uss novicewhy do you keep ignoring the fact that the Euro to USD exchange rate works against the French and for the US suppliers?
For the same item that is sourced entirely from European suppliers instead of US suppliers, the 40% cheaper USD means that it’s costlier for the EU supplier.
Had the Euro and USD been at similar exchange rates, the deal would’ve been almost 35-40% cheaper. Its not as if the profit markup is much higher for the French as compared to American OEMs or suppliers.
BEcause irrespective of why it is more expensive, whether it is a forex disadvantage or whether EU products traditionally tend to be pricey, the point remains that the deal is bloody expensive from a customer point of view. IOWs, why in the world should INdia go for such an upgrade esp. when cheaper options are available?
My take is there is more to the deal than meets the eye:
Either:
as Teer pointed out – this is quid pro quid for doing the PAF J17 deal in, OR
as Ainspiron said – there are more goodies associated that are not being made public, OR
Cost of rafale (esp. in terms of weapons and infrastructure) is being subsidized, OR
Perhaps, as Shukla has been saying, the MRCA deal will be scrapped thanks to the price, and this is one way to somewhat placate what will be a rather pissed off OEM/strategic ally. Afterall, this value is very close to the $ 5 billion that Fra thought it already had in the bag for the original MMRCA requirement. So no harm done if the MRCA is shot, wot? The French get their $$s and the Brits and Germans might be mollified via some other deals. In any case, I don’t think the Germans/Brits are that much of an issue in terms of strategic alliances – they’ll normally toe the US line, and so if the US is OK with India in issues that are important to India (such as the UNSC seat), they can expect the others to fall in. In any case, the French do follow a more independent f. policy and as such require a bit of special attention vis a vis the other two, esp. because India already has some heavy involvement with them militarily.
JMT of course.
USS.
uss novice^ never thought it’d be easy or cheap but still, considering the arm/leg plus time being charged, you’d think they’d include photon torpedoes with the deal.
But no, they’ll just have to settle for an RC 400 based deal, super. Pricey french i guess 😀
USS.
uss noviceBeing the non engineering type, I always thought this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31
is a far better reengining idea for the Mirage 2000 than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M53
Think they are close enough specs wise? Since India has a huge facility for the former, perhaps my fantasy may come true 😀 The improvement in fuel consumption and performance might be worth it. The M2k would have a better twr than the F-16, combine that with its already awesome wingloading, and we have a big hit. Oh yeah, since we are into fantasy might as well stick the TVC in there as well.
USS
uss noviceCheck the numbers, the RSAF deal involved 72 Typhoons for 4,43 billion Pounds. On the other hand the Israeli JSF deal involves 19 fighters for 2,75 billion US$ being delivered in the same time frame that you have proposed.
Hi Sintra,
As BArcher has pointed out, there are varying figures re. the RSA Tiffy deal. However, going with your figures, it still works out at about $ 9+ billion for 72 a/c or about $ 125 million per unit. The Israeli JSF deal is certainly expensive, but still only marginally more than the Tiffy – $ 144 million per a/c. And they get a full VLO bird in that price. Tempting.
Considering that the IAF deal could be worth as much as 200 airframes, I’d expect the JSF price to come down some. Anyways, with as many as 2500 units projected, the economies of scale certainly favor the JSF.
Added l8r:
The one concern as has been expressed by Glitter and Quad, is the TOT issue, however, I feel that this can be sorted out. The IAF would not have gone with additional orders of the GE F414 if this was such a problem. But you never know.
USS.
uss noviceUSS, you are missing a very big part of the MRCA picture, tech transfer. that certainly won’t be available for us.
IMho, two points to consider:
I don’t think the US position will be too contrary to tech transfer, not anymore. Yes, it will still be guarded but that is to be expected. So long as it does not impinge upon IAF operations, India will be OK. I think the US very well knows by now that they can’t expect to have a typical boss-poodle type relationship with India, they also know what the MRCA RFI/P requires in this dept. and hence would not be altogether restrictive in sharing certain technology.
Second, some of these issues could be worked around by using 3rd party products – Israeli for example. So, while access to Apg 81 might not be available, perhaps full access to EL-2052 could be arranged.
USS.
uss noviceOk this is crazy Hillary or just DDM
Hillary Clinton’s Hits And Misses In India – Analysis
Might not be such a bad idea imho, and Shukla despite his penchant for the JSF, might be on to something. There is very little chance that the Rafale/EF will fit in the stated budget – $ 10.2 billion for 126 units sounds really low. IIRC, the RSA Tiffy deal was for about the same price but got only 70 a/c. And then the current race requires much more sophisticated entries – AESA and what not. Plus cost for tech transfer. And add to that weapons etc.
Unless they use the excessively expensive M2k upg deal to subsidize Rafale costs I don’t know how the Ecanards are going to fit the said budget.
Dunno much about the JSF program, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the JSF came in at a lower tag considering that in terms of volume produced, the JSF will be produced in much greater quantities than the Ecanards and economies of scale should favor the american fighter.
It should the IAF far more capability than the ecanards imho, and IF they can deliver around 2016-17, there is hardly any delay involved.
In any case, as I have said before, the MRCA is hardly going to make much difference to the falling numbers as per the given timeline. If they want to arrest this fall in the short term, a relatively modest investment in an extra sqd of Tejas, MKI, Qatari/UAE/HAF M2ks, or HuAF MiG-29s might be worth considering.
USS.
uss noviceSo the incredible $ 50 million per a/c price for the upgrade is actually not even state of the art? WTH? 😮 And slow paced to boot.
Damn, the Israelii/inhouse option looks good.
USS>
uss noviceThis MiG-29K has to be the sweetest looling fulcrum ever made, super!
USS.
uss novice^ Spot on! I think the Rafale’s chance might have just gone up since now it is all about reducing costs and ensuring the lowest bid wins. Commonality of parts, weapons, sensors and supply chain means less cost. This should help Dassault/Rafale. With the willingness shown by Dassault to integrate the Snecma/Kaveri engine on the Rafale and the MCA, things are looking up.
Another perspective that supports Dassault’s chances is that the uber cost of the M2k upgrade ($ 4 billion with weapons) might be indicative of a sneaky way to fit in a Eurocanard in the $ 10.2 billion budget. I mean, considering the Brazilian/Dutch races, how else can they fit 126 Rafales in that budget?
But you never know, this could just be a consolation price, and the EF might end up winning. Afterall, EADs is a far bigger company than Dassault, and might offer a cheaper deal. Although, when you think about it, IIRC, in competitions so far, the EF has always stood out as the most expensive (not the Rafale).
We’ll know soon who wins in this circus (I hope!).
USS.
uss noviceCome on folks, lets be honest – do you seriously feel that the distinct possibility of nailing $ 20 billion worth of contracts is not going to have any impact on the way a Tiffy or Rafale or whatever is showcased in exercises?
And if iirc, there were a slew of articles even before the October 2010 ID that indicated that the EF was going to show what it was all about during the exercises. Here is just one, in fact there was hardly an article re. that p’cular exercise that didn’t mention the impending MRCA selection:
Along with its E-3D sentry AWACS and VC-10 midair refuelers, the U.K. Royal Air Force is fielding the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is competing for the Indian Air Force’s $10 billion Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft. The exercise marks the first time that the Indian Air Force has engaged a Typhoon and will help the service evaluate the European combat aircraft, an Indian Air Force official said.
IOWs, it was the TIffy that was being evaluated, not the MKI. Let us not be so naive, please.
Scorp, I was specifically refering to the 2010 ID exercises, which I believe the CAS referred to. During ID 2007, I don’t think Dalton was at the helm (G. Torpy?).
USS.
uss noviceSorry, but what Teer wrote applies exactly because there was no implication in my comment other than the foll:
The IAF didn’t have any motivation/need to use the BARS/MKI components to full capability, IOWs, they were not in a competition to sell the MKI.
Otoh, the RAF/UK is intricately linked to one of the biggest fighter deals (valued at close to $ 20 billion over a few years), and it would be to their advantage (and the EF’s ) to show the EF in the best light possible.
The logic is sound, your reading it otherwise is flawed.
Given that the Indians have the required data where would be the point of operating unresticted against a restricted aircraft – it would prove nothing hence fails a logic test.
Having data is one thing, seeing the thing in action is another altogether.
USS
uss novice^^Oie! Wherefore dost thou be forgetting the fierce BAE Hawk? It has no doubt taken it’s pound of Indian military flesh!
USS.
uss noviceHas someone already put up the MIrage 4000? I always thought this was hot property, shame nobody bought it! French sure build ’em pretty.
USS.
uss noviceA: And will the price, operating cost, and maintenance cost of Typhoon or Rafale be cheaper than Su-30MKI ? Will the whole life-time cost of the fleet of 272 Su-30MKI + 126 ~ 189 Typhoon or Rafale really be cheaper than the whole life-time cost of the fleet of pan-Su-30MKI with the same number ??
Rafale and Eurofighter are not less expensive than Su-30MKI, and the training, equipments, spares, and maintenance are completely different between Su-30MKI and Typhoon / Rafale. You have to pay the price to build up two completely different supporting and training systems for the two fighters, and I’m highly suspected that money can be saved in this way comparing with one supporting and training system for just one fighter.
Well, I am assuming that the Rafales and EFs are cheaper in terms of life time ownership than the MKI. For one, I’d expect them to burn less fuel and cost less in terms of manhours per flight hour. Of course, there is the point of additional supply chain costs for weapons, parts etc. BUT, there are other sides to the equation, with heavy offsets, and inclusion of Indian industry, SCM problems could be licked. And of course, the MKI isn’t as cheap as it used to be.
So, there will be tradeoffs, however, it might just be that an MKI is cheaper over a lifetime. Also, don’t forget that the requirement could well spiral upwards of 200 MRCA, which in this case would mean something like 550-600 MKI! Egads, does the hyperpowerful USAF even have that kind of F-15s anymore? Add to that 250 Pakfa and you have a seriously top-heavy AF, gas prices notwithstanding, I can’t see India affording this.
A: Why you need two different kinds of fighters for this mission ? Why Super 30MKI can’t take all of the roles in this scenario ?
There is no need as such perse. However, it is an added benefit. The MKI can indeed take all of the roles in said scenario but the mixup will surely add to the lethality of the package because it might get tricky to jam/spoof such a variety for GBAD or fighter CM/ECM.
Btw, those were not the only two reasons that I provided, there are other rather compelling reasons – at least the IAF/GOI seem to think so. Although frankly I’d be tempted by 126 spanking new single seat MKIs upgraded to suitable standards.
USS.
uss noviceHowever, I would like to ask a question: If Su-30MKI is a so perfect and satisifying solution in performance, capability, and future potential for IAF, then why IAF starts MMRCA competition ?? Why not just buy more Su-30MKI with future upgrading ?? Is there any unique (and important enough) function, capability, or requirement for IAF that can only be achieved by Eurofighter / Rafale, but not the upgrading Su-30MKI ??
3 basic reasons and others imho:
A fleet of 500 heavy Su-30mki would mean
1) terrible operational costs – v.expensive.
2) extraordinary dependence on Russia (500mki + 250 Pakfa + MiG-29s), which gives the latter too much leverage in India’s strategic policies. IAF has a doctrinal need for diversification between western/russian a/c.
3) The IAF sees the need for a Mediumish bird – a fit between the LCA and MKI (I can’t say I agree, but they must know what they need) – an a/c that can overlap somewhat with the LCA in terms of QRA or even point defence, and at the same time overlap somewhat with the MKI for deep strikes.
4) India sees the need for a tech base that combines both western/russian tech (hence such a heavy focus on offsets). They have the best that russia can offer – the Pakfa therefore, they want to balance.
5) Last but not least, the Rafale / Tiffy will certainly bring a degree of versatility to the IAF approach in terms of operations and tactics. These can be used to complement the MKI. Consider a batch of 4 Super 30MKI with Bars II + conformal L Band AESA acting as AEW for 2 X A2A equipped sniping Rafales/EF (Meteor/R77SD/MicaIIR?) and 2 MKI + 2 Rafale with strike packages (brahmos + scalp). That kind of versatility and options would make it a terrifying prospect for air defences imho.
USS.
Sign In
