Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[Bang Galore]

As I said, because it's a new type of fighter, that needs new training, tactics, maintenance..., but the M2K was not to be replaced, which would have justified a new type, but to be upgraded to extend it's life in IAF, which is more than happy with the fighter.
It's like you have have a car, which you love and that does perfectly what you want of it, is highly reliable and has no other issues. But instead of buying the next set of tires and giving it some new oil, or replace a few older parts, you consider to buy a new car, only because the parts are expensive.

The fact is, the M2K is a great fighter for IAF and will be even better after the upgrades, it most likely have crucial roles within IAFs tactics, which can't be simply changed either and IF they would want a new type of fighter as a short term replacement, the most logical choice would be additional Mig 29SMTs, or Rafale, since the earlier is already available in IAF too and the latter is based on the tactics and logistics of the M2K, which makes a switch easier. The Gripen, EF or any of the US fighters would never be considered, since IAF would have start from zero again and that's what many forget while comparing the upgrade cost to the cost of a fighter, which btw is often only the flyaway cost, not the system cost!!!

I'm sorry but I simply don't buy that argument. Everything is defined by cost V/s gain. No one is arguing that the IAF didn't like the M2k but that the upgrade costs were simply not worth it. To use your car analogy, if the spare parts costs only a little less than a new car, one which is still new to you, what decision would you take, especially when you know that the line is dead & there will be no further improvements on the model. My point is not about the quality of the upgrade, way too expensive imo but about how Indian money is spent. The argument for buying Rafale's instead is quote simply illogical since we are talking different classes of fighters & since we are buying Rafale anyways . There is absolutely no need to fall into French dependency after the Russian one. The Mig would be out too for the same reasons. The system costs on an aging fighters is not going to be cheap when you are still throwing money that you will anyways have to. We will have to buy new aircrafts sometime, I see no reason why we didn't just keep the M2k's as they were & bought an aircraft that would remain in service much longer. The Upgradation costs of the M2k are simply ridiculous, no matter how you look at it unless they are deliberately being padded up for something not in the public domain.

There are many points for that:

- reduced costs of the overal procurement, since higher units reduces the unit costs
- we can ask for more ToT/offsets or additional leverages as you wanted
- on the other side, buying a new type in low numbers means high unit costs and low leverages
- adding types of fighters increase overall maintenance and logistical costs
- adding types of fighters, that doesn't offer tactical advantages, make operations more complicated

That is known. However with the French attitude, I simply see no reason to put all our eggs in one basket. I believe that the way the French behaved, we will need to keep a very wary eye. I also am not a big fan of creating a French dependence unnecessarily. 120 odd aircraft is not a deal to scoff at. EF/SH should be an option that we must not take off the table & the French must know that it is a serious option.The additional costs of having multiple platforms are worth it in my opinion.

 

[sancho]

Everything is defined by cost V/s gain. No one is arguing that the IAF didn't like the M2k but that the upgrade costs were simply not worth it.

As i said, you compare the upgrade cost with the flyway cost of Gripen, but the system cost, including support for 30 years (which we paid for the M2Ks as well and would be wasted by replacing them early), setting up training and logistics is way higher.

System cost for S. African Gripen C/D - $1.8 billion for 28 fighters => $65 millions per unit
Offered System cost for Norwegean Gripen E/F - $3.1 billion for 48 fighters => $85 million per unit
Offered System cost for Brazilian Gripen E/F - $4.3 billion for 36 fighters => $119 million per unit
System cost for Swiss Gripen E/F - $3.3 billion for 22 fighters => $150 million per unit

Not to mention the completely new weapon package than needs to be procured and can't be shared with other fighters in the fleet. Mirage weapons instead, could be used when they will be phased out from Rafale.

The argument for buying Rafale's instead is quote simply illogical since we are talking different classes of fighters & since we are buying Rafale anyways .

First of all, Mirage 2000 and F16 are medium class fighters, unlike the Gripen C, which belongs to the light class as our Tejas.
Secondly, the fact that we by Rafale in MMRCA anyway is exactly the reaons why it would also be a choice to replace M2K, since it wouldn't add another type of fighter to the fleet and would be available even now in the latest version with AESA. So only advanced Rafales at lower cost, instead of less capable Gripen C and Rafales.

We will have to buy new aircrafts sometime

Which we already do, with LCA and Rafale now and FGFA as a replacement of the M2Ks in future, but adding more fighter types, especially more 4th gen once doesn't make sense.

I see no reason why we didn't just keep the M2k's as they were

Because it needs a life extention to remain in service for the next 10 to 15 years, the same what we did with the Mig 29 and what we do with the MKI from 2015 onwards. All these upgrades include complete overhaul of the airframe, apart from the modernisation of techs and weapons, that is neccessary to be useful in the next 10+ years.

That is known. However with the French attitude, I simply see no reason to put all our eggs in one basket.

You might not like their attitude, but again we don't put all eggs in one basked, exactly because we buy French fighters to avoid overdependance on Russians. That's makes us less dependent and not more!

 

[Sergi]

@sancho : I do agree with @Bang Galore on the upgrade costs. We have been ripped off. Instead of upgrading M2Ks and Jags we should have ordered more Rafaels off the shelf. And continue to use M2K and Jags till their life span. And if you see the upgrade duration .... I don't think its worth it

 

[sancho]

@sancho : I do agree with @Bang Galore on the upgrade costs. We have been ripped off. Instead of upgrading M2Ks and Jags we should have ordered more Rafaels off the shelf. And continue to use M2K and Jags till their life span. And if you see the upgrade duration .... I don't think its worth it

Which makes 9 squadrons completely worthless!

 

[Hulk]

@sancho : I do agree with @Bang Galore on the upgrade costs. We have been ripped off. Instead of upgrading M2Ks and Jags we should have ordered more Rafaels off the shelf. And continue to use M2K and Jags till their life span. And if you see the upgrade duration .... I don't think its worth it

I do not think IAF does not knew that basic thing, there might be reason for doing the same.

 

[neehar]

@sancho does the upgrade of mki from 2015 as u mentioned also includes asea and al-41?

 

[Sergi]

I do not think IAF does not knew that basic thing, there might be reason for doing the same.

I don't know about IAF but I certainly don't know that's why trying to find out. Yu are more than welcome to elaborate

 

[Bang Galore]

As i said, you compare the upgrade cost with the flyway cost of Gripen, but the system cost, including support for 30 years (which we paid for the M2Ks as well and would be wasted by replacing them early), setting up training and logistics is way higher.

System cost for S. African Gripen C/D - $1.8 billion for 28 fighters => $65 millions per unit
Offered System cost for Norwegean Gripen E/F - $3.1 billion for 48 fighters => $85 million per unit
Offered System cost for Brazilian Gripen E/F - $4.3 billion for 36 fighters => $119 million per unit
System cost for Swiss Gripen E/F - $3.3 billion for 22 fighters => $150 million per unit

I'm still looking at the utility of the M2k beyond the next 10-15 years. The airframes are really old & the line simply does not exist. We would be buying more gripens (if we went that route) and the cost would be much lesser than what you quoted. Even if I accept the costs will be more than it would to upgrade the M2k, you do realise that these are completely new aircraft we are talking about.

Not to mention the completely new weapon package than needs to be procured and can't be shared with other fighters in the fleet. Mirage weapons instead, could be used when they will be phased out from Rafale.

That is completely illogical. The M2k upgrade was agreed to even before the Rafale was short listed, there can be no connection drawn arbitrarily.

First of all, Mirage 2000 and F16 are medium class fighters, unlike the Gripen C, which belongs to the light class as our Tejas.
Secondly, the fact that we by Rafale in MMRCA anyway is exactly the reaons why it would also be a choice to replace M2K, since it wouldn't add another type of fighter to the fleet and would be available even now in the latest version with AESA. So only advanced Rafales at lower cost, instead of less capable Gripen C and Rafales.

As I have said, we need not have stopped with just small quantities of Gripen. We could have continued augmenting the fleet as the Mig 21 were being phased out. Also, unlike you, I have already made it clear that the oft quoted argument against the number of platforms makes no sense to me when we continue to import our requirement. See no logic in giving any particular country/vendor unnecessary leverage and constant adding of new technologies won't hurt. Will also keep the vendor on the toes if there are more contracts to be won. I'm deeply sceptical of the supposed cost savings that will happen with he consolidation of the platforms regardless of whether the vendor is the French, the other Europeans or indeed the Americans. I believe as the French have shown, the ripping off can continue & being dependent on them for a large portion of the fleet might be counter productive.

Which we already do, with LCA and Rafale now and FGFA as a replacement of the M2Ks in future, but adding more fighter types, especially more 4th gen once doesn't make sense.

It does when you understand my argument against being dependent on the French. I can already see the costs of the arms to be procured burning a big hole in the Rafale purchase, not to mention using mainly twin engined aircrafts & still hoping to keep some control over the budget.

Because it needs a life extention to remain in service for the next 10 to 15 years, the same what we did with the Mig 29 and what we do with the MKI from 2015 onwards. All these upgrades include complete overhaul of the airframe, apart from the modernisation of techs and weapons, that is neccessary to be useful in the next 10+ years.

It doesn't matter. Everything must be analysed wrt cost involved. We do have the Mig 21's still flying, The M2k could have survived for the next few years in the same condition & be phased out as necessary.

You might not like their attitude, but again we don't put all eggs in one basked, exactly because we buy French fighters to avoid overdependance on Russians. That's makes us less dependent and not more!

That argument completely misconstrues my point. I warned against being dependent on the French, the Russians were not the ones I was suggesting turning to. The French behaviour makes it amply clear that India will have a rough ride & giving them more leverage by having more aircraft defies logic.

 

[Sergi]

Which makes 9 squadrons completely worthless!

But we are using them right now as they are. Aren't we ??? And upgrade isn't going to happen overnight. I am pretty sure it will run even after we induct first Sqdn of Rafale

 

[Bang Galore]

Which makes 9 squadrons completely worthless!

No more than with the Mig 21's presently serving.

 

[rockstarIN]

@sancho

As im completely against the upgrade of M2k with high costs, simply does not make sense at all. I would rather prefer a less cost combo of Elta 2032_derby ungradation of M2k.

And regarding Mig-29 to Mig-29 SMT, too less cost than M2k up gradation.

 

[Kloitra]

But we are using them right now as they are. Aren't we ??? And upgrade isn't going to happen overnight. I am pretty sure it will run even after we induct first Sqdn of Rafale

Even if upgrades run parallel to mrca induction, we get capable planes within 10 years. If we dont upgrade, we get capable planes after 128 rafael induction. with already dwindling squad no, that doesn,t bodes well.

IAF has stated that the upgrades would help them make more out of less numbers.

 

[Sergi]

Even if upgrades run parallel to mrca induction, we get capable planes within 10 years. If we dont upgrade, we get capable planes after 128 rafael induction. with already dwindling squad no, that doesn,t bodes well.

IAF has stated that the upgrades would help them make more out of less numbers.

There was always an option to buy off-shelf.
I am not saying M2K is a bad plane or something. I am saying that the cost of upgrade and the duration of upgrade just don't make sence. French production lines should be capable of delivering 30 ac per year. And additional order would have given us additional leverage in deal.

@sancho : you are right on Gripen that it would have cost more in training and infa. How about adding more Rafael instead ???

 

[Kloitra]

There was always an option to buy off-shelf.
I am not saying M2K is a bad plane or something. I am saying that the cost of upgrade and the duration of upgrade just don't make sence. French production lines should be capable of delivering 30 ac per year. And additional order would have given us additional leverage in deal.

@sancho : you are right on Gripen that it would have cost more in training and infa. How about adding more Rafael instead ???

50 extra Rafale would cost much more, both to procure and to maintain. You cannot replace a single engine light fighter with a twin engine medium one. Besides, off the shelf is out of question. HAL/govt insisted to have in house upgrade. A big fraction of cost is to build infra for that. They could have just let French do the upgrade and saved a lot, but would have missed the opportunity to gain experience.

 

[Sergi]

50 extra Rafale would cost much more, both to procure and to maintain. You cannot replace a single engine light fighter with a twin engine medium one. Besides, off the shelf is out of question. HAL/govt insisted to have in house upgrade. A big fraction of cost is to build infra for that. They could have just let French do the upgrade and saved a lot, but would have missed the opportunity to gain experience.

Rafael would have cost more to produce - yes. Not to maintain we already planning to have 126 of them.

You can't replace a single engine light fighter with twin engine medium one - says who ??? Do you know which planes heavy MKIs are replacing ??? Or coming Rafaels will be replacing ???

Off shelf is out if question I know. Bt that's the problem here.

Opportunity to gain experience of what ??? Upgrading 3rd gen plane to 4th ??? I though HAL was more interested in building 5th gen ( sarcasm ) calling it apportunity is wrong. Say a waist of time , money and manpower. Direct upgrade would have been more fast and some relevance