way through to what may turn out to be yet another dead-end.

As we come close to celebrating the fifth year after the famous down-selection of the MMRCA, let’s hope there is someone out there with the ability to cut the Gordian knot.

Note: All emphasis original.

Fighters for the IAF: Creating paths to a dead-end | StratPost

++
@Taygibay @Vauban @Abingdonboy @MilSpec @anant_s
Why i am having a sneaky suspicion this hit out job is funded by Boeing/ USA ..
 
Crossposting to keep a record here...

For some good data points

India to buy 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for INS Vishal | Page 3

and for the people, something from proprietary side of Saab.. Of course Saab overestimates its own capabilities.. But keep a look out to understand few things in the graph

If you look at Rafale vs F18 vs EF what you observe is that Rafale has better operational category to its competitor but interms of LCC EF is marginally cheaper.. Of course EF is not as upgraded as Rafale F3.. which may change the cost factor later with different configs..
On this picture, the Rafale LCC cost is false, because everybody refer to a Jane's study where the Rafale flight hour cost is said to be 16500 $. But it was the cost when they were only a few Rafale inducted. Now the flight hour cost is around 10000 $ only it was officially stated in a SENAT report (SENAT is a kind of French parliement).
 
+++
Enjoy this reading....
Trivia question: Which country funded this write up?
+++

Fighters for the IAF: Creating paths to a dead-end


Our pseudonymous analyst Mark is back with his take on the story so far of the IAF’s quest for fighter aircraft.


French Armée de l’Air Dassault Rafale | Photo: StratPost

This Gujarati goes up to a shop and says, “Give me 126 apples for INR 1100.” The shopkeeper isn’t too pleased that he is getting so little for his prime golden apples plucked off the most prized trees in his orchard. But the market is bad so he expects to make money out of the trimmings and the basket and maybe sell him some nice cherries to go. So he starts putting them into the basket. Suddenly, the Gujarati changes his mind. He tells the apple seller, “You know what, forget it. Give me 36 for INR 1100.”

Those who know their Gujarati will tell you that no good Gujju even has such nightmares.

Yet, that about sums up how the Indian Air Force (IAF) is on the verge of achieving its dream of having those French birds called Rafale, 36 for the price of 126. The action on the no-name, no-format, no-logic 36 had started with the last government’s MMRCA (IAF tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft) process. That was handled more or less in the same fashion where you would ask your driver to go and buy a car he likes and he returns with a Ferrari.

Having inherited that tidy mess from the predecessor government, the incumbent one saw the issue squarely. And then proceeded to magnificently lose its way.

There were half a dozen inescapable realities that faced the Modi government:

First, we needed new planes. A rash of them. About 600 by any count by 2030.
Second, the LCA (Tejas Light Combat Aircraft) was a great patriotic flying machine that could at best be used for kamikaze manoeuvres in the event of a war, if HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) did manage to churn them out at a rate more than two a year.
Third, there was a clear mismatch between aircraft required and aircraft that were being sought. Yet another twin engine aircraft (indeed two) had emerged ‘victorious’ in an air force that was getting crippled by a continuous bleeding of single-engine MiG-21 aircraft.
Fourth, we just didn’t have enough money to spare to buy the 126 aircraft if one peeked at the numbers. The air force having smartly eliminated the single engines, had smugly put on the table one expensive and another even more expensive aircraft to choose from. There was clearly no irony in the self-congratulatory ‘we-should-patent-our-process’ back-slaps that a former air chief gave himself.
Fifth, the chosen aircraft was a bad choice in every way possible, especially when the LCA didn’t look like it would be able to make up the numbers. The French had no purpose larger than getting an order of 126 aircraft, maybe more. They had to sustain the aircraft and its ancillary industry back home. They had been virtually shepherded through the process by the IAF.


The only plausible reason that the Rafale had snuck through was because the other contenders were no better off: The F-16 and F-18 were long in the tooth; the Gripen NG and the MiG-35 were more on paper than flying aircraft and the Eurofighter was more or less on par with the Rafale and its original orders were getting whittled down due to prohibitive costs.

The other big point that was missed in the entire process was that you don’t buy aircraft like gizmos, you buy them with a larger objective – it’s not about choosing between an iPhone 6.5.3.2 and a Samsung 6.7.2.1 with a checklist.

A lot of water has flown under the bridge since and the Rafale looked like a bad, bad choice. The costs of the Rafale had turned out to be prohibitive. This government, unlike the last one, had come in with a clear industrial outlook to defense – it was quite clear that it would buy aircraft only if it resulted in actually implanting a whole industry in defense.

Without the ‘Public Sector’ and ‘Strategic Defense industry’ fetters shackling its mind, the Modi government figured that such a large outgo could be that one big shot needed to build a defense industry, create jobs and, along the way, ensure that there were sufficient numbers of big corporate beneficiaries for its political war chest.

In that context, the American and Swedish offers of transferring everything lock, stock and barrel looked enticingly welcome. The Gripen E had finally taken off from the drawing board and become a real aircraft that ticked all the boxes except one – global strategic weight. The Boeing F/A-18 offer looks just as tempting given that that India was also ramping up its aircraft carrier fleet and the Navy’s MiG-29 were spending more time resting on the ground than up in the sky. The reason why the older F/A-18 still held merit was simply because it provided the potential of a large industrial base shifting to India in a short duration – with little resistance from US domestic interests.

And, finally, the LCA was dead as a dodo as a frontline fighter. Urgent measures were needed to not only take the LCAs to their next generation but to create a platform where development was accompanied by the creation of a manufacturing framework. As things stood, they were bespoke aircraft where replacements for failed parts had to be literally machined together.

The best kept secret – rather, the big dung heap in the room that everyone in the know publicly refuses to mention (except now and then a CAG report that lets out a worm or two) – was that the aircraft’s biggest failing was that someone had forgotten to do the planning for standardized production. The aircraft that are flying are held together by customized pieces, literally machined and tailored. In cultured English, they call it bespoke fighters; in Hindi they call it jugaad.

It goes to the maturity of the current government that it took little stocktaking to figure out that Saint Antony had left behind such a complex web of particular interests that it needed a bold stroke to cut through.

There were four measures that were politically implemented:
First, the MMRCA shop was shut. An order of 36 was placed to mollify the French. But so closely held was this manoeuver that someone forgot to check how many aircraft actually made up an operational squadron. The G2G (government-to-government) route was born. No one stopped to question that, while the Rafale G2G order got acquiescence simply because it had emerged as the ‘top choice’ of the IAF in the MMRCA roulette, it would take more than the say-so of the prime minister to sign the next G2G.
Second, the LCA Mk II was given a quick burial to stop another round of interminable wastage.
Third, a large order was placed on the LCA. Giving the best example yet of ‘Fake In India’, India would now have five squadrons of aircraft in operation somewhere around the time Rahul Gandhi’s children graduate (This, despite some fairly scathing CAG criticism on the penchant for placing premature orders).

But what it did do was to give the government the room to go ahead and put in place its alternative route to a quick, robust India-led defense aerospace industry, which would more or less follow the same principles as the development of the auto industry in India.

Fourth, and this is where it is turning the thinking on acquisition on its head, there seems to be a very clear direction that a large fighter order to fill the gap of a single engine (after accounting for the mythical beast Tejas) would be principally directed at breeding an aerospace industry.

It seems evident that the gameplan is to get the organization that can best deliver the numbers, technology, spin-offs and industry. The winner or winners would be those who deliver an industry rather than the aircraft that caters purely to our top guns’ flights of fantasy.

Having, in a manner of speaking, cleared the decks, the process then proceeded to lose its way. The reasons are plentiful. None of the Indian private companies setting up ‘aerospace’ centers have the faintest clue of either the defense or aerospace business. Worse, there is growing suspicion that their interest is limited to being beneficiaries of a government-mandated handout where orders would be furnished and technology from partners would be served up on a platter.

One of the most scathing criticisms of the Tejas has been its poor indigenization rate – less than 35 percent of the aircraft is indigenous. In essence, there has to be a very large and significant investment in upstream companies that would deliver components.

Given those challenges, it is quite evident that the supplying company would have to play a very large role in creation of both the manufacturing capacity as well as upstream development. However, that may prove easier said than done since it would essentially involve foreign partners handing over the keys to the full production chain without any control over the company. Further, there would remain that vexatious issue of not being able to secure sovereign guarantees from an Indian majority-owned company.

Another part that the Modi government understands well – from its prior experience in Gujarat – is that it takes a whole slew of policy sops and more to get industries to set up: Open access, land at throw away rates, tax holidays, energy infrastructure, freeing of restraints on imported inputs and a very free hand. A drive from Ahmedabad to Surat would show the large units that have come up across the state from investments made by companies with diverse origins.

Take the case of the Tata Nano. Modi is said to have offered sops that totaled up to INR 30,000 crore to get the project to the state. Across the board, the Modi government in Gujarat made business an attractive proposition by literally seed funding enterprises with land, loans and cash assistance. Yet, in the defense sector, global firms are being asked to take the shirts off their backs and come to the party.

In effect, there is possibly the understanding that a simple DPP (Defense Procurement Procedure) will not do the trick – except possibly setting down the process for a G2G order. Even that may not prove to be a cakewalk. Any selection of this nature has to have some basis. The large discretion that the decision-maker exercises may well prove to be, as in the case of Bofors, a political albatross of gargantuan proportions. It becomes, potentially, even murkier when an Indian partner is involved. Given that few of those who have raised their hand can qualify to be Caesar’s wife, it would be another messy minefield to deal with.

When the government strode into this situation, they were thinking of what they had done in Gujarat very well – picked the player for the sector; given him land, loans, sops and cleared out the regulatory mess. The result was setting up of units in a remarkably short time. And then, as the deeper implications of what it meant to do the same thing in Delhi sank in, bit by bit, the non-process slowed down, got muddled and is now mumbling its way through to what may turn out to be yet another dead-end.

As we come close to celebrating the fifth year after the famous down-selection of the MMRCA, let’s hope there is someone out there with the ability to cut the Gordian knot.

Note: All emphasis original.

Fighters for the IAF: Creating paths to a dead-end | StratPost

++
@Taygibay @Vauban @Abingdonboy @MilSpec @anant_s
Why i am having a sneaky suspicion this hit out job is funded by Boeing/ USA ..
hi
there was a similar article from defence news too
Cloudy Future for Domestic Indian Aircraft Production

they need to get their head screwed on here. i think that boeing is messing you around as well as germany, uk, spain italy and sweden. so they can sell their jets to you. personally i think the rafale deal is a disaster and should look at the f18 as a long term complement between the lca and the mki. i think this is a good idea but some may argue this because the amca will fill in the role, but they fail to understand that the amca is about 15 years away from now and hal is known for delaying their projects the lca is an example of this.
 
Back
Top Bottom