What's new

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

During Kargil we help indians !

And during Falklands we stop deliveries of Exocet and Super Etendard to Argentina. (Fortunately for your fleet, because with just a hand full on these items... your a** was smashed ).

IT DEPEND. If India goes in war against her Majesty the Queen, the choice will be hard. If not no problem.

Why do you think Mirage 2000 was and is a nuclear vector in India ?
we won the falklands war. who controls the islands?
as for Argentina there pose no threat to us, or ever will.
as for you helping indians........prove it.

You folks are both absolutely correct

Jane's Defense is the source.. It was most probably sponsored by Saab as the article said this

The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.


++Yet most folks relied on this number and bashed Rafale and EuroFighter for a long long time.. Till at least now Rafale CPFH is more or less a bit cleared..

@Blue Marlin - My good friend can you have any thing via which we can know CPFH of EF or any governmental record like French Senat ones from which we can derive its CPFH.. Would love to know the real CPFH of EF
@PARIKRAMA
The study conducted by IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.


The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.

The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”

The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

“At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”

In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane’s estimates for all aircraft.

There are several caveats to this assessment. “Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation,” says the report, but adds, “However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft.”

The report stresses that ‘without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe’ the results ‘can only be regarded as approximate’ and ‘are an average cost across an entire fleet’.

The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 ‘with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.’

The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that ‘the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane’s estimates’ for them.

The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs ‘owing to the absence of actual in-service data’. “IHS Jane’s does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs,” it says.

Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane’s also considered data thrown up by a ‘modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage’. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane’s arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost.



The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.

The study ‘determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft’.

The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were ‘more usually considered as part of the platform’s capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation’.



CPFH composition


On the basis of a 2005 US Air Force study of its F-16 fleet, IHS Jane’s thinks the CPFH is composed of approximately:

– 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical components)
– 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
– 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance



The study also points to less quantifiable and more intangible factors that could impact CPFH.







For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the ‘aircrafts’ fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust’, not ‘necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie’.

As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.

In the case of the F-35, the study says the different ‘costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases’. The study says, “The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected.” It adds that, although obviously, ‘accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist’, ‘the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft’, considering ‘the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems’.

The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is ‘due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating’ it, compared to the ‘small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability’. It points out that ‘RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve’.

But the report also says the Super Hornet has ‘relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft’. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F ‘engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly’ compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.
 
Last edited:
whichever bud. any idea when it will be signed? or close to be signed. abindonboy said by end of the fiscal year 31'st of march.

Rafale? Second MMRCA? LSA? Or FGFA?

We don't know anything. According to one source, they have decided when they will sign the Rafale deal, but other than that, nobody has any idea about when these deals will progress. I won't be surprised even if Parrikar says he doesn't know.
 
Rafale? Second MMRCA? LSA? Or FGFA?

We don't know anything. According to one source, they have decided when they will sign the Rafale deal, but other than that, nobody has any idea about when these deals will progress. I won't be surprised even if Parrikar says he doesn't know.

I still think that F 16 has a chance with MII and Rafale will be capped at 54 or 60 maximum
All off the shelf like Mirage 2000

Rafale is NOT interested in Make in India ; they are just playing along to see
what is our reaction to their High pricing

And unless LM and Boeing's proposals are not decided one way or the other
Rafale contract signature will get delayed
 
Great advice indeed for ... I did not attack you nor did my pope analogy attack Pic!
If that is what you understood, I know where our differences come from.
And I didn't ask and you still referred me to a lost offering to Internet Gods so ...


Just forget both it and me, It will make your life so much easier!

We on IDF are used to taking each others's word for it and let time prove it right. It happened right now. I once told Picdel about the M-2000's lower CPFH rate in India. He asked for proof, I told him to take my word for it 'cause I didn't have it, and he did. There's really no harm done regardless of whether someone is right or wrong. Nobody is winning prizes here.

I think the two of us get into too many useless discussions 'cause we don't see eye to eye on many things.

I still think that F 16 has a chance with MII and Rafale will be capped at 54 or 60 maximum
All off the shelf like Mirage 2000

Rafale is NOT interested in Make in India ; they are just playing along to see
what is our reaction to their High pricing

And unless LM and Boeing's proposals are not decided one way or the other
Rafale contract signature will get delayed

Rafale MII decision has already been taken. It's basically 0 Rafales or 180 Rafales. Primarily because it is the only '5th gen' jet available in the market right now.

Dassault is highly interested in MII. I mean, we are basically doubling their program. It's like India buying 2000+ F-35s. Who wouldn't want that?
 
You folks are both absolutely correct

Jane's Defense is the source.. It was most probably sponsored by Saab as the article said this

The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.


++Yet most folks relied on this number and bashed Rafale and EuroFighter for a long long time.. Till at least now Rafale CPFH is more or less a bit cleared..

@Blue Marlin - My good friend can you have any thing via which we can know CPFH of EF or any governmental record like French Senat ones from which we can derive its CPFH.. Would love to know the real CPFH of EF
@Dash attached the document here
Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2] | Page 127
And on the first page of the document you can see who paid it because the logo is on it:

2mo2tj6.jpg
 
Source Based News (added bags of salts as usual)

After a good time, i could have a nice talk with my source.. Following is the gist...
  1. Rafale Deal was never off track - Both for off the shelf purchase and the much bigger MII
  2. The off the shelf cost pruning is finished even in customization part.
  3. The deal is lower than speculated Rs 60,000 Crs. He talked about a give and take around 5-10% unless a new item gets added up till the formal deal is signed. He added IAF is trying to push for some more items..
  4. MII Tranches are more or less defined.
  5. MII Tranche 1 is 90, Tranche 2 is also 90 - can be broken down further Tranche 2 and beyond.
  6. MII tranche for IN is being defined. IN needs beyond 54 for first CATOBAR carrier. There is a talk of exclusive Tranche 3 for IN Rafale M or if IAF agrees partial Rafale M orders simultaneous production in Tranche 2.
  7. Tranches planned are overall 5+ over 20 years with every 4 year plan for a new tranche order to distribute costs.
  8. DA also gave a scope of Rafale M first 54 jets to be made in Merignac. IN not inclined but decision firming not yet confirmed to MOD
  9. Speculations in media about liabilities and guarantees is a non issue as it seems India France has agreed on much bigger terms which wont be declared in public. He added there are some strategic things which i cannot talk at all , one word to define this cooperation is Black Projects
  10. About Engines he confirmed two plans - One is the natural 8.3 T engine which Safran is already in process of manufacturing with almost 7-8 months already over from project start.
  11. The second one is a bigger engine with widening of air intakes. This Rafale being planned in the F3R2 time period and is defined as 5th Gen level and will have partial funding by India and will see tranche orders too.
    • This second engine part is being negotiated with India wanting limited exclusive access to customers. So far its only for France, India and third customer seems to be UAE with a limited fleet (1 tranche ~ 20 jets approx).
    • Negotiations not completed on this front and expected that this decision making may take longer than 1 year time and is separate from existing deal talks.
  12. The outer periphery for all decisions concerning India except point 11 is estimated to be June 2016 and is laid down by none other than PM NaMo himself. DM MP also have agreed for this timeline but added MII formal contract signing may go to next quarter.
  13. Asked to comment about 16s/18s/Gripen NG, source said as of now all are media hear and say.
    • PM and DM are a bit annoyed by the fact that USA has sold some jets to our neighbors and is courting us with the same jet line.
    • FM AJ has quoted not to trust USA for strategic projects and has asked for potentially speeding up indigenous engine project to become less dependent on USA.
    • Both PM and DM acknowledged that part and a major reshuffle+funding is expected in the domestic engine project.
  14. Source also added - In all probability, unless a major review of LCA Tejas project is done, no other light fighter will be envisioned/procured.
    • Similarly untill Rafale MII is not cleared on papers and till clarity of payment schedules by Finance Ministry for future Budget provisioning is done, there is no question of another foreign Jet manufacturing under MII.
  15. The reality is LM has not just offered F16s.
    • The deal being offered is about 160 F16s in 5 years of manufacturing and 2-3 years plant setup for overall 7-8 years and global MRO for Pan World fleet of F16s.
    • Then the line gets upgraded for approximately 30+ F35s a year production for India. The reasoning said is by that time owing to already a good amount of localisation of supply chain, the F35s may cost much lower for India and quoted figure for flyaway is more in the range of $75 Mn. (F35s were quoted in LM presentations to other partners to reach $85 Mn and Indian production advantage will push it down by approx 15%) .
    • DM MP and FM AJ has opposed it completely.
    • In DM MP's firm opinion India cannot afford 8 different hi end/5th Gen variants. The present plan of 6 itself is very difficult to implement and appropriate caution is being exercised for planned induction and replacement so that all these variants may be available together at much later timeline.
    • India already will be operating FGFA, AMCA (2 variants) and Rafale (deep upgraded IAF and IN variant).
    • The Super Su30 MKI is also suppose to have derivative technologies from PAKFA present model.
    • Adding F35s version for IAF and IN will skyrocket operational expenses and will require a much bigger strategic level shift which cannot be sustained by IAF and IN.
    • In FM AJ's words, the 16s and 35s essentially will imply end of LCA and AMCA by either limiting their growth plans or making their numbers in significant. The political fall out will be beyond repairable damage and may put NDA out of power for 2 decades easily.
    • On top the financial needs for acquisition and operational needs is beyond affordability for India for such a fleet of 8 different variants.
    • PM NaMo emphasized that India's foreign policy must be independent and thus only like minded partners should be chosen who back India's concern at global level with steps to show that not by mere words.
    • Source says this plan wont be green lighted under any extreme pressure too unless there is a change so big that it will shake global arena forever.

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @randomradio @Stephen Cohen
 
Source Based News (added bags of salts as usual)

After a good time, i could have a nice talk with my source.. Following is the gist...
  1. Rafale Deal was never off track - Both for off the shelf purchase and the much bigger MII
  2. The off the shelf cost pruning is finished even in customization part.
  3. The deal is lower than speculated Rs 60,000 Crs. He talked about a give and take around 5-10% unless a new item gets added up till the formal deal is signed. He added IAF is trying to push for some more items..
  4. MII Tranches are more or less defined.
  5. MII Tranche 1 is 90, Tranche 2 is also 90 - can be broken down further Tranche 2 and beyond.
  6. MII tranche for IN is being defined. IN needs beyond 54 for first CATOBAR carrier. There is a talk of exclusive Tranche 3 for IN Rafale M or if IAF agrees partial Rafale M orders simultaneous production in Tranche 2.
  7. Tranches planned are overall 5+ over 20 years with every 4 year plan for a new tranche order to distribute costs.
  8. DA also gave a scope of Rafale M first 54 jets to be made in Merignac. IN not inclined but decision firming not yet confirmed to MOD
  9. Speculations in media about liabilities and guarantees is a non issue as it seems India France has agreed on much bigger terms which wont be declared in public. He added there are some strategic things which i cannot talk at all , one word to define this cooperation is Black Projects
  10. About Engines he confirmed two plans - One is the natural 8.3 T engine which Safran is already in process of manufacturing with almost 7-8 months already over from project start.
  11. The second one is a bigger engine with widening of air intakes. This Rafale being planned in the F3R2 time period and is defined as 5th Gen level and will have partial funding by India and will see tranche orders too.
    • This second engine part is being negotiated with India wanting limited exclusive access to customers. So far its only for France, India and third customer seems to be UAE with a limited fleet (1 tranche ~ 20 jets approx).
    • Negotiations not completed on this front and expected that this decision making may take longer than 1 year time and is separate from existing deal talks.
  12. The outer periphery for all decisions concerning India except point 11 is estimated to be June 2016 and is laid down by none other than PM NaMo himself. DM MP also have agreed for this timeline but added MII formal contract signing may go to next quarter.
  13. Asked to comment about 16s/18s/Gripen NG, source said as of now all are media hear and say.
    • PM and DM are a bit annoyed by the fact that USA has sold some jets to our neighbors and is courting us with the same jet line.
    • FM AJ has quoted not to trust USA for strategic projects and has asked for potentially speeding up indigenous engine project to become less dependent on USA.
    • Both PM and DM acknowledged that part and a major reshuffle+funding is expected in the domestic engine project.
  14. Source also added - In all probability, unless a major review of LCA Tejas project is done, no other light fighter will be envisioned/procured.
    • Similarly untill Rafale MII is not cleared on papers and till clarity of payment schedules by Finance Ministry for future Budget provisioning is done, there is no question of another foreign Jet manufacturing under MII.
  15. The reality is LM has not just offered F16s.
    • The deal being offered is about 160 F16s in 5 years of manufacturing and 2-3 years plant setup for overall 7-8 years and global MRO for Pan World fleet of F16s.
    • Then the line gets upgraded for approximately 30+ F35s a year production for India. The reasoning said is by that time owing to already a good amount of localisation of supply chain, the F35s may cost much lower for India and quoted figure for flyaway is more in the range of $75 Mn. (F35s were quoted in LM presentations to other partners to reach $85 Mn and Indian production advantage will push it down by approx 15%) .
    • DM MP and FM AJ has opposed it completely.
    • In DM MP's firm opinion India cannot afford 8 different hi end/5th Gen variants. The present plan of 6 itself is very difficult to implement and appropriate caution is being exercised for planned induction and replacement so that all these variants may be available together at much later timeline.
    • India already will be operating FGFA, AMCA (2 variants) and Rafale (deep upgraded IAF and IN variant).
    • The Super Su30 MKI is also suppose to have derivative technologies from PAKFA present model.
    • Adding F35s version for IAF and IN will skyrocket operational expenses and will require a much bigger strategic level shift which cannot be sustained by IAF and IN.
    • In FM AJ's words, the 16s and 35s essentially will imply end of LCA and AMCA by either limiting their growth plans or making their numbers in significant. The political fall out will be beyond repairable damage and may put NDA out of power for 2 decades easily.
    • On top the financial needs for acquisition and operational needs is beyond affordability for India for such a fleet of 8 different variants.
    • PM NaMo emphasized that India's foreign policy must be independent and thus only like minded partners should be chosen who back India's concern at global level with steps to show that not by mere words.
    • Source says this plan wont be green lighted under any extreme pressure too unless there is a change so big that it will shake global arena forever.

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @randomradio @Stephen Cohen

GOD bless you My Dear Sir

May you Live for a MILLION YEARS :-)
 
@PARIKRAMA

I think I was correct in saying that IN's first tranche of Rafale requirement could end up being higher than 54. The IAC-2 is expected to carry 3 sqds of fighters which puts the minimum number at 48 (16/sqd) to a maximum of 54 onboard fighters (18/sqd).

Now unless IN's aircraft-per-squadron ratio is different/lower, I don't see any way how we would be needing fewer fighters onboard. Ofcourse much will depend on the peacetime quantity and wartime/maximum capacity changes.

Besides Rafale, the IAC-2 will be carrying up to 3-4 Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning aircraft (with the AESA radar, a great improvement over previous ones used in E-2C and older versions) and anywhere between 5 to 10 multi-role helicopters.

Parik dude, you should definitely sit down for a chat with your sources about the IAC-2, and the future of Navy in general. And is there any update on the rumored P-71A carrier (the improved IAC-1)? If that plan materializes as an interim solution (until IAC-2 design & development of reactor is complete), the Rafale-M requirement could really increase manifold, as you already seen to have projected a while ago.
 
Source Based News (added bags of salts as usual)

After a good time, i could have a nice talk with my source.. Following is the gist...
  1. Rafale Deal was never off track - Both for off the shelf purchase and the much bigger MII
  2. The off the shelf cost pruning is finished even in customization part.
  3. The deal is lower than speculated Rs 60,000 Crs. He talked about a give and take around 5-10% unless a new item gets added up till the formal deal is signed. He added IAF is trying to push for some more items..
  4. MII Tranches are more or less defined.
  5. MII Tranche 1 is 90, Tranche 2 is also 90 - can be broken down further Tranche 2 and beyond.
  6. MII tranche for IN is being defined. IN needs beyond 54 for first CATOBAR carrier. There is a talk of exclusive Tranche 3 for IN Rafale M or if IAF agrees partial Rafale M orders simultaneous production in Tranche 2.
  7. Tranches planned are overall 5+ over 20 years with every 4 year plan for a new tranche order to distribute costs.
  8. DA also gave a scope of Rafale M first 54 jets to be made in Merignac. IN not inclined but decision firming not yet confirmed to MOD
  9. Speculations in media about liabilities and guarantees is a non issue as it seems India France has agreed on much bigger terms which wont be declared in public. He added there are some strategic things which i cannot talk at all , one word to define this cooperation is Black Projects
  10. About Engines he confirmed two plans - One is the natural 8.3 T engine which Safran is already in process of manufacturing with almost 7-8 months already over from project start.
  11. The second one is a bigger engine with widening of air intakes. This Rafale being planned in the F3R2 time period and is defined as 5th Gen level and will have partial funding by India and will see tranche orders too.
    • This second engine part is being negotiated with India wanting limited exclusive access to customers. So far its only for France, India and third customer seems to be UAE with a limited fleet (1 tranche ~ 20 jets approx).
    • Negotiations not completed on this front and expected that this decision making may take longer than 1 year time and is separate from existing deal talks.
  12. The outer periphery for all decisions concerning India except point 11 is estimated to be June 2016 and is laid down by none other than PM NaMo himself. DM MP also have agreed for this timeline but added MII formal contract signing may go to next quarter.
  13. Asked to comment about 16s/18s/Gripen NG, source said as of now all are media hear and say.
    • PM and DM are a bit annoyed by the fact that USA has sold some jets to our neighbors and is courting us with the same jet line.
    • FM AJ has quoted not to trust USA for strategic projects and has asked for potentially speeding up indigenous engine project to become less dependent on USA.
    • Both PM and DM acknowledged that part and a major reshuffle+funding is expected in the domestic engine project.
  14. Source also added - In all probability, unless a major review of LCA Tejas project is done, no other light fighter will be envisioned/procured.
    • Similarly untill Rafale MII is not cleared on papers and till clarity of payment schedules by Finance Ministry for future Budget provisioning is done, there is no question of another foreign Jet manufacturing under MII.
  15. The reality is LM has not just offered F16s.
    • The deal being offered is about 160 F16s in 5 years of manufacturing and 2-3 years plant setup for overall 7-8 years and global MRO for Pan World fleet of F16s.
    • Then the line gets upgraded for approximately 30+ F35s a year production for India. The reasoning said is by that time owing to already a good amount of localisation of supply chain, the F35s may cost much lower for India and quoted figure for flyaway is more in the range of $75 Mn. (F35s were quoted in LM presentations to other partners to reach $85 Mn and Indian production advantage will push it down by approx 15%) .
    • DM MP and FM AJ has opposed it completely.
    • In DM MP's firm opinion India cannot afford 8 different hi end/5th Gen variants. The present plan of 6 itself is very difficult to implement and appropriate caution is being exercised for planned induction and replacement so that all these variants may be available together at much later timeline.
    • India already will be operating FGFA, AMCA (2 variants) and Rafale (deep upgraded IAF and IN variant).
    • The Super Su30 MKI is also suppose to have derivative technologies from PAKFA present model.
    • Adding F35s version for IAF and IN will skyrocket operational expenses and will require a much bigger strategic level shift which cannot be sustained by IAF and IN.
    • In FM AJ's words, the 16s and 35s essentially will imply end of LCA and AMCA by either limiting their growth plans or making their numbers in significant. The political fall out will be beyond repairable damage and may put NDA out of power for 2 decades easily.
    • On top the financial needs for acquisition and operational needs is beyond affordability for India for such a fleet of 8 different variants.
    • PM NaMo emphasized that India's foreign policy must be independent and thus only like minded partners should be chosen who back India's concern at global level with steps to show that not by mere words.
    • Source says this plan wont be green lighted under any extreme pressure too unless there is a change so big that it will shake global arena forever.

@Abingdonboy @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @randomradio @Stephen Cohen


Any new development regarding the help for LCA ?
 
DA also gave a scope of Rafale M first 54 jets to be made in Merignac.

Vstol pointed out the same thing a month ago.

He added there are some strategic things which i cannot talk at all , one word to define this cooperation is Black Projects


And he said this is linked to the nuclear submarine.

Your point 6 is not difficult to achieve from what Picdel has said. It ultimately depends on how many Rafales the IAF can afford every year. If Dassault says they will set up a 36 jet line in India, then it won't work out if IAF will accept all 36 jets.

Point 14 is guaranteed. Unless IAF gets full assurance of the number of Rafales and their guaranteed delivery, they won't allow any other program derailing it, even FGFA and AMCA.

Point 15 is an absolute nightmare.
 
@PARIKRAMA

I think I was correct in saying that IN's first tranche of Rafale requirement could end up being higher than 54. The IAC-2 is expected to carry 3 sqds of fighters which puts the minimum number at 48 (16/sqd) to a maximum of 54 onboard fighters (18/sqd).

Now unless IN's aircraft-per-squadron ratio is different/lower, I don't see any way how we would be needing fewer fighters onboard. Ofcourse much will depend on the peacetime quantity and wartime/maximum capacity changes.

Besides Rafale, the IAC-2 will be carrying up to 3-4 Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning aircraft (with the AESA radar, a great improvement over previous ones used in E-2C and older versions) and anywhere between 5 to 10 multi-role helicopters.

Parik dude, you should definitely sit down for a chat with your sources about the IAC-2, and the future of Navy in general. And is there any update on the rumored P-71A carrier (the improved IAC-1)? If that plan materializes as an interim solution (until IAC-2 design & development of reactor is complete), the Rafale-M requirement could really increase manifold, as you already seen to have projected a while ago.

As far as i know Cochin Shipyard Limited will be given a follow on order for IAC1 or called IAC1 Mod or as you said P-71A. The improvement targeted is modest and is actually more tangible in terms of realistic expectation.. Its expected to be about 10-15% more in tonnage and air arm is planned to upgrade and reach approx 36 jets of medium category or even reach more if its a mix of medium + light category (read LCA Naval version)

What i had understood is there are 2 shipyards identified for Aircraft carrier projects.
The conventional one is in West Coast and most probably CSL which will roll out a total of 3 carriers over time with each one having a incremental improvement of tonnage, systems and fire power.
The nuclear power or hybrid power system one will be in east coast and will be closer to SBC Vishakapatnam.. At present Reliance ADAG has got the nearest place in the vicinity in Rambili. Livefist carried this picture few months back on this
1.jpg


Now ADAG group has portrayed that in their internal presentation for both naval and aerospace divisions

upload_2016-3-19_14-20-20.png

upload_2016-3-19_14-16-56.png

upload_2016-3-19_14-18-34.png



The biggest change that is planned by IN is a need that has been tabled with MOD for bases in east and west coastal sides for a dedicated shore based role over places which are of strategic importance. Rambili, Karwar, Varsha, Thiruvananthapuram and few more places are some of the notable names which IN wants to cover themselves over next 2 decade or so. That role is actually a way to free up IAF Jets and allow IAF to push their fleet up more in east and west India. MOD may approve this plan partially under 2027-42 Naval plan.

Naval plans are still being firmed up.. I will try and see if i get more information

Any new development regarding the help for LCA ?

It will be under tangible offset for under carriage consultancy. Once DPP 2016 is officially released, this part will become more clear.
 
Vstol pointed out the same thing a month ago.



And he said this is linked to the nuclear submarine.

Your point 6 is not difficult to achieve from what Picdel has said. It ultimately depends on how many Rafales the IAF can afford every year. If Dassault says they will set up a 36 jet line in India, then it won't work out if IAF will accept all 36 jets.

Point 14 is guaranteed. Unless IAF gets full assurance of the number of Rafales and their guaranteed delivery, they won't allow any other program derailing it, even FGFA and AMCA.

Point 15 is an absolute nightmare.


If i can make a little insignificant contribution to this thread, I remember Prasun Sengupta long back mentioned about the french cooperation for Indian nuclear submarines-the barracuda.
 
If i can make a little insignificant contribution to this thread, I remember Prasun Sengupta long back mentioned about the french cooperation for Indian nuclear submarines-the barracuda.

Is it the barracuda reactor for indian nuclear submarines

or barracuda sub with indian reactor ?
 
Back
Top Bottom