Alpha BravoThis would be the “mother of all miracles” if it ever sees the light of day. Is the 6,000 hour/40 year lifespan correct?
Dassault Insists on Latest Rafale Version for India, Doubles the Price
Dassault has offered the latest version of the Rafale fighter, the F3R for nearly double the price of the F3 version it originally bid with in the Indian fighter aircraft competition.
The company is reportedy insisting that India take the latest version as the French company is upgrading aircraft in the French Air Force to the F3R version and all future aircraft manufactured will be of the latest version.
After it was declared the lowest bidder in the Medium Multi Role Fighter Aircraft (MMRCA) competition, the French manufacturer upped the price from about US$ 65 million a unit to US$120 million a unit in mid-2014. The price hike is one of the main bones of contention which is delaying the deal.
The reason for the hike is that the F3R version launched in 2014 incorporates major software changes that will complement the Thales RBE2 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar and allow the aircraft to deploy the MBDA Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, along with improvements to the aircraft’s Thales SPECTRA self-defence system and Mode-5/Mode-S-compatible Identification Friend or Foe interrogator/transponder.
Offering a different configuration aircraft at a higher price is in violation of the original Request for Proposal (RFP). Perhaps it is for this reason that an Indian news agency quoted an unnamed Indian official on January 4 as saying that Rafale has been told, “stick to the RFP”. India is insisting that Dassault cannot renege on the RFP clauses, the report said.
An Indian defence analyst Bharat Karnad writing in the Indian Express newspaper commented on reasons for the price hike that Dassault sought to replace the Rafale originally offered with the “slightly better” F3R version, promised a mid-life upgrade to incorporate the AESA radar and suggested India’s future fifth and sixth generation combat aircraft needs be met by the “F4R” and “F5R” configurations now on the drawing board.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rafale-deal-hits-rough-weather/articleshow/45847253.cms
Rafale deal hits rough weather
NEW DELHI: India plans to take a final call, one way or the other, on the gigantic $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters before Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits France and Germany in April.
Sources said the defence ministry is now hopping mad with French aviation major Dassault’s continuing refusal to take “ownership” of the 108 Rafale fighters which are to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in India with transfer of technology after the first 18 jets are delivered off-the-shelf to IAF.
The MoD is also upset with Dassault’s attempts to “change the price line”, which led to its selection over the Eurofighter Typhoon as the L-1 (lowest bidder) three years ago, by deciding the “costing” for HAL on its own. “It will amount to a de facto hike in the L-1 price,” said a source.
If Dassault continues to renege from its earlier commitments, refusing to be “fully compliant” with the original RFP (request for proposal), India will be left with no option but to scrap the entire MMRCA project despite having invested almost a decade in the selection process. Incidentally, the defence procurement policy and Central Vigilance Commission guidelines do not allow the L-2 (Typhoon) to re-enter the negotiations.
As was first reported by TOI, even though 90% of the draft contract is ready, the finalization of the complex MMRCA project has been stuck for almost a year now due to Dassault’s reluctance to stand guarantee for the fighters to be made in India in terms of liquidity damages and production timelines.
Sources said defence minister Manohar Parrikar has written to his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian that India was still awaiting the “empowered” delegation he had promised to send to resolve the imbroglio. The two ministers had decided to “fast-track” the negotiations during talks in New Delhi on December 1.
“The ball is firmly in the French court. India cannot allow any violation of the RFP in such a mega project, nor can it afford to let the negotiations drag on endlessly. A final call has to be taken, one way or the other,” said the source.
If the MMRCA project is indeed scrapped, it will bring to an end the mega fighter selection process launched by India way back in August 2007. This “mother of all defence deals” had global aviation majors salivating at the prospect of bagging the lucrative deal.
After extensive field trials by IAF test pilots, Swedish Gripen, Russian MiG-35, American F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’ and F-16 ‘Super Viper’ were ejected out of the high-voltage competition.
Subsequently, the commercial bids of the two remaining contenders — Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS), backed by UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, and French Rafale (Dassault) – were opened in November 2011.
Rafale was then declared the winner in January 2012, having beaten the Typhoon both on direct cost of acquisition as well as “life-cycle costs” of operating the fighters over a 40-year period with 6,000 hours of flying. But the final commercial negotiations with Dassault have progressed at a glacial pace since then.
Alpha BravoI agree to an extent, however it has been stated by numerous Indian politicians and IAF Chiefs that a two front war is a threat and a prime objective for the IAF to overcome. Why India thinks this is not in the realms of this thread I guess and they have their own reasons.
Anyhow, trying to compete with China seems like a loss cause…
Yep, the two front threat that the Indian military establishment has been discussing over the past few years forms the basis of their size and capability requirement, hence the 45 squadrons as a MINIMUM – in reality, they’d like more. This number is void of any caveats or details presuming the capabilities of those 45 squadrons – despite the IAF expecting a significant increase in capability with all the platforms to come (more SU-30MKI, Super 30, upgraded M2K, MiG-29, Rafale, FGFA, MCA, and not to mention all the force multipliers), the 45 number has never been revised or adjusted.
Alpha BravoHi All,
Flying the Typhoon Through the Mach Loop at Low Level.:cool:Geoff.
Great video. Is it just me or do I detect a hint of a South African accent in the voice of the pilot?
Alpha BravoIt’s a real mess. The Indians have simply over stretched themselves. Several competing power bases (HAL, IAF, Arms dealers, MOD) have ensured that energy and money has been spread far too thinly across too many future projects. As a result not enough money, time or effort can be focused. Just look
Rafale, LCA MK1, LCA MKII, FGFA, AMCA, SU-30+, MIG-29 upgrade, Mirage 2000 upgrade, Jaguar upgrade.
I simply cannot think or any other country taking on that much. Obviously the IAF had future requirments that need to be filled, but with too many chiefs things are simply not getting done. 10 years ago all they needed to do was buy as many Mirage 2000-5/9s (used and second hand) upgraded their current M2Ks, carried on churning out SU-30s and just wait for the FGFA and AMCA to come on line from 2025 onwards. In the meantime they would have had a perfectly decent air force for a fraction of the cost (and number of Military Aviation Forum threads!).
Instead now almost every project if moving very slowly or not at all.
Part of the reason for keeping so many types going is the declining number of squadrons and the target number of required squadrons. In addition, the long delayed development of the LCA is running to over 30 years, with lacklustre enthusiasm from the IAF for only 40 so far for the MKI. It’s important to remember that the Mig-21 still makes up the bulk of the fleet.
Alpha BravoHow about the “Oldest thread on AFM forum still in active service”? :p
Alpha BravoI see the same discussion keeps cropping up every so often – best platform for low cost COIN/ground support vs. more complex, expensive multirole platforms. If the conflicts over the past decade are anything to go by, as well as the ongoing conflicts, then it’s clear there’s no single “one shoe fits all” solution. In addition, when referring COIN (Counter Insurgency), what does that actually mean? If we look at the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the heavy fighting at the start, there has been a protracted conflict that has varied in intensity. Take for example the surge in Iraq that required much more than a few Predators armed with a few Hellfires, while the COIN operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan has been primarily led by intelligence and surgical removal of a few individuals using mostly drones. It really does depend on the ground conditions and objectives that need to be achieved.
Alpha Bravo
Can’t keep waiting for stealth fighter, India tells RussiaI don´t think it´s wise to pressure Russia to deliver PAK-FA ahead schedule unless India wants a monkey model.
Well, the FGFA will be Indian specific after all, and not completely identical to the Russian PAK-FA.
Alpha BravoIt’s surprising that the Chinese are still persisting with the JH-7, they have so may other more capable projects on the go based around the Flanker, is there really a need for the JH-7? What can they do with the JH-7 that they can’t do with any of their in-house Flanker variants? And it’s not as if the JH-7 will be that much cheaper to build and operate considering its twin engine design.
Alpha BravoJust a thought, but could that space around the engine exhausts and the fuselage be due to plans for TVC nozzles and mechanism in the future?
Alpha BravoTwo interesting images I found related to the KC-390 … the first an older CG showing something like a Litening-pod under forward fuselage … is this indeed possible ? … and second a nice comparison.
Interesting chart. So it costs as much as an IL-76, but carries less than half in cargo? We can see why the IL-76 still sells in such numbers and is so popular.
Alpha BravoThe fifth SU-30MKI incident, and almost 20 aircraft losses in 3 years, and entire squadron effectively.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/iaf-sukhoi-su-30mki-crashes-near-pune-pilots-safe_1484593.html
Mumbai: An Indian Air Force Sukhoi SU-30MKI fighter plane crashed at village Theoor near Pune at 5:30 PM on Tuesday.
The Su-MK30I jet crashed after it off from Pune’s Lohegaon IAF base.
Fortunatley both the pilots flying the fighter aircraft ejected in time and are safe.
Nineteen fighter aircraft of the IAF have met with accidents in the last three years, with human error and technical defects being the main reasons, Defence Minister told Parliament in July this year.
According to the minister, the fighter planes that met with accident in the last three years include eight MiG-21s (different versions), three Jaguars, three MiG-29s, two Sukhoi SU-30MKIs, two Mirage 2000 and one MiG 27 ML.
Nine accidents took place in 2011-12, four in 2012-13, five in 2013-14 and one in 2014-15.
Incidentally, it’s the same pilot that was involved in the first SU-30MKI crash back in 2009. Given the open brake chute housing and that it occurred immediately after a take-off, and the relatively intact airframe, gives ground to something like runway run-off.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/10/twice-lucky-pilot-in-yesterdays-su-30.html
Two crashes five years apart. Two punch-outs. Two very close shaves. Twice lucky. That’s the story of the pilot in command of the Su-30 MKI that crashed yesterday in Pune: Because it turns out he was also the pilot in command of the first Indian Su-30 MKI that crashed in 2009. And both crashes with apparent similarities.
Wing Commander Sidharth V. Munje survived the Su-30 MKI’s first crash in Indian service five years ago, while his co-pilot on that flight Wing Command Pushpendra Singh Nara succumbed to injuries sustained post-ejection. In yesterday’s crash, both Munje and his co-pilot Flying Officer Anup Kumar survived without any major injuries and currently being treated at a Pune military hospital.
Similarities too. Both times, Munje and his co-pilot ejected at very low altitude. [Not engine trouble the first time as I earlier wrote — see Jagan Pillarisetti’s post in comments and this post he points out which reported the 2009 crash]. In 2009, a technical glitch had triggered a series of events that resulted in the inadvertent switching off of power to the flight control system (instead of the armament master switches right next to it), boiling down in the investigation technically to a pilot error, though overall to a design anomaly that needed urgent correction. Either way, the ‘pilot error’ conclusion wasn’t enough for the IAF to keep Munje away from a cockpit.
Details of precisely what went wrong yesterday though are still trickling in, but what’s available strongly suggests that Munje and his co-pilot were heroes in the air yesterday. They grappled to control a doomed fighter and eject only after ensuring it would glide into a sugarcane field, away from a built-up area that may have been the site of impact had the pilots chosen to eject earlier. The zone where the aircraft may have gone down is a built up area that has therefore likely had a close shave.
The IAF is still piecing together the full sequence of events, though it appears clear at this time that Munje and his junior had mere seconds to take a decision after lift-off. It isn’t clear yet what happened once they got airborne from Lohegaon. Will be staying with this story to get you more this week.
Alpha BravoSorry a typo on my part.
But I don’t see how the payload can go up by ~1500 kgs without some serious rework to strengthen pylons and the airframe structure itself. Even if you were to reduce fuel carried internally thanks to IFR, the pylons are all rated for a given load, which is then certified. The empty weight of the JF-17 would also go up as a result of the strengthening required to increase the payload.Just look at the Gripen E. The growth in empty weight thanks to the additional strengthening is anything but trivial.
I agree with your assertion, but I don’t have any further details, I’m only going on the description of the Combat Aircraft article, which states that “The JF-17 Block II has improved avionics, strengthened wing roots so it can carry an additional 3,000lb of stores, further-optimized maintenance provisions and improved operational capabilities.”
Clearly, the commensurate structural work has already been done to at least one of the prototype aircraft, and tested/validated to clear the modification for the Block-II production aircraft. Given the significant increase in payload carrying capability, I’m guessing there would have been attention paid to the impact on airframe life and addressed accordingly. On a side note, I assume that the increase in payload may be driven by the desire of the PAF to carry larger/heavier stand-off weapons further down the line. I think the current known large weapons, primarily the C-803 AShM and the CM-400 hypersonic stand-off missile, are catered for on the centerline and two inner wing pylons. There could also be an additional dedicated LDP hardpoint on the starboard intake, although this wouldn’t require wing root strengthening.
Alpha BravoThe Total Fatigue Life calculated at the beginning of the program dictates that figure. MLU would suggest that the JF-17 would have another 3000 hours of airframe life which I would really doubt will happen. Look at the MiG-29- the IAF was able to get another 1500 hours at most from the airframe on the MiG-29UPG after extensive fatigue tests..and this is an airplane that in IAF combat service never really carried very heavy payloads, but likely compensated for it by being used in high g maneuvers regularly.
I’d expect the JF-17 to have another 1000-1500 hours of life through a life extension program. But I really doubt the 3000 kg additional payload being bandied about. A strutural re-design would be required to be able to carry any more payload. It’s a very serious task and would only add to the airframe stress and fatigue. If anything, it’ll end up reducing the airframe life by causing unforseen cracks, as seen on F-16s.
An extra 3,000lb (approx 1,500kg), not 3,000kg. Not sure what you mean by “bandied about”, it’s the first time I’ve come across this claim, not seen it reported before in any previous articles in Combat Aircraft.
Alpha Bravo3000 hours.
I suspect they’ll be undergoing an MLU by the time they come close to that figure, similar to their early Block Vipers. Besides, the recent structural changes allowing an extra 3,000lb payload suggests the life of the airframe has been extended, there’s no way the extra payload can be added without impacting the airframe life.
Alpha BravoAlso, as i understand it there is NO BVR missile operational for the JF-17s produced so far (as stated SD-10A is still in testing/ integration), some pakistani sources allege that the earlier SD-10 have been integrated, but i think this statement is rather fishy (anyone seen a JF-17 on QRA with SD-10?). I guess there’s some salt grains to be taken in regards to certain statements coming from the pakistani side…
It’s true, there does seem to be some confusion/ambiguity from the PAF as to whether the SD-10 is already operational on the JF-17. The Combat Aicraft article would suggest that it is not and still in the process of integration. But we have seen the JF-17 with a training round of the SD-10, which would suggest that the current Block-1s are being used for training pilots on the SD-10 at least. So not sure what the actual status is.
Sign In
