TeerIt seems that the production run of 126 Rafale will be over around 2023-2026. Therefore the order for next batch of 80-100 Rafale depends on how LCA Mark-2, PAKFA, UCAV-Aurora & AMCA are shaping up.
One of the most important requirement of IAF is low level DPSA provided by Jaguars. This capability is much valued and highly rated in IAF. I was wondering whether Rafale can do similiar low level DPSA???
Curious, the IAF is likely to order aircraft midway through delivery,to keep production slots open and have known prices. Thats how it worked with the Su-30 MKI as well and the Hawk.
Coming to DPSA, read this – the Rafale blows the Jaguar away
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/
TeerAs an example, the SH had really poor performance during take offs in high altitude airbases and in one occasion it even failed to take off . Its APU also suffered and lead to many aborted “start engines” . Something the Indian Fulcrums and MK2s have no problem with .
…..-2) “even met” ??? Where did you get that ? At the contrary , I can tell you that the production RBE2-AA used during the technical evaluation was highly regarded . Another hint : the real-time ground mapping/terrain following mode coupled to the autopilot IMPRESSED the Indians in the Himalayas đ .
Cheers .
Any links or reports or info would be interesting
Teerhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm
The numbers involved in a real fight was still limited and not up to the political show of force about that.
Sens thats just rubbish. In which world do you live in, when your own link – the dodgy Global Security site which copy pastes everything from here and there, says this about numbers.
Over the previous six weeks India had moved five infantry divisions, five independent brigades and 44 battalions of paramilitary troops to Kashmir. The total Indian troop strength in the region had reached 730,000. The build-up included the deployment of around 60 frontline aircraft.
If you were really half aware of the conflict, you would post this, still a sizeable force by any means, and some of the IAs largest field units
Indian Army in Kargil ORBAT
http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/432/kargil%201999.htm
The main problem of the IAF and the ground-forces was the terrain and to deal with the Stinger-threat for all supporting aircraft/helicopters. In some years from now the Rafale will be a better A2G tool for such a task.
Half baked statements of the worst sort. Most of Indian casualties were due to artillery not terrain. Many Indian lives were lost to hand to hand combat in fights like these against PA regulars. Terrain made the fighting much harder to prosecute, but it was firepower which caused the deaths.
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Heroes/tololing.html
Bottomline, it was not just terrain or a stinger threat but a prepared and entrenched opposition.
Pakistan did not come away lightly either.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_pak-lost-2700-troops-during-kargil-conflict-nawaz-sharif_1039940
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Army lost 2,700 military personnel in the Kargil conflict, far higher than its casualties during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said in his memoirs.
Giving his account of the 1999 conflict in the book “Ghadaar Kaun? Nawaz Sharif Ki Kahani, Unki Zubani”, Sharif said the casualties suffered by the Army were so extensive that an entire brigade of the Northern Light Infantry based in the Pakistan-controlled Northern Areas was wiped out.
I dont know what in your ivory tower qualifies as a full war as versus a partial war, but for those who fought it, and to who observed it more accurately than you seem to have, it was a war indeed.
Of course, sitting in some comfy chair, guys like you can make some semantic points about full war, not so full war, partial war and other rubbish. As if a few more aircraft lost or a ship or two sunk would have made it a “real war” as versus a “border war” or similar rubbish.
TeerNot to take away from your post, but that is an absolutely hilarious statistic to quote. Personally I’d have used “than the Peruvian Coast Guard has lost since WW2”.
Its hilarious if one fails to see what those casualties mean. I’d have been ruder but its easy for somebody in Germany, which has only seen peacekeeping ops since WW2 or a limited presence in a conflict like ODS, to pontificate about “ah just a border skirmish”, when the fact is the said person has no idea what an actual war means as versus just a debating issue to score semantic points on.
A lot of us in 1999 saw or knew folks who lost loved ones during the conflict (and the impact that has) or the impact of devastating injuries on a persons life. It stops being a “border conflict” when personal accounts like these emerge. The people lost, the casualties and the situations in which they occurred tell of the desparate hand to hand combat that caused them, backed up by extensive artillery. Not some minor war which is to be casually dismissed as a “border conflict”.
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Heroes/recall.html
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Heroes/tololing.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/lns.html
The point is beyond the jingoism, the war was won by what are called in India as YO’s and the jawans, the young officers and soldiers. Their grit turned the tide. But if things had not gone per plan, then the Indian Army would have attacked across the IB (International Border) and LOC (Line of Control). The IN and IAF prepared for the same.
Check out the preparations for an all out conflict by the Navy.
This is what the IAF committed to the “border war” per a PAF insider himself.
http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2009/01/kargil-conflict-and-pakistan-air-force.html
Out of 600 odd fighters, 150 were earmarked for the Kargil ops in 1999. Point is the IA regulars had not turned the tide in the mountains, the war would have gone across the board. And then what? War across the plains (only a plains war), war in the air (only an air war) etc etc.
TeerTeer, I’d put it down to ignorance. Not knowing the details, and hearing that India would produce the Rafale along with ToT makes people complain. Most that are complaining are your average folks who haven’t the foggiest idea about what the benefits of such a deal would be for Dassault, the French govt. and for jobs in France.
Yeah, its like Dassault gave away some secrets or something. TOT will take several years. MKI TOT took some seven odd years (2004 to 2011).
To add, a Rafale win means France can resist arm twisting by the UAE and position itself better in the Brazilian competition itself.
TeerThat was a border skirmish as many other world-wide and just one side used its air-force limited to that. đ
Incorrect. Which other “border skirmishes” saw Army formations on both sides of the border mobilized, and a full fledged war fought in the mountains with infantry formations from both sides, artillery from both sides? Pakistan and India lost more men and had more casualties in that “border skirmish” than Germany has lost in its existence since WW2.
The Indian Navy also advanced to a blockading position, and the whole situation would have escalated into a war across the entire border if the Indian formations had been unable to make headway in the mountains. Then the IA Generals would have asked for the same. Thats the reason the Indian Army mobilized. The Strike Corps exist for a reason.
The lack of PAF involvement had to do as much with the fact the PAF was unprepared for the conflict, with the PA as usual going its own merry way with limited heed to jointsmanship. Besides which even if the PAF had involved itself, it would have been of limited use. The PAF was during really bad straits during that time per IAF analysis. Of their entire fleet, only a handful of F-16s had any chance of facing IAF fighters like the MiG-29/Mirage 2000 or succeeding against the IAF BADZ. PAF insider Kaiser Tufail – whose account can be found on the net – corroborates that fact.
In 2001, after the parliament attack, India again mobilized and almost went to war and only backed off after US intervention assured Indian Govt that Pak would crack down on terrorists. After the Mumbai attacks, the option was again contemplated. After each incident, India has evaluated some facet of its strategy and reluctantly come to the conclusion that military force is an inescapable part of its deterrence. Merely talking will not help.
After the n-threats during Kargil, the Indian BMD program was launched, and is headed to deployment today. After the lengthy mobilization time of the Strike Corps during 2001, the Army launched Cold Start with the aim of launching a fast fight through its Holding Corps reorganized into Pivot Corps and now capable of launching operations within 48-72 hours of receiving orders. The IAF is on its part reorganizing accordingly.
The point is not that India is seeking a conflict, but that its realized that it has to consider the military option if things come to that pass. In which case, the Rafale will be very useful.
TeerThe problem with cold start and any punitive strikes on suspected terrorist camps is that it won’t really achieve anything, rather like the US cruise missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in the late 90s. Heck, even look at Afghanistan, after 10 years, the Taliban are getting stronger?! And that has taken a full scale invasion and complete regime change, but very little has changed, so what makes you think something like Cold Start will work with Pakistan? At the threat of getting significantly OT, the problems with Pakistan are deeply embedded within the society itself, which no amount of ‘limited’ military actions can solve. Virtually the entire country can/is used as a terrorist training camp, most of the society is illiterate and, therefore, easy to manipulate and radicalise, there has never really been an effective civil government and the wider society seems to suffer from xenophobic paranoia, completely disjointed from wider global realities.
As you say, the Pakistani society may be messed up but that’s not India’s problem to solve.
The Pakistani Army uses its homegrown terrorist camps to attack the weak targets – Indian civilian targets, to achieve its political objectives. A) Try to win from India with terror what they could not via the battlefield B) Retain legitimacy within Pakistan.
If Cold Start or Punitive strikes by IAF force the Pakistani armed forces to revisit this strategy, then its better for the Indian and Pakistani people as a whole. All said and done, a lot of the blame for the Pak society’s problems can be laid at the doors of the Pakistani Army, which has deliberately fostered anarchy and xenophobic behaviour to cement its grip on power.
Ultimately, its not upto India or the US to change Pakistan or Pakistani society. They cannot and nor do they possess the resources. All Cold Start and a powerful IAF do, is give Indian decision makers the means by which to at least start making the Pakistani military get deterred from using proxy terror
TeerWhy not. If the IAF can have the MKI become a Super 30, why wouldn’t it evolve the Rafale further.
TeerNot sure about the continued MKI production, but it’s pretty obvious you are correct that the first 40 aircraft are unlikely to be delivered before 2020.
Indigenous production of the 108 locally produced aircraft would not begin until 4.5 years after the contract starts anyhow. I am not sure how Dassault’s proposal is structured, but Boeing’s in 2008 went like this:
- Phase 0 supplies 18 fully assembled Block II Super Hornets.
- Phase 1 and 2 will deliver 54 aircraft as partial assemblies , and would begin within 54 months of the contractâs start date.
- Phase 1 supplies 1,800 parts and 300 tools for assembly by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in India.
- Phase 2 supplies HAL with 17,000 parts and over 1,000 tools for assembly.
- The final 54 aircraft of Phase 3 would have the entire range of the airframeâs 30,000 parts built in India, with the last aircraft delivered by 2020.
This was 4 years ago, so you have to shift all of the dates. I imagine Dassault’s schedule is very similar, given the parameters of RFP milestones regarding time and money, IAF force structure schedule, etc. Of course, all of this is still subject to extensive negotiations. I don’t see the contract being signed in less than 18 months. So given that, the first 18 aircraft would not have been delivered until 2018, which leaves 2 years to produce a further 22 aircraft to reach 40. Possible, certainly, but that assumes no slippage anywhere on either side of the ocean, which is not likely.
There you go….exactly as I had mentioned that a large number of airframes are going to be available from the host country. In the case of the F/A-18 no less than 54 planes!!
I seriously don’t see why the French are complaining about “loss of jobs” – the Dassault line likely got at least some 40 extra planes plus initial 18 planes, not to mention all the subsystem guys got tons of spares etc orders assured for the first decade!!
Plus, the Indian AF orders mean a larger group of customers for the future upgrades of the plane. The IAF may ask for more capabilities and cofund stuff
TeerDid the two countries have nukes back then ?
or more specifically, did the loser (if any) have nukes back then ?
Yes both did and the Pakistanis – Musharraf especially did hint at their usage. It didn’t stop India from waging war and even mobilizing its other formations.
Bottom line, if the loser suspect he will end up like Saddam or Khadaffi, he will use those nukes
Why would India want to do a Saddam or a Khaddaffi. No Indian leader wants to take over Pakistan anyhow. Paks a basket case, economically speaking & any gains made from resources (say) would be outweighed by the drain of occupation (shades of the US in Iraq). Plus, adding so many more disenchanted radicalized Pakistanis to the Indian population would be pointless.
What India would want is to cause the Pakistani leadership and armed forces (who are the de facto rulers of Pakistan) enough pain that they decide further provocations (terror strikes etc) are not worth the damage to their infrastructure (civilian, military). In other words, Pakistan can keep muddling around as long as it does not hamper India via terrorism etc.
Thats the entire reason why the Indian Cold Start doctrine was adopted. Pivot Corps to mobilize and attack quickly to create enough of a problem for the Pak Army, yet not reach deep enough to threaten Pakistani statehood. If Pakistani decides to go Strangelove and start a nuclear conflict, then the Strike Corps advance through the Pivot Corps & take the fight to the next level.
Even so, the IAF is an even better option now. Faster, speedier and with stand off munitions more accurate. No Pakistani General can go around claiming he will use nukes to save Pakistan itself when all thats occurred are a dozen odd strikes on terrorist camps within Pakistan.
TeerOut of the 108 aircraft at least 40 will arrive from France?? are you sure?
is there any link confirming this?
Take a look at the Su-30 MKI deal. Thanks to IAF requirements to build up strength ASAP, Phase 4 manufacture (from raw materials in India) is about 50 odd units. All the rest of the 140 have significant Russian content and a large number were imported as kits. The other 80 odd planes to be ordered/already ordered are also mostly Phase 3 level (mix of Indian and Russian).
Note: 100th Sukhoi (out of 140 ordered from HAL) was Phase 4. Another 40 ordered will be partly built kits from Irkut (Phase 3 mostly) and another 42 will most probably be all new Super 30’s.
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/desi-sukhoi-does-supersonic-ballet-on-debut/328968.html
For a 108-189 production run for Rafale, 30-40 odd aircraft arriving as kits (CKD/SKD) is reasonable and will allow for IAF to ramp up quickly while allowing for time for indigenization for the rest of the planes.
The most important thing about TOT is local spares supply and lower life cost over aircraft life. Its not just about fancy tech etc.
TeerThe UN did not intervene during a months long conflict between India and Pak. in Kargil. Why would it necessarily intervene anytime else. Anyways, the IAF is likely to be the decision makers service of choice when it comes to a conflict, given the timelines and the speed of response. The IA’s Cold Start doctrine is still dependent on strike corps to punch through for significant gain, unless the territorial gains achieved by Pivot Corps are all thats intended as a bargaining chip for post conflict resolution.
TeerYou continually fail to understand that:
– the size of the antenna you can fit into MiG-21 nose sets limitations on its BVR capabilities, it in no way can compare to any proper radar
50 odd km for the Kopyo against a regular fighter sized target is good enough.
– MiG-21 doesnât have capabilities to dogfight modern aircraft, in Vietnam MiG-21 were dogfighting F-4 and in most cases they were losing, F-16 was a huge improvement in agility over F-4. Have you even bothered to check what the G limitations on MiG-21 are? What is the turn radius (it is huge)? What is the trust?
Good enough for Bisons to dogfight F-15s & with R73E/HMCS marginal differences in turn rates etc are irrelevant.
The truth is âupgradedâ MiG-21 proven to be very unreliable and even dangerous, just search how many of those was lost in accidents (true for Indian Bisons as well as for Romanian Lancers).
Few Bisons have been lost.
Bison was upgraded only to fill the capability gap – Indian AF had huge number of aircrafts to replace and can do it all at once. And yes, MiG-21bison can be dangerous in certain scenarios, especially operating as a part of the system with Su-30MKI and Phalcon AWACS.
Bisons don’t necessarily operate with other aircraft and train to operate autonomously as well.
TeerStill, Switzerland was between 18 and 22, Qatar, Oman etc. are only looking for 12 to 24 aircraft, Brazil 36, only the UAE with 60 is quite substantial. So it’s not like 18 aircraft for India is such a low number considering. Plus no matter how many aircraft India build from scratch (which I doubt since they are still receiving kits even for the Su 30) Dassault will still be getting licence fee, and will probably send engineer to help.
So as far as I’m concerned people are just making noise for nothing. French people are very hard to please and while I’m not Sarkozy biggest fan, to think that he has enough clout to have India make the announcement just month before the election is quite optimistic (while I won’t deny it’s quite a good news for him).Beside MMRCA or not the fact that big enterprise delocalize their jobs were it’s cheaper is not Dassault fault only. There isn’t a single smartphone that was built in Europe. The only thing European these days are the brands…:rolleyes:
Out of the 108 aircraft, at least 40 will arrive from France, in the form of kits etc. If the number goes up to 189 and the IAF asks for quick delivery, as they did with the Su30MKI, then the number of kits could go up to 60-70 airframes, with the rest of the 110 built with Indian materials.
All in all, the French companies will receive a windfall from this deal, not to mention the huge moolah they will make off spares for the initial 10 odd years, plus the weaponry and ground handling equipment.
Thales, Safran and Dassault execs are all probably chuckling to themselves over how 2012 has turned out for them.
TeerI find the pic to be excellent. Far better than some plain-jane anodyne composition of plain skies at the usual times with nothing but the aircraft.
Now I need to figure out how to save this pic and make it my desktop.
Sign In
