VnomadWhich is due to India, not the suppliers. Others have had signed quick deals for non-US weapons, & had them fulfilled.
We’re talking about India and the value of a govt-to-govt deal for it.
VnomadIts not about matching Dassault, it’s about wanting the damn plane. India wants the Rafale, not the F 35. Read the official statements from PM, Def Minister, AF Chief and so on.
Well you can retract your previous statement then – Timeframe kills an F35 consideration.
The Rafale bid was shortlisted under a certain set of conditions. Those having changed, the prospect of litigation arises… so lets wait for them to hatch before we count our chickens. An MoU is still a fair way from a contract.
VnomadATM it is no big challenge as Dassault build operational aircrafts…
ATM Dassault has zero Indian orders for operational or inoperational aircraft.
VnomadThe Indian Air Force pushed for a gov-to-gov deal.
“It is important we have an MMRCA. I would not say Rafale, but we need to have it [MMRCA] in the quickest possible time” – Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha
MP Modi pushed for a gov-to-gov deal.
Defence Minister Parrikar pushed for a gov-to-gov deal.
And the F35 EF crowd sees an opportunity here. Allright.
That being the case, I’m sure Angela Merkel will be offering a govt-to-govt Eurofighter deal when she meets the Indian PM next week. And the US is the only entity that can actually offer a true govt-to-govt cost price deal through the FMS pipeline. BTW the only quick deals signed by India in the last one decade have been FMS purchases.
Vnomad11 per year is the lowest production rate the line in Merignac can sustain. Production can be ramped up to 2,4 planes per month in 2 years time (and higher afterwards) and the whole supply chain has been prepared for it. Oh and by the way, the AdlA units can be taken on shelves for international orders, if required by political power. I will let you do the math so you can withdraw your initial falacious statement. 🙂
How do you manufacture 2.4 planes per month? Sounds like you’d have four fifths of an aircraft left over at year end. You may want to check your own math.
Subcontractors for any aircraft program have their production processes geared for a certain rate of production. You can’t just blow a whistle one day and expect all 500 of them to immediately double or triple their output. Because that’s what it will take for the result to be seen in just two years. Then add in another year to actually assemble the aircraft. If all goes per plan, by 2018 the delivery rate will rise to between 15 and 20 units annually, and the IAF will receive its first units.
The F-35 program is building up to a production rate of nearly 250 aircraft per year in 2019 (20 per month). Matching Dassault is hardly a big challenge.
Vnomad“…a more modern radar,…”
Well, it is. It is a more modern design with more than twice the scan sector. Heck, it is a front mounted radar that can obtain radar lock on targets behind the cockpit. The tactical advantage is pretty huge since a fighter with the more modern design can break away before the enemy without losing radar lock.
Putting a radar on a gimbal doesn’t make it more modern. Not by any acceptable definition of the word ‘modern’. It says nothing at all about the technology at play. Using the same logic, you could take a 40 year old pulse doppler put it on a gimbal and then state that is more modern than the APG-77 because it has a larger FoV (which would be true). A wide FoV is an advantage no doubt, but it doesn’t make the radar more (or less) modern.
“…an EWS thats a generation ahead and…”
Well, I wont go into the unknown here. Gripen is the only one that has GaN based AESAs as the active component of the EWS. GaN-based systems are a generation ahead of GaAs from a purely physical perspective.
1. Rafale F3R which enters service roughly the same time as the Gripen E will also have GaN EW components.
2. Using GaN modules doesn’t make an EW system a ‘generation ahead’. By that definition, the F-35 could bridge a full ‘generation’ gap just by integrating the GaN-based NGJ.
This means that the Gripen has taken the architecture away from the “main system + all features in one compiled into one”-approach and gone directly to the smartphone way. I think calling it one generation ahead is an understatement. The difference is like going from analogue controls to digital from an architectural point of view.
Makes zero difference operationally. Logistically, the F-35 achieves the same thing through the UAI, arguably a more efficient solution by virtue of being platform neutral.
VnomadAESA is available on F3 standard, and delivered with F3-O4T right now. F3R will come much later.
Nothing is happening right now. People are making the mistake of looking at this as an Egypt redux. Its not. The contract is still yet to be negotiated. Then they’ll need to be customized for IAF service. And a core group of pilots and support staff will need to be trained. The local support infrastructure will need to be created. In the end, if the Rafale deal comes through it’ll be for the F3R variant.
Many people here talk about the Typhoon T1, but would this Typhoon clear the IAF requirements (as evaluated) ? Are some people suggesting that Typhoon T1 is enough compared to Rafale F3-O4T ?
BAE/EADS will offer the EF T3. Surplus EF T1s can function as a sweetener. Cheap and available at short notice. France might be able to offer some second hand Dash 5s but the EF T1s still remain far better.
VnomadWith 60 export Rafale to deliver as quickly as possible, the production rate will obviously increase.
The production can easily double within 2-3 years which means that the 26+24+36=86 Rafale can all be delivered by 2019
‘Easily’ may be a stretch. One, the lead times involved in aircraft production are measured in years. Similar timelines will affect infrastructure & supply chains. Two, all the subcontractors have production capacity scaled for a certain rate. They can boost it but if the rate thereafter falls (as its bound to once the export orders are serviced), they’ll have to write off that surplus capacity.
But lets assume that it can be done as you suggest. That still gives the Rafale, a lead in delivery time of just a year or two. Hardly worth basing an entire contract on. In fact, Eurofighter here could make the case, that surplus EF T1s could give the IAF a far larger short term boost in numbers. Plus of course, the EF consortium also has a higher production capability.
VnomadTimeframe kills an F35 consideration.
You’ll notice they didn’t specify a time-frame for the Rafale. ‘As soon as possible’ is an open ended statement.
Rafale production is 11 per year. That’s 55 Rafales delivered by 2020. 26 of those are committed to the AdlA. 24 of them are earmarked for Egypt. Assuming the French orders are postponed and the aircraft diverted to serve the Indian order, the IAF will still receive the last of its 36 units only after 2020.
Lockheed Martin has a production line that will be ramping up to deliver some 200 fighters annually. They can comfortably match Dassault. 36 F-35As between 2018 & 2021 is very doable.
IAF approval kills a Eurofighter consideration.
Based on what? The Rafale wasn’t the only aircraft to clear the IAF’s technical evaluation.
PM Modi had to choose between his ‘Make in India’ principle and IAF operational necessity; the decision has been made.
PM Modi needed a positive announcement made during his trip to France. The announcements been made. The case now transfers to the MoD & MoF, and is forgotten by the general (non-defence oriented) media. Thereafter all aspects of the deal will be examined including cost & offsets, as well as alternatives.
VnomadI wouldn’t celebrate tell the final contract is signed.
I would look for Boeing F18, Eurofighter Typhonn, LM F35! to all jump in and make proposals for this 36 plane sale.
Agreed. At best they’ll sign a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ which still a long way from a contract, and there’s still plenty of room for the deal to fall apart. There’ll be new committee that will have to sit down with Dassault to hammer out the details including base cost, offsets, customization, support and so on. And the others, primarily the Eurofighter & F-35 will inevitably smell blood. This can’t be implemented like the Egypt deal even with political support from the top.
VnomadThe only way India can possibly avoid a drastic reduction in its fighter strength (from about 35 squadrons now down to about 25 in 2017) is by procuring second hand F-16, Gripen C or Typhoon IMO. I don’t know where India would find a large number of F-16’s. I am not sure that Sweden has enough spare Gripens to supply a large enough number. Where Typhoon is concerned, the RAF is due to retire its 50+ tranche 1 Typhoons soon. Germany, Italy and Spain may be prepared to part with a substantial number as well. 100+ Typhoons could be available to India in short order.
The IAF will also receive ~3 squadrons of Su-30s, as well as 1.5-2 squadrons of Tejas Mk1 by 2017. That should keep fighter strength at about 30 squadrons. But yes, the EF consortium can hugely sweeten its offer with second hand T1s.
VnomadHas the F-35 been fully (and beyond) funded throughout the program timeframe? Was the Rafale funded in the same way?
As you well know the answer is the Rafale (and Typhoon for that matter) was not fully funded for the entire timeframe unlike your fully and beyond funded F-35.
How much funding does it take to be able to self designate a target? Or integrate an HMS. Even the Tejas running on a shoe-string budget did it at IOC. And its not like it wasn’t an operational necessity. Far more useful than an AESA or high AoA performance in most of the conflicts that the AdlA has participated in so far.
VnomadThis puts Rafale at first flight 1986 and IOC in 2001 (15 years), and the F35 with a first flight in 2000 and IOC in 2016-2018 (16-18 years). The point still holds its ground.
Big difference. The F-35 will be a full multi-role aircraft in 2017 while the Rafale took nearly 25 years to get there (it could self designate targets only by 2010).
VnomadAs I have stated many times before. The F35 will, at the time of IOC likely be a steap ahead of almost every other fighter on the market when it comes to avionics, but it will be short lived since we see Gripen coming out with a more modern radar, an EWS thats a generation ahead and a software architecture that puts the F35 back in the stoneage.
That’s a big assertion. Care to elaborate? The Gripen E that you’re describing sounds almost… sixth generation.
VnomadFrance joined the ECF program in 1979 (laying the roots of the Rafale), which is roughly analogous to the CALF.
Tosh. Utter tosh. If you want to play that (extremely silly) game you can say that JSF started with the UK/US ASTOVL project in 1986, with far more credibility.
1986 would make it 14 years to the X-35 which is still comparable to the Rafale. And yes its a hazy comparison which you focused on as a means to attack the credibility of the remainder of Ooshiny’s post. Despite the fact the subsequent seven figures are (for a vociferous F-35 critic) uncomfortably accurate.
Sign In
