What's new

Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

Tot is not for sensitive techs,,no.
really Know your Being Oracle here you Know USA is Offering Us F-18 with full Tot Of An Operational AESA Why We Rejected in First Place Then . Sir You Might Not Know What are the Terms of the Contract of MMrca on Which RFI was Issued to Companies By GOI.AESA was the Key Tech of MMrca Deal But That doesn't Mean We can Build Whole Aircraft from Scratch There is Much more in an Aircraft than Radar.Lets End Here we will See when Deal get INKED

India please go and buy those Rafales and do buy them in numbers like 200+ so there can be peace on PDF and other defense forums. :D
557922_390314191069656_97887311_n.jpg
 
really Know your Being Oracle here you Know USA is Offering Us F-18 with full Tot Of An Operational AESA Why We Rejected in First Place Then . Sir You Might Not Know What are the Terms of the Contract of MMrca on Which RFI was Issued to Companies By GOI.AESA was the Key Tech of MMrca Deal But That doesn't Mean We can Build Whole Aircraft from Scratch There is Much more in an Aircraft than Radar.Lets End Here we will See when Deal get INKED


557922_390314191069656_97887311_n.jpg


Why am i fighting here,,u will know in a few years.
Just bookmark what u said.
 
U are not understanding.
Tot is not for sensitive techs,,no.

No one will teach us how to make a compressor blade or mmic's of aesa radar....................none.
Most probably techs like that would be imported in knocked down kits from france and assembled here.

I rarely reply to people opinions ... but you must be young or you totally dont know how MKI was made and how MMRCA is drafted
 
Simple word MKI is jointly designed like Brahmos .... while MMRCA is full ToT ... need to see whether manufacturing technologies will be transferred or not ... For sure we will get the software and process documented

MKI is jointly designed?

MMRCA is "full ToT"?

Please define ToT in the EXACT context of the MMRCA, down to the technical details.

You are confident, it will not be difficult to substantiate your position.
 
MKI is jointly designed?

MMRCA is "full ToT"?

Please define ToT in the EXACT context of the MMRCA, down to the technical details.

You are confident, it will not be difficult to substantiate your position.

Full ToT in the context refers to we are not part of the design and there will be clauses where and how the software and hardware can be tweaked or not. They will give traning to work on tools and software but there wont be any knowledge on tweaking.. so we are bound only to the boundaries.. So the design of the new system will be base lined from here.. All the new system will be having the roots from here.. So if there are some intelligent people we can come out with better products with less investment

Where as in MKI we designed by putting in drawing board .. we have to sit with Russian , Israel and French to understand there design, interfaces and API, but the problem is we have spent more time and money to draft a part of the sub system in other words we had only that kind of man power at that part of time. I doubt we got ToT from French or Israel except Russia where we got the manufacturing process documented. So we spent time in developing the manufacturing process to manufacture the aircraft fully while the software's come in compiled form and license will be fed directly without knowing what is written and how it is working...

This issue was closed in MMRCA... where the supplier has to give the full ToT.. they are responsible to give code and train people... but the boundaries will be like a framework... we cannot get something outside.. Still we need Intelligent people to brake the boundaries and customize for future
 
The Rafale is vital- simple as that. There is no (VIABLE) alternative at this point considering by 2022 the IAF (without the MMRCA) would be facing something like a 7-10 SQD shortfall and this is the deadline we all need to keep in mind when looking at this entity issue.

- More MKIs?
The MKI is absurdly expensive to fly and maintain and is the top end of the IAF's combat doctrine, it needs to be complimented by smaller, lighter and more economical fighters. Not to mention the timescales for delivery, is HAL going to ramp up production? Unlikely as they want/need to shift their MKI production lines to the FGFA by the end of this decade.

-LCAs as an alternative?
The LCA is in no way as capable as the Rafale so inherently the IAF would be disadvantaged in terms of its overall combat capabilities but let's just take this as read. The main issue here is the timescales one is looking at for induction, the LCA Mk.1 is still not at FOC standard yet and will only have 1 SQD in service by 2016, 2 by 2017 and then the Mk.2 has to take over and (at best) one can hope for 1 SQD of LCA Mk.2s by 2021-2 as the Mk.2 is the LCA the IAF now wants and it is unwilling to induct more than 2 SQDs of Mk.1s. 3-4 SQDs (at best) of LCAs (Mk.1 and 2) by 2022 isn't going to take much out of the shortfall the IAF WILL be facing in SQD strength. By 2022 there should be an additional 4-5 SQDs of MMRCA in service that will dramatically soften the blow to the IAF when those MiG-21s and 27s are all gone by 2019-20.

-The reintroduction of a relegated bidder (EFT, Gripen, F/A-18 E/F)? This is the most remote scenario despite what the journos out there on their payroll would like to spin. Firstly the only viable bidder for this could be the EFT as it was the only a/c other than the Rafale found to meet the technical criteria of the IAF's exhaustive requirements. Looking purely at the EFT, if the Rafale is criticised for its high costs and it is the L1 entrant then the L2 bidder is going to be more expensive. Then there is the fact the Rafale is the superior machine and lastly, and most importantly, there is the issue that even if talks were started today it would take 2-3 years to get to the same point (that the MoD is with Dassualt) in terms of deal progression so first inductions would only begin in 2019/20 and by that time the window of opportunity would be shut and the shortfall in the IAF's SQD very much critical.

Some may say that my analysis is simple focusing on the numbers game but this is the point- unless you, the IAF, the GoI or India can stomach a 7-10 (at best) SQD shortfall in the MINIMUM sanctioned strength of the IAF by 2022 then the MMRCA is a MUST no two ways about it anymore- the situation is such that the IAF has got itself into such a position but that is another discussion.

This is talking purely from a AF capability perspective, the MMRCA let's not forget was about more than just fighters. It was/is also about the industrial benefits and scrapping the Rafale for any of the above alternatives would be a major set back for India's aviation industry.

It is for these reasons the Rafale WILL be ordered by the end of 2014 no doubt in my mind.
 
i can only laugh when indians say french will give them full radar and engine tot..
french may 50 to 60% know how of radar but no full tot and forget about engine they will give overhauling facility thats it..
 
one of the reason why india chose rafale is it wants to cut pakistan from European market for defence procurement. Had India chosen any other platform would have made Pakistan to obtain French technology like upgrades for JF-17 and Naval weapons.

they've operated Mirage aircrafts (like us) and despite that the French have been quite cooperative. PAC's Mirage rebuild factory is a testemant to that, though those will be phased out slowly.

Italians have been cooperative too (Grifo radars ToT)
 
The Rafale is vital- simple as that. There is no (VIABLE) alternative at this point considering by 2022 the IAF (without the MMRCA) would be facing something like a 7-10 SQD shortfall and this is the deadline we all need to keep in mind when looking at this entity issue.
- More MKIs? The MKI is absurdly expensive to fly and maintain and is the top end of the IAF's combat doctrine, it needs to be complimented by smaller, lighter and more economical fighters. Not to mention the timescales for delivery, is HAL going to ramp up production? Unlikely as they want/need to shift their MKI production lines to the FGFA by the end of this decade.
-LCAs as an alternative? The LCA is in no way as capable as the Rafale so inherently the IAF would be disadvantaged in terms of its overall combat capabilities but let's just take this as read. The main issue here is the timescales one is looking at for induction, the LCA Mk.1 is still not at FOC standard yet and will only have 1 SQD in service by 2016, 2 by 2017 and then the Mk.2 has to take over and (at best) one can hope for 1 SQD of LCA Mk.2s by 2021-2 as the Mk.2 is the LCA the IAF now wants and it is unwilling to induct more than 2 SQDs of Mk.1s. 3-4 SQDs (at best) of LCAs (Mk.1 and 2) by 2022 isn't going to take much out of the shortfall the IAF WILL be facing in SQD strength. By 2022 there should be an additional 4-5 SQDs of MMRCA in service that will dramatically soften the blow to the IAF when those MiG-21s and 27s are all gone by 2019-20.

-The reintroduction of a relegated bidder (EFT, Gripen, F/A-18 E/F)? This is the most remote scenario despite what the journos out there on their payroll would like to spin. Firstly the only viable bidder for this could be the EFT as it was the only a/c other than the Rafale found to meet the technical criteria of the IAF's exhaustive requirements. Looking purely at the EFT, if the Rafale is criticised for its high costs and it is the L1 entrant then the L2 bidder is going to be more expensive. Then there is the fact the Rafale is the superior machine and lastly, and most importantly, there is the issue that even if talks were started today it would take 2-3 years to get to the same point (that the MoD is with Dassualt) in terms of deal progression so first inductions would only begin in 2019/20 and by that time the window of opportunity would be shut and the shortfall in the IAF's SQD very much critical.

Some may say that my analysis is simple focusing on the numbers game but this is the point- unless you, the IAF, the GoI or India can stomach a 7-10 (at best) SQD shortfall in the MINIMUM sanctioned strength of the IAF by 2022 then the MMRCA is a MUST no two ways about it anymore- the situation is such that the IAF has got itself into such a position but that is another discussion.

This is talking purely from a AF capability perspective, the MMRCA let's not forget was about more than just fighters. It was/is also about the industrial benefits and scrapping the Rafale for any of the above alternatives would be a major set back for India's aviation industry.

It is for these reasons the Rafale WILL be ordered by the end of 2014 no doubt in my mind.

Have you ever considered just being weak for a while? Yea, it's unpleasant, but thinking long term this is the best solution. If you can't compete, don't compete at all. Just go back build up strength and wait.

This Indian attitude of always keeping up is the thing that's making you unable to keep up. When you started the MKI, Mirages, and Rafale deals, it really look like India will come out ahead of China. As is when Kolkata class was announced, and you guys had carrier experience.

However today, we can mass produce 4+ fighter to go with dozens of advanced Aegis ships and our carrier program will give us a total of 2 indigenous with one catapult carrier, both at about double tonnage, by 2020 and the Liaoning isn't bad. Even if you do get FGFA by 2020, it will still be massively out numbered by our J-20s/J-31s.


Anyways that's not the point, the point is, go at your own pace, letting you rivals dictate the pace is a rookie move, anyone who's in the fight game knows that. Always be the one to dictate the pace in the ring.
 
Nonsense, supper pawar India can't make mistakes.
 
I posted some videos in defense videos thread and IAF. Editor of stratpost mentioned that Rafale operational availability is 44% for French Air Force. That is comparable to Sukhoi 30. Forget about Rafale requiring less maintenance
 
I posted some videos in defense videos thread and IAF. Editor of stratpost mentioned that Rafale operational availability is 44% for French Air Force. That is comparable to Sukhoi 30. Forget about Rafale requiring less maintenance

LOL!!! What about the production capability? how many rafale/year?
 
Full ToT in the context refers to we are not part of the design and there will be clauses where and how the software and hardware can be tweaked or not. They will give traning to work on tools and software but there wont be any knowledge on tweaking.. so we are bound only to the boundaries.. So the design of the new system will be base lined from here.. All the new system will be having the roots from here.. So if there are some intelligent people we can come out with better products with less investment

Where as in MKI we designed by putting in drawing board .. we have to sit with Russian , Israel and French to understand there design, interfaces and API, but the problem is we have spent more time and money to draft a part of the sub system in other words we had only that kind of man power at that part of time. I doubt we got ToT from French or Israel except Russia where we got the manufacturing process documented. So we spent time in developing the manufacturing process to manufacture the aircraft fully while the software's come in compiled form and license will be fed directly without knowing what is written and how it is working...

This issue was closed in MMRCA... where the supplier has to give the full ToT.. they are responsible to give code and train people... but the boundaries will be like a framework... we cannot get something outside.. Still we need Intelligent people to brake the boundaries and customize for future


Lets unpack what you've written.

What you got right- we will have access to sensitive back end codes, everything from the software running the back-end signal processing of the RBE radar to the digital library of the SPECTRA, we will have operational sovereignty, we will be able to integrate 3rd party non-OEM munitions etc.

What you got wrong- "Full ToT", no there is nothing called full ToT, not the way you are imagining it, or for that matter all the jingos on EVERY defence forum.

There is no fundamental difference between the MKI deal and the MMRCA deal in terms of know how accrued, none, nada.

It does not matter where we sourced certain components from for the MKI. At the end of the day, like the Rafale, we inked it so that we would build the MKIs in country. What "ToT" refers to is the transfer of MRO essentials, of the rotables, and on the extreme end of the "codes" (in most cases the OEM dithers on the latter, like the Russians did). What one accrues is know how, which is patently useless unless you are dealing with the "production is in itself technology" problem. That is to say that the production process, even if one were to build the SNECMA engine from scratch (as in even the raw materials were sourced from within country, all sub-components fabricated in country, i.e. the super nickle alloys for the MKI engine which did not trans-migrate into the Kaveri program- for good reason) it would not help you design a similar engine.

The fundamental reason is quite simple. People conflate know how with know why, and even the MMRCA contract does not specify the transfer of the latter, it does not because the MoD and the forces know full well that the Know Why will never be transferred.

People who think that the Rafale deal will spin off an indigenous AESA FCR or aid in the Kaveri program need to reevaluate their knowledge of the deal and the processes involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom