What's new

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

. .
Look at the future force structure, IAF don't want to induct more heavy fighters.Chief said it multiple times. The last order of 40 was to extend production line. Naisik plant will be focusing on overhauls.
I'm aware of that and I am not saying the IAF wants more heavies but it will be a strategic decsion (to keep Naisik ticking over), the IAF chief's comments were made in the past but since then the FGFA's production schedule has continued to slip which will force the IAF's/MoD's hand. I had heard the 330-340 unit projection a few years ago anyway and it seems to be going this way.

What about the 40 that would carry Brahmos?

@Abingdonboy
As mentioned above, exsisting MKIs will be modified for this role.
 
.
I'm aware of that and I am not saying the IAF wants more heavies but it will be a strategic decsion (to keep Naisik ticking over), the IAF chief's comments were made in the past but since then the FGFA's production schedule has continued to slip which will force the IAF's/MoD's hand. I had heard the 330-340 unit projection a few years ago anyway and it seems to be going this way.

If we order 40 more MKIs, HAL won't produce them, we will get them as kits which HAL will assemble in 2 months and deliver to the IAF without it ever having touched the Nasik assembly line.
 
.
I do understand bro what you are saying, but we have limited defence budget. It is poor choice of IAF in the past that is making it suffer (and govt too.) .

First of all, has any MoD or Finance Ministry official ever even said that we cannot afford any of the ongoing procurements? AFAIK, no. The "budget problems" that a lot of people are harping about are either imagined or wrongly calculated.

How could we have afforded 126 Rafael with 30 billion $ + bill. We have other project like FGFA ,updating sukhoi to super sukhoi, helicopters, plane mounted radars etc.

IAF has operated a larger variety of aircraft in the past (during '65, '71 wars) from a multitude of sources (Western like Ouragans, Mysteres etc., Russian like Su-7s and MiGs and Indian like HF-24 Marut) than it does now or plans to do in the future. And that was when our economy was in the drain and we were walking the line on international sanctions & isolation.

Operating FGFA, Rafale, MKI + Tejas in the 2020s is a cakewalk in comparison. Each type is being procured in sufficient numbers to enjoy the economies of scale, while having all the desired capabilities.

Our economy is rising, fast. We have the capability to procure & maintain the kind of fleet IAF wants - and that capability will only increase in the future.

We need to be realistic when looking into our options.

True. But remember that line.

For MRCA deal india should have gone with only one type of aircraft. If Rafael were too costly india should have dropped it and choose the next best one that fit in out budget.

Again, who said Rafale is too costly? Haggling with the other party to reduce the price & discussing the other benefits is fine, but who said anything about Rafale being out of the price league?

The only planes that actually met IAF's technical requirements were the Rafale & Typhoon. And among these two, Rafale was the cheapest.

Only logical choice for IAF is to rely on home grown fighter and invest in LCA and AMCA

You said yourself that we must be realistic when looking into our options. And here you're suggesting that we forego available options for the sake of a plane that doesn't exist and won't for a long time.

Our requirement is now.

If IAF want to have the sanctioned strength of 42 + squadrons then it must be fulfilled by our own platforms. It must invest in home grown jets and accept it's responsibility too. Defence is important but there are many other areas which need investment and care from government on priority basis.

We don't just need X number of planes. We need those numbers is certain categories which will together provide the IAF the tactical combat capability it desires. Building your whole fleet around 1,000 LCAs won't win you a war
 
.
Rafale numbers don’t add up
Clarity is required on the deal’s India-specific technologies and their industrial viability plan

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

raf-kBDB--621x414@LiveMint.jpg

Photo: Reuters

The Rafale deal is back in the news. This past Thursday, Swaraj Abhiyan founder Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Union government had paid double the price for individual aircraft units. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar responded that this was the “best deal” and one that had not been offered to any other country. On Sunday, Bhushan shot back. He said that the Rafale deal will prove to be another “Bofors” for the Narendra Modi government. The truth, as is usually the case, lies somewhere in the middle.

The Rafale is a great plane and its induction will do a lot for the air force. However, as the dust settles on the excitement over the Indian Air Force’s purchase of the plane, it is becoming increasingly evident that the numbers are very complex and throw up more questions than answers.

As of now the deal for 36 aircraft is valued at a total of $8.9 billion. This translates into a per-unit price of $247 million. The actual planes are valued at $3.78 billion or $105 million per plane. By itself this does not seem like a particularly large blowout of the initial Rafale offer in the 2007 MMRCA tender, where the cost hovered around the $90 million mark.

What’s interesting, however, is how the rest of the money is allocated. A full $1.9 billion will be spent on customizing the aircraft to Indian specifications. Publicly this has included speculation about an Israeli-manufactured helmet-mounted display (HMD). An HMD shows flight and combat-critical information that is displayed on the pilot’s helmet visor. This allows the pilot to cue a missile on to an enemy fighter by simply looking at it.

The Rafale has had a troubled history with this technology. As far back as 2011 some Rafale models were tested with unidentified versions of the HMD. However, till date no HMD has been integrated with the Rafale in French service. This is a particularly glaring omission given that HMDs are considered the sine qua non of modern fighters. Also, $1.9 billion seems far too much money for the purchase and integration of a mere helmet which by no stretch of the imagination can cost almost 50% of the plane itself. This leads one to conclude that there may be several technologies being developed for the Rafale.

The most logical options for this include other major sub-systems that the Rafale currently lacks. The obvious technology choice will be an infrared search and track (IRST) system that allows the plane to carry out a completely passive search of the airspace, checking for the heat exhaust of opposing fighters or missiles. In the modern battlefield, thick with jamming across the electromagnetic spectrum, something as simple as an infrared tracker makes all the difference between life and death.

The other obvious target for improvement in the Rafale is the radar. The current radar of the Rafale—the RBE2—only has a one-way data link to its long-range air-to-air missile, the Meteor. This is a huge disadvantage that effectively squanders the range advantage of the Meteor. What would happen in combat is that the Rafale will fire a Meteor from a great distance at a target; in the case of fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Gripen, which have a two-way data link to the Meteor, they can immediately break off the attack and retreat to a safe place. The missile then acts as eyes at the back of the proverbial head-allowing the pilot to see his target through the missile’s own radar. This is not the case with the Rafale as it will have to continue trailing the Meteors it fires right up to the point of impact to ensure the target is actually destroyed.

If it is in fact these three critical technologies that are being modified to make the Rafale India-specific, then it will be money well spent depending, of course, on who owns the intellectual property rights to these improvements. If this ends up being another case of subsidizing the improvement of other people’s technology at the expense of the Indian taxpayer, then it is safe to conclude that the deal was badly negotiated.

Adding to the apprehension is the defence ministry’s curious usage of the term “offset” as opposed to “industrial participation”. “Offset” implies India may not own the technologies it pays to develop and will receive unrelated contracts. On the other hand, “industrial participation” would have implied that the commercial benefits of the technologies could have been exploited in the short to medium term. Realistically speaking, all three technologies are extremely complex, rendering indigenization impossible in the short to medium term. By the time such technologies are transferred, their market viability would be at an end.

It must, however, be noted that the total offset stipulated by the defence ministry stands at 50% or around $4.5 billion, leaving another $2.7 billion unaccounted for. Sadly, Dassault’s choice of local industrial partners does not inspire confidence. In the past, the normal practice has been for companies to pay their “local partner” a fraction of the cost of the offset to simply claim that they had received orders, inflating bills, or double and triple invoicing.

Clearly, greater transparency is required since much of the deal does not add up. The most basic steps must include clarity on the India-specific technologies, their ownership and their industrial viability plan, and the institution of annual third-party audits to ensure that Dassault’s local partners are in fact receiving and executing orders for the full value of the $4.5 billion offset. Till then we can only cross our fingers and hope that this is not a case of history repeating itself.




some more clarity on new technologies developed for india specific rafale. What about engine/uprated engine?
 
.
A lot of misinformations in this article.
First it asks for clarity as if it was not the case :sarcastic:but there is thousand of pages in the contract giving all the details,and the question is does this has to be share with the media? The Dassault policy is that it is the costomer which can communicate about a contract.

Second the article claim That the Rafale has had a troubled history with HMD. Several HMD have been already integrated with Rafale, but the French air force does not want it until the mass is below 1.3 kg with all equipments including night vision. For the moment nobody is able to deliver that, and even if India choose an HMD France will not buy one.

Third the description of the use of the two way datalink for meteor is completly false. Nobody will watch at his target through the seeker of a missile! the range of the seeker is far below the range of the plane radar. The two way datalink is used to communicate to the plane when the target is locked, and at this moment the plane can break off the attack. But Rafale can break off the attack as soon as the meteor is fire, because SPECTRA is able to track a target which has been initialised by a radar during the time of the attack.

And for IRST there is one available: the OSF is a plug an play equipment, France have two kinds of OSF : OSF-IT which is the new one without IRST but with a TV sensor allowing identification at long Range, and OSF with an IRST and aTV sensor with a lower range. Inda can choose a mixt of the two or only one of the two. But it can be developed also an IR sensor to add to OSF-IT as part of Make in India.
 
.
Rafale numbers don’t add up
Clarity is required on the deal’s India-specific technologies and their industrial viability plan

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

raf-kBDB--621x414@LiveMint.jpg

Photo: Reuters

The Rafale deal is back in the news. This past Thursday, Swaraj Abhiyan founder Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Union government had paid double the price for individual aircraft units. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar responded that this was the “best deal” and one that had not been offered to any other country. On Sunday, Bhushan shot back. He said that the Rafale deal will prove to be another “Bofors” for the Narendra Modi government. The truth, as is usually the case, lies somewhere in the middle.

The Rafale is a great plane and its induction will do a lot for the air force. However, as the dust settles on the excitement over the Indian Air Force’s purchase of the plane, it is becoming increasingly evident that the numbers are very complex and throw up more questions than answers.

As of now the deal for 36 aircraft is valued at a total of $8.9 billion. This translates into a per-unit price of $247 million. The actual planes are valued at $3.78 billion or $105 million per plane. By itself this does not seem like a particularly large blowout of the initial Rafale offer in the 2007 MMRCA tender, where the cost hovered around the $90 million mark.

What’s interesting, however, is how the rest of the money is allocated. A full $1.9 billion will be spent on customizing the aircraft to Indian specifications. Publicly this has included speculation about an Israeli-manufactured helmet-mounted display (HMD). An HMD shows flight and combat-critical information that is displayed on the pilot’s helmet visor. This allows the pilot to cue a missile on to an enemy fighter by simply looking at it.

The Rafale has had a troubled history with this technology. As far back as 2011 some Rafale models were tested with unidentified versions of the HMD. However, till date no HMD has been integrated with the Rafale in French service. This is a particularly glaring omission given that HMDs are considered the sine qua non of modern fighters. Also, $1.9 billion seems far too much money for the purchase and integration of a mere helmet which by no stretch of the imagination can cost almost 50% of the plane itself. This leads one to conclude that there may be several technologies being developed for the Rafale.

The most logical options for this include other major sub-systems that the Rafale currently lacks. The obvious technology choice will be an infrared search and track (IRST) system that allows the plane to carry out a completely passive search of the airspace, checking for the heat exhaust of opposing fighters or missiles. In the modern battlefield, thick with jamming across the electromagnetic spectrum, something as simple as an infrared tracker makes all the difference between life and death.

The other obvious target for improvement in the Rafale is the radar. The current radar of the Rafale—the RBE2—only has a one-way data link to its long-range air-to-air missile, the Meteor. This is a huge disadvantage that effectively squanders the range advantage of the Meteor. What would happen in combat is that the Rafale will fire a Meteor from a great distance at a target; in the case of fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Gripen, which have a two-way data link to the Meteor, they can immediately break off the attack and retreat to a safe place. The missile then acts as eyes at the back of the proverbial head-allowing the pilot to see his target through the missile’s own radar. This is not the case with the Rafale as it will have to continue trailing the Meteors it fires right up to the point of impact to ensure the target is actually destroyed.

If it is in fact these three critical technologies that are being modified to make the Rafale India-specific, then it will be money well spent depending, of course, on who owns the intellectual property rights to these improvements. If this ends up being another case of subsidizing the improvement of other people’s technology at the expense of the Indian taxpayer, then it is safe to conclude that the deal was badly negotiated.

Adding to the apprehension is the defence ministry’s curious usage of the term “offset” as opposed to “industrial participation”. “Offset” implies India may not own the technologies it pays to develop and will receive unrelated contracts. On the other hand, “industrial participation” would have implied that the commercial benefits of the technologies could have been exploited in the short to medium term. Realistically speaking, all three technologies are extremely complex, rendering indigenization impossible in the short to medium term. By the time such technologies are transferred, their market viability would be at an end.

It must, however, be noted that the total offset stipulated by the defence ministry stands at 50% or around $4.5 billion, leaving another $2.7 billion unaccounted for. Sadly, Dassault’s choice of local industrial partners does not inspire confidence. In the past, the normal practice has been for companies to pay their “local partner” a fraction of the cost of the offset to simply claim that they had received orders, inflating bills, or double and triple invoicing.

Clearly, greater transparency is required since much of the deal does not add up. The most basic steps must include clarity on the India-specific technologies, their ownership and their industrial viability plan, and the institution of annual third-party audits to ensure that Dassault’s local partners are in fact receiving and executing orders for the full value of the $4.5 billion offset. Till then we can only cross our fingers and hope that this is not a case of history repeating itself.




some more clarity on new technologies developed for india specific rafale. What about engine/uprated engine?
Except the two way datalink (and maybe not...) it's BS as usual from guys speaking about things they don't understand.

The 90 or 95 millions price per plane is the price India will paid for next batch. Because all the fixed costs are already paid.
Rafale has the OSF which acts as an IRST.
 
.
http://m.economictimes.com/news/def...acturing-unit-in-goa/articleshow/55016003.cms


PANAJI: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today "advised" French firm SAFRAN to set up a facility in his home state of Goa to manufacture small parts for the fighter aircraft Rafale, for which India recently signed a deal with France.

"I would also advice you to take advantage of the off-set in Rafale deal. From my side I will put a word. You (SAFRAN) are supplying engines for Rafale. The off-set of Rafale deal is around Rs 30,000 crore. If you are interested in setting up a manufacturing facility of some small parts then you can do it in Goa," Parrikar said during the inauguration of a joint venture between HAL and French firm SAFRAN in North Goa.

He said Rs 1,000-1,500 crore of the total offset deal can be invested in Goa.

"If that happens, Goa will provide technical support which is required for such activity," he said.

The Defence Minister also appealed state Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar for setting up courses for skill development in aeronautical engineering.


Parrikar said Goa requires engineering industry.

"Goans are in high tech jobs across India. Also a lot of talent is available locally," he added.

The Defence Minister also suggested that HAL should tie up with SAFRAN and get into manufacturing of engines.

"We are going to require 6,000-10,000 engines in next ten years and most of them are SAFRAN engines," he said.

Parrikar said the Goa government is ready to provide land and other facilities required to set up an engine manufacturing plant.

PS: It's a good thing that ofset cause itself make future MII less complicated and quick progression;)
 
.
Second the article claim That the Rafale has had a troubled history with HMD. Several HMD have been already integrated with Rafale, but the French air force does not want it until the mass is below 1.3 kg with all equipments including night vision. For the moment nobody is able to deliver that, and even if India choose an HMD France will not buy one.

YUP! First thought was : _ Sextant Avionics _ Thales ( Topsight ) _ Gerfault by Sagem
Second one went : _ Where do these people get their infos from?

Then 2 paragraphs later I stopped reading after this gem :
The other obvious target for improvement in the Rafale is the radar.

8-) Tu me comprends, j'espère? [ / I trust you'll understand! :p: ]

Good day all, Tay.

 
.
YUP! First thought was : _ Sextant Avionics _ Thales ( Topsight ) _ Gerfault by Sagem
Second one went : _ Where do these people get their infos from?

Then 2 paragraphs later I stopped reading after this gem :


8-) Tu me comprends, j'espère? [ / I trust you'll understand! :p: ]

Good day all, Tay.
about the radar, it was true with the PESA antenae (a little bit short in range).
Rafale is delivered with AESA until 2013....
 
.
about the radar, it was true with the PESA antenae (a little bit short in range).
Rafale is delivered with AESA until 2013....
PESA RBE2 is an excellent Radar:

Dutch pilots, following the evaluation of the Rafale, had expressed admiration speaking of "solid tracks" produced by RBE2. It seems they were oscillations of velocity vectors of radar tracks from their F16.

Within Thales, that remains the favorite anecdote to explain to trainees radar operators that the antenna size and transmitter power are not enough to make a good radar.

As was shown recently by Thales at a conference on the Rafale in Bordeaux, it is imperative to look at the number of antenna paths and the number of receiving channels and their quality.

In this case, the Netherlands F16 radar did lack of track deviation measurement to make monopulse processing. The radar was cheaper at the expense of performance.

In the same conference, he was presented the hypothesis of a lower quality of pathways of the Eurofighter radar to explain notably the lower assessment made by the Swiss.

This radar has good number of pathways to make single-pulse (angular deviation) but their quality is not sufficient in "look down" to separate soil echoes of echoes aircraft.

Fewer the noise in these pathways more Doppler separation is effective (it is true that the soil returns of the Alps should have shake a little the radar).
 
.
PESA RBE2 is an excellent Radar:

Dutch pilots, following the evaluation of the Rafale, had expressed admiration speaking of "solid tracks" produced by RBE2. It seems they were oscillations of velocity vectors of radar tracks from their F16.

Within Thales, that remains the favorite anecdote to explain to trainees radar operators that the antenna size and transmitter power are not enough to make a good radar.

As was shown recently by Thales at a conference on the Rafale in Bordeaux, it is imperative to look at the number of antenna paths and the number of receiving channels and their quality.

In this case, the Netherlands F16 radar did lack of track deviation measurement to make monopulse processing. The radar was cheaper at the expense of performance.

In the same conference, he was presented the hypothesis of a lower quality of pathways of the Eurofighter radar to explain notably the lower assessment made by the Swiss.

This radar has good number of pathways to make single-pulse (angular deviation) but their quality is not sufficient in "look down" to separate soil echoes of echoes aircraft.

Fewer the noise in these pathways more Doppler separation is effective (it is true that the soil returns of the Alps should have shake a little the radar).
OK, but the PESA radar was a little bit disapointing for french pilots at the beginnings, in term of range.

I say nothing more.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom