Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[sancho]

I'm still looking at the utility of the M2k beyond the next 10-15 years...

...you do realise that these are completely new aircraft we are talking about.

As I said twice before, there is no utility for the M2K beyond the 10 – 15 years, this is the last upgrade, with the only aim to extend the life of the airframe till they can be replaced by FGFA and with modernised features, to keep them capable for another 10 – 15 years, not more.
And yes, I know that they are new, but again, we already decided for 5 th gen fighters as replacement, not 4 th gen once, like the Gripen C.

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

The M2K upgrade didn't included weapons, they were evaluated and procured later. MICA for example was procured last jan and, SPICE 2000 was just confirmed during Aero India, there is still an LDP competition, for M2K and Rafale going on.

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.

Which is what LCA and MMRCA is meant to do, again no need for Gripens.

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.

The problem here is only, that the Gripen use mainly expensive European weapons too! Some of them should be even more costly then French once, since they are exported only in very small numbers

Gripen E / Rafale

WVR: IRIS-T / MICA
BVR: Meteor / Meteor
LGB: Paveway / Paveway
PGM: NA yet / AASM
Anti ship: RBS 15 / Exocet
Cruise missile: Taurus / Scalp

The only cost advantage here is the IRIS-T, since it's a dedicated SR missile only, while MICA is a SR and MR missile, which makes it more capable and logically more costly.

The M2k could have survived for the next few years in the same condition & be phased out as necessary.

That's your personal claim, but that don't need to be what IAF thinks and if you think about it more unbiased, you have to ask yourself, how M2K should defend itself, or Indian skys withoth BVR capability against JF 17 or J10? In this regard it actually even less capable than our old BISONS and you want it to remain in service for more than a decade without basics of modern air warefar. Can you honestly say that's a rational argument?

 

[Bang Galore]

That's your personal claim, but that don't need to be what IAF thinks and if you think about it more unbiased, you have to ask yourself, how M2K should defend itself, or Indian skys withoth BVR capability against JF 17 or J10? In this regard it actually even less capable than our old BISONS and you want it to remain in service for more than a decade without basics of modern air warefar. Can you honestly say that's a rational argument?

the rest of your posts I'm leaving as it is because the ground has been pretty much covered there but to this point, you are again misconstruing my argument. If we did go in for Gripens (remember the IAF wasn't making a choice of upgrade v/s new aircrafts), the fate of the M2k would pretty much be inconsequential. We would hardly be using the M2k as a primary fighter then with ot's replacement doing the job. It simply does not matter. If you were looking at this thing without your biases, you would see that the argument I make is not without merit. You are welcome to disagree but to suggest that a ridiculously expensive upgrade was the only option is to be a bit disingenuous. Same with the follow on order for Rafale. The french have been dictating terms on what weapons can be used on the M2k as they will probably on Rafale. You seriously believe that we should be tied down like that? The Gripen would simply allow us to integrate a far more diverse number of weapons. As for the IAF knowing better, you do know that a section was opposed to the M2k deal on the price as well as the limited period that it will be around after an upgrade.

http://www.****************/indian-brass-split-over-french-mirage-upgrade-deal-35083/

Israel has offered to upgrade IAF Mirage-2000 aircraft at low prices ~ ASIAN DEFENCE

 

[sancho]

We would hardly be using the M2k as a primary fighter then with ot's replacement doing the job.

Wrong, because it takes years till IAF has set up the same base of tactics and operational confidence in the Gripen, that they have gained in the M2Ks over the last decades. Which means, in the mean time, they can't use 3 squads of their prime fighters and must divert other fighters (most likely more important MKIs) to take over the M2K roles. And to make it worse, after 10 to 15 years, these Gripens would be would need expensive upgrades, again to be at least useful as an interceptor for the future, but if we replace the M2Ks with FGFA, we would get a whole different kind of capability in the fleet and not only as much as LCA will offer.

Mate, you are not looking at the whole picture and are trying to construct a necessity for the Gripen which simply is not there and by ignoring all the facts!

1) That Gripen was never a preferred choice for IAF, not in MRCA, not in MMRCA, not as a 2nd hand procurement and for sure not as a replacement of the Mirage!
2) That it's infact more costly than the Mirage upgrade and not less!
3) That it means operational limitations for IAF, since it has no experience with the fighter or techs!
4) That it's technologically less capable than the Rafale that we could have at the same time and a whole generation behind the FGFA, that IAF want to replace the M2K with!
5) That we already have a fighter, that is an independent choice, that is cost-effective and that is aimed to replace the Migs, THE LCA!!!
6) That the French fighters makes us less dependent from Russia, while LCA is meant to make us less dependent from foreign procurements in general!

The french have been dictating terms on what weapons can be used on the M2k as they will probably on Rafale.

Which is another claim, but completely baseless and very simple to counter (which I actually even did even in my last post, but that shows that you didn't really read it)!

If that would be true, the French wouldn't have accepted the integration of US LGBs, with Israeli help during Kargil war and without any considerations, or political issues afterwards.

If that would be true, we wouldn't integrate an Israeli PGM today to the upgraded Mirage, but take the French AASM instead, that we have rejected.

If that would be true, we wouldn't have a competition, to choose between an Israeli and a French targeting pod FOR Mirage 2000 AND the Rafale.

All this shows how far away you are from the facts, because of your personal like for the Gripen and the dislike for the French and shouldn't an opinion be based on facts and not personal issues?

 

[Bang Galore]

2) That it's infact more costly than the Mirage upgrade and not less!

The fact that you are comparing an upgrade with a purchase of a new fighter shows the ridiculousness of your argument.

Which is another claim, but completely baseless and very simple to counter (which I actually even did even in my last post, but that shows that you didn't really read it)!

If that would be true, the French wouldn't have accepted the integration of US LGBs, with Israeli help during Kargil war and without any considerations, or political issues afterwards.

If that would be true, we wouldn't integrate an Israeli PGM today to the upgraded Mirage, but take the French AASM instead, that we have rejected.

If that would be true, we wouldn't have a competition, to choose between an Israeli and a French targeting pod FOR Mirage 2000 AND the Rafale.

Thou protest too much. I see you completely left out the part where a section of the IAF said something similar to my argument about the prohibitive cost.

All this shows how far away you are from the facts, because of your personal like for the Gripen and the dislike for the French and shouldn't an opinion be based on facts and not personal issues?

I try & stick with the argument and almost never go after the person but considering you seem to be suggesting that I have personal issue(whatever that means, in favour of the Gripen(??)), I will point out this. I could care less if the Gripen was selected or the F18 or the EF. If you went back to the MMRCA discussion pages, you might see that while I initially supported the SH & the Gripen in a two way split, I welcome the IAF's decision to finally go with Rafale and defended that position with the critics at that time. However my support is based on the circumstances & issues that crop up. I'm really surprised that you made a charge of "personal interest" when you are the one person on this form singularly ill-equipped to make that charge considering how you almost seem to put the French & Dassault's interests above anything else. Not everyone is a mirror image of you & you would be well advised to be more circumspect making that charge. You are welcome to disagree, your posts have been knowledgeable even if I think you seem beholden to one side. The way you jumped on me for making that charge on Dassault & the French left me wondering whether I hit a nerve. You are the only one making it personal. Feel free to disagree. My opinion is mine & mine alone & I will readily & happily concede that I am wrong if proven so. Nor do I suggest I speak for the IAF or for any "interested" parties.There is no need to run so scared of dissenting opinions that you feel the need to go ballistic.

My last post on this subject for now. Not interested mud wrestling.

 

[Kloitra]

4) That it's technologically less capable than the Rafale that we could have at the same time and a whole generation behind the FGFA, that IAF want to replace the M2K with!

That's the point I was trying to make to @Sergi . No point in replacing a fourth gen with another. Right now we are just phasing out 3rd gen. 4rth gen are too stay for a while.

 

[Sergi]

That's the point I was trying to make to @Sergi . No point in replacing a fourth gen with another. Right now we are just phasing out 3rd gen. 4rth gen are too stay for a while.

Uhh I think he is talking about replacing M2K with Gripen (a whole new type ) and saying Gripen is less capable than Rafael where I was saying instead of upgrading M2K just to add more Rafaels. Two different things !!! BTW he is saying Gripen whole gen behind FGFA where he see Rafael as 4.5

Give him (@sancho) a choice to add more off shelf Rafaels instead of upgrading M2K he is with me
I personally think instead of upgrading 50 M2K we should have gone for 20/25 more Rafaels.

But surely IAF has something different in their mind that we don't know yet

 

[Kloitra]

Uhh I think he is talking about replacing M2K with Gripen (a whole new type ) and saying Gripen is less capable than Rafael where I was saying instead of upgrading M2K just to add more Rafaels. Two different things !!! BTW he is saying Gripen whole gen behind FGFA where he see Rafael as 4.5

Give him (@sancho) a choice to add more off shelf Rafaels instead of upgrading M2K he is with me
I personally think instead of upgrading 50 M2K we should have gone for 20/25 more Rafaels.

But surely IAF has something different in their mind that we don't know yet

I didn't read any of his post suggesting that, I guess I missed them. But I think it is not so efficient financially/potentially to replace a 4 gen with even a 4.5 gen. It is not so urgent need, given that in western theatre or even in north for now the threat is from 4/4.5. Even without upgrades, m2k have 10/15 years of service left. By that time we would get FGFA and probably AMCA.

 

[Sergi]

I didn't read any of his post suggesting that, I guess I missed them. But I think it is not so efficient financially/potentially to replace a 4 gen with even a 4.5 gen. It is not so urgent need, given that in western theatre or even in north for now the threat is from 4/4.5. Even without upgrades, m2k have 10/15 years of service left. By that time we would get FGFA and probably AMCA.

Well friend we clearly don't know IAF's logic. But lets say they know better than us and knows what's best for them as they are the guies who would be using those jets.

My points where clearly economics based.
- we are upgrading M2K. In no world the life of that air frame would be more than NEW air frame.
- The upgrade will make M2K a 4th gen aircraft no doubt but for comparatively lower life span and duration of those upgrade will decrease it further.
- We are already buying Rafaels. Adding more will lower per unit cost and we get more TOT.
- 20 rafaels will be more than capable of the things that 50 miraj can do and will have double life span and with the advantage of half generation lead plus all the possibilities of future upgrades.
- and operationally when MKIs and Rafaels in fleet I find it hardto believe that M2K will be given deep stick role

In economics perspective , I would personally would have liked to use M2K as it is till the life span and add more LCA MK-2s after 2017. I think @sancho will agree on all of above expect LCA

 

[Storm Force]

Sergi

In economics perspective , I would personally would have liked to use M2K as it is till the life span and add more LCA MK-2s after 2017. I think @sancho will agree on all of above expect LCA

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/4347-mrca-news-discussions-563.html#ixzz2SVahsxwQ

I would be shocked & very pleased/happy if LCA MK2 achieves IOC by 2017. Judging by the prgress or complete lack of the NAVAL LCA and we all know howlong LCA MK 1 is taking we will not see LCA MK2 until 2020.

I am fairly certain the 2018 timeframe will slip

ASK ME HOW

because for a decade NOW 99% of every indian militrary induction has slipped AND I KNOW MK2 TEJAS will slip

 

[Sergi]

Sergi

I would be shocked & very pleased/happy if LCA MK2 achieves IOC by 2017. Judging by the prgress or complete lack of the NAVAL LCA and we all know howlong LCA MK 1 is taking we will not see LCA MK2 until 2020.

I am fairly certain the 2018 timeframe will slip

ASK ME HOW

because for a decade NOW 99% of every indian militrary induction has slipped AND I KNOW MK2 TEJAS will slip

Well if you add one thing to your theory you will get different results. MK-2s come faster than MK-1s like Arjun MK-2

And on LCA we already screwup everything. There is nothing left to screw it again. So I think MK-2 will follow timeline this time. Lets see if prototype fly in 2015 or not.

 

[Abingdonboy]

because for a decade NOW 99% of every indian militrary induction has slipped AND I KNOW MK2 TEJAS will slip

This is far from true, in fact it is more like 10-20% but Hess being the big-ticket headline-grabbing projects means that their delays have been covered to death.


In India, the way it is right now, bad news sells good news goes unreported. Indians love sensationalism and scandal.

 

[sancho]

The fact that you are comparing an upgrade with a purchase of a new fighter shows the ridiculousness of your argument.

That actually speaks against you, because you brought that up as an argument to replace the Mirage, not me! I only should you the fact, that this option is far more costly than you and many others belives, that only took the flyaway cost into comparison and forgot the system costs that we already paid for the full lifecycle of the Mirage, that would be wasted.

I see you completely left out the part where a section of the IAF said something similar to my argument about the prohibitive cost.

Which is not important, since the top level (former air Chief Naik, current Air Chief Browne) are fully in support of it and as I explained, the "speculated" Israeli option isn't one, since they can only provide other radar and weapons and can't do the overhaul.

I try & stick with the argument and almost never go after the person but considering you seem to be suggesting that I have personal issue(whatever that means, in favour of the Gripen(??))

The problem is:

we should have jettisoned it & gone in for the Gripen even...

...My concern is with the willingness of Dassault to play rough so early in the game, even before a deal is struck. I want Dassault on their toes, not them keeping us on ours.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/4347-mrca-news-discussions-560.html#post4236304


That is limiting you point of view and why you simply go over so many important points that needs to be considered.
As I said earlier, I also think the cost and the effort for the upgrade is too high, but mainly because of the way we will do it, via ToT to HAL and in India. That alone makes it more costly than it need to be, it delays the re-induction and for no reason further increase the workload of HAL, that already is above it's limit. So we could have done this much better, but there should be no doubt that the upgrade is necessary!

I'm really surprised that you made a charge of "personal interest"

See above, it is based on what you have said, not my personal view or because I wanted to attack you!
But the more I have shown you the facts, the more you ran into claims, based only on your personal view of the French now. But only because you don't like their attitude now (which I don't like either, but I still see the whole picture including the Reliance factor), it doesn't mean that we had to dump the Mirage upgrade and that with a solution that wouldn't have a single benefit for us.

 

[sancho]

BTW he is saying Gripen whole gen behind FGFA where he see Rafael as 4.5

Exactly, because only the Gripen C/D would have been available now and they are technically only at a 4th gen level with LCA MK1, Mirage 2000-5, Mig 29SMT, while the FGFA that is meant to replace the Mirage is a 5th gen fighter.

My points where clearly economics based...

In economics perspective , I would personally would have liked to use M2K as it is till the life span and add more LCA MK-2s after 2017. I think @sancho will agree on all of above expect LCA

Not sure if that's true:

- M2K upgrade for 10 to 15 years, later replacement with FGA => around $44 millions each Mirage
- M2K early replacment with Rafale => loss of parts of the system costs we paid for the full lifetime, around $120 millions system cost for each Rafale


Even if we add the unit cost of each FGFA to the M2K upgrade cost, we would only a bit higher than for the Rafale cost, while IAF obviously have a clear operational advantage with the FGFA. So extending the life of the Mirage is definitely not wrong and also not that expensive for IAF.
Replacing it with LCA MK2 is of course possible, by capability and I would love to see more LCA orders in future. My only concern is, that we might see an end of the current LCA order only by 2022 or later, so any additonal order would come in an area, where the LCA offers limited future potential compared to Rafale, FGFA, or even compared to some of our likely opponents in that time. That's why I have doubts on further orders by IAF, since the threat perception must decide which fighter will be procured, not our personal preference or pride reasons!

In India, the way it is right now, bad news sells good news goes unreported. Indians love sensationalism and scandal.

To be fair though, that's the same all over the world, because in times of more bloggers and less real journalists, all that matters is how fast you can come up with any selling news, not how good the content of the news is!

 

[sancho]

India Still to Finalize Terms for Jet Deal With Dassault

India is still to finalize the terms for a potential purchase of 126 fighter jets from Dassault Aviation more than a year after the French defense contractor was chosen for the deal estimated to be worth more than $10 billion.

Commercial discussions are continuing with Dassault because of which a specific time frame cannot be provided for the delivery of the Rafale combat planes, Defense Minister A.K. Antony told a lawmaker in the lower house of Parliament Monday...

India Still to Finalize Terms for Jet Deal With Dassault - WSJ.com

 

[Contrarian]

The Chinese episode would now lead to some haste in MMRCA as well the MSC along with the infra buildup in the relevant areas.

Positive impact.