Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[soaringphnx]

Several people says that, but I would request to look at both cases a bit closer!
The most important reason why we chose the MKI was the advantage of licence production and ToT to produce all parts in India, which gives us more confidence about spare supply. PLAAFs Su 27 and Su 30MKK were build in Russia, so no matter that they bought similar fighters too, we had a clear advantage.
The F16IN also will be licence produced in India, but it's not clear which parts and if the important parts like radar, or avionics will only be assembled in India. So although we have an advantage over PAF with licence production, the spare supply, especially in war times, or during sanctions will not be as easy compared to the MKI.

Yes, the Su 30 MKK has the same design, the same engine and the same weapons as our MKI and except of the engine, that will be the same case with F16 in PAF and F16IN. But, PAF has 30 years of experience with F16s, PLAAF instead procured the first Su 27 SKs in the early 90s, while IAF get the first Su 30MKs in the mid 90s. That gives PLAAF hardly a superiority in terms of confidence, or tactics with that fighter. PAF instead, knows any advantages, as well as weak points and have a clear experience advantage with that fighter, which clearly reduced the advantage of more capable techs in the F16IN. It still might have slight advantages, but very less compared to the advantages other contenders would offer.

I agree completely. It is not something that can be overlooked and is definitely an important factor. But I feel that the F-16 won't be disqualified just because of this one factor. There are a lot of other reasons to go for other aircraft like the Rafale or F-18SH. Just my 2 cents.

 

[soaringphnx]

2. how often do you hear of engines giving out on an f16. i don't think twin engined is a plus. if anything, the spare costs and maintenance are nightmarish.

I didn't say that the F-16s engines have a poor record, did I? I just said that "in case" something does happen to an engine, the F-16 will have to attempt to glide to base while the F-18SH can still make it back with one engine.

3. sturdier? that just makes no sense at all.

I meant that since the airframe is meant to take lots of punishment, there is less chance of wear and tear to the airframe. Of course, i am not implying that other aircraft just disintegrate mid-air after a few sorties.

5. f16 is used by everyone under the sun. there is going to be no spare shortage.

When was the last order put forward by the USAF? Not recently to my knowledge. The only new orders are for a few aircraft by the PAF (I think). But since the USAF no longer needs it, will the production line be kept open as long as 2040? Unlikely in my opinion. Even NATO countries haven't ordered it revently, I believe.

6. i think having a superior f-16 gives a direct morale advantage to IAF. our pilots will know all the tactics and also have superior radars and numbers.

Here, I agree with Dash's view.

7. i think Lockheed is the better company to work with in the long run for the air force. they've been building all the recent cutting edge US stuff.

We aren't going for a joint venture with Lockheed, are we? So how does this give the F-16 any leverage over the F-18SH?

 

[jha]

i didn't get your point. what i am saying is that we don't have experience with either f16 or superhornet.


it won't happen with F18, because f18 is built by boeing which doesn't supply fighters to pak.



maybe its been discussed and agreed upon, but my impression is that superhornet is significantly more expensive

You might want to check on the comments ...

IAF has vast experience on F-16s..We have held many sessions with Singapore Air force and have observed it to death..There are rumors that some Pilots have become sort of experts in operating these and thats one of the reasons F-16 was allowed to contend in MRCA...

About second part of BOEING not supplying fighters to PAK-- Even LM is not supplying fighters to PAK in a way..its US govt. which is selling F-16 to PAK...and hence there is no surety that If in future Pakistan tries to get a few F-18 then they wont get it...

 

[whocares]

you might want to read this about the f-16
F-16 Fighting Falcon operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its not going out of spares.

since there is a major reinvestment factor, its better to work with LM as it makes further acquisitions from that company easier (i see no reason why we might not want f-35s at some point).

however, my main point really is about costs, and i'd love if someone could give a rough comparison between f16in and f18sh. (or point to such a post in this humoungously long thread).

if it costs roughly the same, i'll go for the SH.

 

[Dash]

you might want to read this about the f-16
F-16 Fighting Falcon operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

its not going out of spares.

since there is a major reinvestment factor, its better to work with LM as it makes further acquisitions from that company easier (i see no reason why we might not want f-35s at some point).

however, my main point really is about costs, and i'd love if someone could give a rough comparison between f16in and f18sh. (or point to such a post in this humoungously long thread).

if it costs roughly the same, i'll go for the SH.

So you want to say that if F-18 has a better life cycle cost then it will certainly be a better plane than F-16 in MRCA tender.
Is that your question?

 

[SEAL]

You might want to check on the comments ...

IAF has vast experience on F-16s..We have held many sessions with Singapore Air force and have observed it to death..There are rumors that some Pilots have become sort of experts in operating these and thats one of the reasons F-16 was allowed to contend in MRCA...

About second part of BOEING not supplying fighters to PAK-- Even LM is not supplying fighters to PAK in a way..its US govt. which is selling F-16 to PAK...and hence there is no surety that If in future Pakistan tries to get a few F-18 then they wont get it...

Well thats BS IAF know nothing about F-16 they don't even know the difference between block 50/52 and F-16 IN(block 60) competing in MRCA.
GoI and IAF were furious with USA and LM over F-16 sale to Pakistan later L.M explained them in written form that F-16IN is more advanced than PAF block 52+.

 

[Dash]

Well thats BS IAF know nothing about F-16 they don't even know the difference between block 50/52 and F-16 IN(block 60) competing in MRCA.
GoI and IAF were furious with USA and LM over F-16 sale to Pakistan later L.M explained them in written form that F-16IN is more advanced than PAF block 52+.

So does that make us "Clever"?

 

[Just Yash]

Well thats BS IAF know nothing about F-16 they don't even know the difference between block 50/52 and F-16 IN(block 60) competing in MRCA.
GoI and IAF were furious with USA and LM over F-16 sale to Pakistan later L.M explained them in written form that F-16IN is more advanced than PAF block 52+.

Oh God,

This guy want to say that GOI and IAF are not wise enough to differentiate between AESA radar of Block-70 vs simple radar on block-52 or advance avionics or refueling prob or........ just leave it

I m not expert for replying this short to Dumb and Idiotic comments!!!! can any member help me out here????

 

[SEAL]

Oh God,

This guy want to say that GOI and IAF are not wise enough to differentiate between AESA radar of Block-70 vs simple radar on block-52 or advance avionics or refueling prob or........ just leave it :

Hell yeah they are not wise enough for full story

Indian F-16s more advanced than Pakistan's, says Lockheed Martin - India - The Times of India

 

[jha]

Well thats BS IAF know nothing about F-16 they don't even know the difference between block 50/52 and F-16 IN(block 60) competing in MRCA.
GoI and IAF were furious with USA and LM over F-16 sale to Pakistan later L.M explained them in written form that F-16IN is more advanced than PAF block 52+.

You have a lot of knowledge on defence topics..keep posting such enlightening posts

 

[Dash]

Friends, a request ....Lets just not reply any trolls here. lets keep the sanctity of the thread intact.

 

[sancho]

I agree completely. It is not something that can be overlooked and is definitely an important factor. But I feel that the F-16 won't be disqualified just because of this one factor. There are a lot of other reasons to go for other aircraft like the Rafale or F-18SH. Just my 2 cents.

Sure, not only because of that, but that should be a big factor fot IAF.

You might want to check on the comments ...

IAF has vast experience on F-16s..We have held many sessions with Singapore Air force and have observed it to death..There are rumors that some Pilots have become sort of experts in operating these and thats one of the reasons F-16 was allowed to contend in MRCA...

We don't have F16s, so how can they operate them?

We might have some experience in engaging them in exercises, but that doesn't mean that our pilots would easily fly F16IN too. It will be a totally new aircraft for them and new tactics have to be build. This time not to engage them, but to integrate them at best alongside our other fighters.

 

[SEAL]

You have a lot of knowledge on defence topics..keep posting such enlightening posts

n you keep posting jokes like Indian pilots became masters of F-16 in 2 exercises with Singapore.

 

[whocares]

So you want to say that if F-18 has a better life cycle cost then it will certainly be a better plane than F-16 in MRCA tender.
Is that your question?

yes, i said this before. if they cost the same, i'll take the F18 SH.

i think SH will cost more considering this

On 3 May 2007, the Australian Government signed a contract to acquire 24 F/A-18Fs for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), at a cost of AU$2.9 billion, as an interim replacement for the aging F-111s.[62] The total cost with training and support over 10 years is AU$6 billion (US$4.6 billion).

they signed 24 SH for 2.9AU = 2.6B USD. thats more than 100m USD a superhornet.

even if we're buying more in number, i don't think we're going to get a cost reduction to 80M USD. and the 100M+ per SH that Australia paid was in 2007. We got the MRCA bids in 2010. should cost more than 2007.

can anyone give a projected estimate of f16 cost?

 

[jha]

Sure, not only because of that, but that should be a big factor fot IAF.



We don't have F16s, so how can they operate them?

We might have some experience in engaging them in exercises, but that doesn't mean that our pilots would easily fly F16IN too. It will be a totally new aircraft for them and new tactics have to be build. This time not to engage them, but to integrate them at best alongside our other fighters.

Of course we dont have F-16...But you seem to undermine the mutual understandings between countries...
Even though Pakistan does not have a Su-30, their operators are flying them in china..
Similarly each year Singapore Air force comes each year to india for long range training and what we get in return is rather derailed study of aircraft (which includes flying them)...Consider same for Israel..