Why Rafale is a Big Mistake

[Bhasad Singh Mundi]

I ain't dying so easily.
Have u seen the view of armed forces on HAL??In those videos?

Damn all are going bonkers over HAL and maybe right no,,,no i think they are indeed right

Did you paid attention to what Admiral said regarding what IAF needs to do?

 

[he-man]

Did you paid attention to what Admiral said regarding what IAF needs to do?

I heard 15 people,,,majority vote counts

 

[KRAIT]

No its not because it will take years to get all these plane. AMCA is in conception stage. FGFA hasn't started. Tejas MK1 and MK2 are not in already hitting delays and doesn't fir the profile.

Rafale has proved its worth in Libyan Conflict. Brazil may have refused because of money reason or ToT.

Brazil don't have military threat like we have.

Most important thing is in case of war, France is trustworthy party. When west imposed sanctions, France was the only country which didn't do so.

If we start AMCA project by next year or couple of years later, It will take at least a decade or more to come into fruition.

And finally, we have no shortage of money.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Who told u that mki is jointly designed

MMRCA debate | Page 3

People go here for real discussion

Who is telling you it is not jointly designed?? It is not jointly developed but..

 

[axisofevil]

No its not because it will take years to get all these plane. AMCA is in conception stage. FGFA hasn't started. Tejas MK1 and MK2 are not in already hitting delays and doesn't fir the profile.

Rafale has proved its worth in Libyan Conflict. Brazil may have refused because of money reason or ToT.

Brazil don't have military threat like we have.

Most important thing is in case of war, France is trustworthy party. When west imposed sanctions, France was the only country which didn't do so.

If we start AMCA project by next year or couple of years later, It will take at least a decade or more to come into fruition.

And finally, we have no shortage of money.

Listen yourself. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say Rafale proved its worth in Libyan Conflict? How the f-k dd it prove anything? It was an opportunity in which the French took full advantage of since negotiations were on going! The libyans posed no threat to anyone.

 

[KRAIT]

Listen yourself. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say Rafale proved its worth in Libyan Conflict? How the f-k dd it prove anything? It was an opportunity in which the French took full advantage of since negotiations were on going! The libyans posed no threat to anyone.

If you have some rational argument about capability of a fighter plane, then say unless its you who sound ridiculous kiddo.

 

[sancho]

The libyans posed no threat to anyone.

That's why the US and Brits used cruise missile and stealth bomber strikes, before they deployed their fighters even for SEAD missions, while the French used Rafale even way before the first attacks.
The US defence department even stated that the Libyan air defence was as capable as the Iraqi one in the Gulf war, so there was a little doubt about the threat, the difference was only, that the Libian military new they can't fight the rebels on the ground and the foreign forces in the air at the same time, which is why they abandoned their fighters or air defences pretty early in the conflict, which made it simpler for the allied forces.

Wrt what the Rafale has proven, it showed:

- that it is an exceptional modern multi role fighter, capable of doing several different roles, partially even at the same time
- that apart from the good precision strike capability that it has shown in Afghanistan with external laser guidance, it now was able to guide weapons fully on it's own, make pre-emptive strikes even with fully active enemy air defences, can do cruise missile strikes at high value targets
- can detect and destroy enemy air defences
- can jam ground radars with the SPECTRA system
- can effectively do recon and surveillance missions with it's different sensors

and all this with a high sortie and availability rate in war time conditions!

 

[Makaramarma]

No one picks a deathmatch with a nuclear power. Nukes guarantee that China would never march to Delhi ( even if that was possible) ,but they do not guarantee that they would not confiscate Tawang or Arunanchal, if Indian Army/Airforce is not in a position to put up a fight.

To most people in the world attacking Tawang or Arunachal does count as picking a fight.

 

[anonymus]

To most people in the world attacking Tawang or Arunachal does count as picking a fight.

But not Big enough that Nuclear option would be on table.


Contrary to what you are stating, India holds Arunanchal because it is conventionally strong enough to defend against Chinese aggression,not because of Nukes.

 

[Bang Galore]

Wrt what the Rafale has proven, it showed:

- that it is an exceptional modern multi role fighter, capable of doing several different roles, partially even at the same time
- that apart from the good precision strike capability that it has shown in Afghanistan with external laser guidance, it now was able to guide weapons fully on it's own, make pre-emptive strikes even with fully active enemy air defences, can do cruise missile strikes at high value targets
- can detect and destroy enemy air defences
- can jam ground radars with the SPECTRA system
- can effectively do recon and surveillance missions with it's different sensors

and all this with a high sortie and availability rate in war time conditions!

Excellent. However the question here is whether it makes economic sense to buy it & in the numbers mentioned or whether it makes sense to look at other less expensive options or mix & match. IAF with primarily the MKI's & Rafales should either change their idea of required squadron strength or be prepared for bankrupting their finances.

 

[kingdurgaking]

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.

We are getting Full ToT .... In case of Defence there are 3 kinds of technologies which are involved in developing a product.
1) R&D This is fundamentally very important and no one shares this.. This one tells how a solution was arrived and what are the other things.. This no one will share..
2) Manufacturing ToT... This will be shared.. It tells how to manufacture an equipment.. It will involves tools, manuals and compositions of the raw materials, ground support helps etc.. It does not say how it was brought to this stage from lab..
3)The final ToT will be Source code and tools used by the manufacturer to develope softwares and other maintanence tools..


So Full ToT will be given for 2 and 3 rd while third will be with boundaries.. While we will have no knowledge on 1 and part of 2nd..
But we will have full ToT to manufacture and customize Rafale..

 

[Dillinger]

We are getting Full ToT .... In case of Defence there are 3 kinds of technologies which are involved in developing a product.
1) R&D This is fundamentally very important and no one shares this.. This one tells how a solution was arrived and what are the other things.. This no one will share..
2) Manufacturing ToT... This will be shared.. It tells how to manufacture an equipment.. It will involves tools, manuals and compositions of the raw materials, ground support helps etc.. It does not say how it was brought to this stage from lab..
3)The final ToT will be Source code and tools used by the manufacturer to develope softwares and other maintanence tools..


So Full ToT will be given for 2 and 3 rd while third will be with boundaries.. While we will have no knowledge on 1 and part of 2nd..
But we will have full ToT to manufacture and customize Rafale..

Oh yaara, the above is exactly what I am stating too.

EXACTLY THAT!

Point 2 and 3 encompass operational sovereignty, from in country manufacture to MRO and the ability to feed and tweak the sensors. No one is disagreeing with that.

In fact your post succinctly details the difference between Know How and Know Why, and that is exactly my point, that Know How will be accrued but the Know Why will not. Furthermore, that the posters here (apparently no you) conflate Know How and Know Why and therefore believe that that is what ToT stands for. Even you have agreed that ToT does not comprise the Know Why (point 1), and that is what I've stated. Additionally without the Know Why, one cannot take the Know How and design systems of comparative performance without your own R&D/basic and applied research (something that even you've stated) and that is again exactly what I'm stating. It is from this very point of yours' that I am asserting that people need to forget about ToT building up our own MIC, since this will not bring in design acumen and capability, that's all, do you disagree? If not then we are on the same page.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Oh yaara, the above is exactly what I am stating too.

EXACTLY THAT!

Point 2 and 3 encompass operational sovereignty, from in country manufacture to MRO and the ability to feed and tweak the sensors. No one is disagreeing with that.

In fact your post succinctly details the difference between Know How and Know Why, and that is exactly my point, that Know How will be accrued but the Know Why will not. Furthermore, that the posters here (apparently no you) conflate Know How and Know Why and therefore believe that that is what ToT stands for. Even you have agreed that ToT does not comprise the Know Why (point 1), and that is what I've stated. Additionally without the Know Why, one cannot take the Know How and design systems of comparative performance without your own R&D/basic and applied research (something that even you've stated) and that is again exactly what I'm stating. It is from this very point of yours' that I am asserting that people need to forget about ToT building up our own MIC, since this will not bring in design acumen and capability, that's all, do you disagree? If not then we are on the same page.

The fact is we can develop AESA radar but it will inherit the basics from French.. So what ever we develop will be close to the french design as we have to use there tools and algorithms.. we may do couple of optimization but we can never get the next level done.. That is why almost all companies are willing to give full ToT for the money but dont want us to invest in R&D.. This issue can be seen in Chinese design also.. They have made a mixture of all stuff which is good... but they have to continue stealing unless they do proper R&D their product will never surpass the original product but will equalize it

 

[sancho]

Excellent. However the question here is whether it makes economic sense to buy it & in the numbers mentioned or whether it makes sense to look at other less expensive options or mix & match. IAF with primarily the MKI's & Rafales should either change their idea of required squadron strength or be prepared for bankrupting their finances.

But the question of whom? The media, bloggers, forumers? Did IAF ever stated that they fear a problem with the operational costs of MMRCAs? Did MMRCA ever had a requirement of being a cost-effective solution? Did MoD or FM ever stated that the budget of IAF could not be sufficient in future to operate the fleet?

So where is the base of this question?

The whole point comes up only because of the "procurement" cost of the Rafale, which however has nothing to do with the operational cost of the IAF fleet in total, or the if the future budget is enough to cover IAF plans. Moreover, when people would look at a possible future fleet and their possible operational costs, with a less bias and more logic, it might turn out that Rafale might one of the most cost-effective types in the fleet and actually reduces costs:


Possible cost per hour from low to high:

LCA – single engined light class fighter, should be the most cost-effective one

Rafale/EF – twin engined medium class fighter

MKI – twin engined heavy class fighter

(AMCA – twin engined medium class stealth fighter => higher maintenance costs over non stealth fighters)

FGFA – twin engined heavy class stealth fighter (=> higher maintenance costs over non stealth fighters)


So the future operational costs, will not be mainly hit by Rafale, but by the fact that we add more heavy class fighters (lets put the origin aside for a moment), that also will be stealth fighters, which adds multiple times to the current operational costs. It's the top end with MKI and FGFA, that from the operational cost point of view, will be the biggest burden for IAF.

The Rafale then in fact can be a relief, since it can take over several of MKIs missions, therefor reduce the operational hours for the MKI, which translates into lower total operational costs of the fleet. The LCA, or even a Gripen might be even more cost-effective, but also less capable. You can't replace an MKI in operations with them, therefore they will remain mainly in less important roles, be it air policing, interception, or CAS, where their cost-effectivity is more important than capability. The future beyond the MKI must be a medium class stealth fighter, either a single engine varient of the FGFA, which would be the most cost-effective solution, or a twin engine fighter, which however would increase the costs beyond of the MKI.

The fact however is, that there is no official discussion about the operational costs of the future fleet, IAF and MoD are calculating with FGFA for years and even if the operational costs were increased by the later added MKIs, the fact that at least MoD still considers an AMCA development now, automatically means they must be ok with the operational costs too. So when they are ok with increased operational costs with more MKIs, with FGFA and maybe even with AMCA, why would they have a problem with the far lower operational costs of Rafale?

Data of French Forces show, that the operational cost of Rafale has gone down to a comparable level of the single engined Mirage 2000, which makes the cost vs capability ratio of Rafale even more impressive imo. Even if we compare it with LCA and estimated costs between 3000 and 5000$ comparable to Gripens, you would need at least 3 x LCAs to do the same that a single Rafale can do, which makes clear why LCA is not an alternative to Rafale on cost grounds either.

Bottom line is:

- we have no alternative to MMRCA, that offers us the same operational and industrial benefits
- we have no alternative to MMRCA, that could take over MKI operations at lower costs
- there is no official discussion about the operational costs of IAF, nor would that be effected by MMRCA
- there is no fighter that currently offers a better cost vs capability ratio than the Rafale
- and most of all, the whole point of MRCA & MMRCA is the fact that LCA is not available in a capable form anytime soon and as long as that doesn't change, it never can be an alternative to MMRCAs!

 

[Bang Galore]

But the question of whom? The media, bloggers, forumers? Did IAF ever stated that they fear a problem with the operational costs of MMRCAs? Did MMRCA ever had a requirement of being a cost-effective solution? Did MoD or FM ever stated that the budget of IAF could not be sufficient in future to operate the fleet?

So where is the base of this question?

The whole point comes up only because of the "procurement" cost of the Rafale, which however has nothing to do with the operational cost of the IAF fleet in total, or the if the future budget is enough to cover IAF plans. Moreover, when people would look at a possible future fleet and their possible operational costs, with a less bias and more logic, it might turn out that Rafale might one of the most cost-effective types in the fleet and actually reduces costs:


Possible cost per hour from low to high:

LCA – single engined light class fighter, should be the most cost-effective one

Rafale/EF – twin engined medium class fighter

MKI – twin engined heavy class fighter

(AMCA – twin engined medium class stealth fighter => higher maintenance costs over non stealth fighters)

FGFA – twin engined heavy class stealth fighter (=> higher maintenance costs over non stealth fighters)


So the future operational costs, will not be mainly hit by Rafale, but by the fact that we add more heavy class fighters (lets put the origin aside for a moment), that also will be stealth fighters, which adds multiple times to the current operational costs. It's the top end with MKI and FGFA, that from the operational cost point of view, will be the biggest burden for IAF.

The Rafale then in fact can be a relief, since it can take over several of MKIs missions, therefor reduce the operational hours for the MKI, which translates into lower total operational costs of the fleet. The LCA, or even a Gripen might be even more cost-effective, but also less capable. You can't replace an MKI in operations with them, therefore they will remain mainly in less important roles, be it air policing, interception, or CAS, where their cost-effectivity is more important than capability. The future beyond the MKI must be a medium class stealth fighter, either a single engine varient of the FGFA, which would be the most cost-effective solution, or a twin engine fighter, which however would increase the costs beyond of the MKI.

The fact however is, that there is no official discussion about the operational costs of the future fleet, IAF and MoD are calculating with FGFA for years and even if the operational costs were increased by the later added MKIs, the fact that at least MoD still considers an AMCA development now, automatically means they must be ok with the operational costs too. So when they are ok with increased operational costs with more MKIs, with FGFA and maybe even with AMCA, why would they have a problem with the far lower operational costs of Rafale?

Data of French Forces show, that the operational cost of Rafale has gone down to a comparable level of the single engined Mirage 2000, which makes the cost vs capability ratio of Rafale even more impressive imo. Even if we compare it with LCA and estimated costs between 3000 and 5000$ comparable to Gripens, you would need at least 3 x LCAs to do the same that a single Rafale can do, which makes clear why LCA is not an alternative to Rafale on cost grounds either.

Bottom line is:

- we have no alternative to MMRCA, that offers us the same operational and industrial benefits
- we have no alternative to MMRCA, that could take over MKI operations at lower costs
- there is no official discussion about the operational costs of IAF, nor would that be effected by MMRCA
- there is no fighter that currently offers a better cost vs capability ratio than the Rafale
- and most of all, the whole point of MRCA & MMRCA is the fact that LCA is not available in a capable form anytime soon and as long as that doesn't change, it never can be an alternative to MMRCAs!

That is an odd position to take. Do you seriously expect either the IAF or the MoD to voice such doubts in the public realm? Is there any logic to the argument that others have no right to ask that question? Do you see the government question the economic logic of NREGA & FSA? Does that mean there is nothing to question?

Did MMRCA ever had a requirement of being a cost-effective solution?

That would be a common sense point, wouldn't it?

The Rafale then in fact can be a relief, since it can take over several of MKIs missions, therefor reduce the operational hours for the MKI, which translates into lower total operational costs of the fleet.

By that logic maybe we should soon replace the Rafale with something that can take over from its workload. This is an extraordinary position to take. The Su30MKI is already part of the fleet. One doesn't spend $20+ billion so that something else can do part of their job.

This is about procurement and these questions on the exorbitant costs of that are very valid.

The LCA, or even a Gripen might be even more cost-effective, but also less capable.You can't replace an MKI in operations with them, therefore they will remain mainly in less important roles, be it air policing, interception, or CAS, where their cost-effectivity is more important than capability.

Getting weirder & weirder. The MKI's are already fully paid for and exist in the fleet. The Rafale isn't & doesn't. In any case, was the idea of the MMRCA to replace the Mig 21's or the MKI's?

So when they are ok with increased operational costs with more MKIs, with FGFA and maybe even with AMCA, why would they have a problem with the far lower operational costs of Rafale?

The operational costs of the MKI's already exists, the Rafales have to be first paid for before the worrying of operational costs start. (will ignore FGFA & AMCA arguments for now, till they are closer to reality)

- we have no alternative to MMRCA, that could take over MKI operations at lower costs

What's the obsession with the MKI? (The interest from the proposed spend alone could sustain MKI's operational costs forever. No logic to that argument.) If we get the Rafale, will be adding another costly to run fighter (regardless of how its costs fare against the MKI's) at a huge cost starving other plans of funds. We simply cannot sustain ourselves with only dual engined fighters as the bulk of our fleet, we would have been better off bulking up our forces with a lighter fighter and use the heavier fighters to reinforce them.

We are discussing the costs & the logic of spending over $20 billion on the Rafale. The case still needs to be made as to why this is the preferred choice. Simply saying the IAF wants this or that does not cut it, we might as well shut up on all defence matters if that is the case. There are questions that have been asked about this deal that are perfectly valid & there is no point in pretending that they aren't.