Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Centre scraps $20 billion MMRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets for IAF, LCA Tejas to replace MiG-21

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by tusharm, Apr 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paliwal Warrior

    Paliwal Warrior Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    903
    none of the blame can be attributable to HAL

    when at the time of bidding you were told that HAL will be the partner then dasault should have done due diligence at that time - before submitting bids and should have clarified & flagged any issues at that stage
    you are confused i think

    first you blame HAL inprevious posts

    Now you say there are funding & fiancning issue at indian end

    then again you say the issue was HAL

    then you say there are issue with HAL built su30 - can you care to list out the issues with HAL built Su30 ?
    do you even know that now even Russain AF is getting the Su30MKI incorporated into the Su30 for russian AF ?

    also on one end the french members here say that rafle is built with modular architecture for better & easier servicability & upgradability

    if that is true then the mfg too should not be complex it should be easier

    so out of all these things

    what is true & what is false ?
     
  2. Paliwal Warrior

    Paliwal Warrior Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    903
    hain ....

    5 crashes out of 200 and su30 are fallin out of the sky

    crash rate of 2.5%


    rafale + rafale M
    5 crash out of 141

    crash rate ______

    Lalalalala Rafale very good plane


    oh and dont give the reasons of crahs logic because it applies to Su30 too - 3 are confirmed as pilot error and the IAf dosent know the reason for the remaining 2
     
  3. Paliwal Warrior

    Paliwal Warrior Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    903

    you are over simplyfing

    the question really was

    if we buy rafale /MMRCA what would happen to domestic programs

    and in a way what has happened is domestic programs just got back to life roaringly
     
  4. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    We are not naive.
     
  5. Ezco

    Ezco Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    256
    Country Flag:
    France
    I think you did a good summary of my position. It is just missing the logic but as you asked me I add it here
    Issue is Hal as it can not provide the level of technology needed to build the rafale.
    In scope of MRCA there were TOT. A TOT is a cost by itself but also will require huge investment indirectly linked to the TOT infrastructure manufacturing tool new plants etc
    So when you do a TOT the overall costs, direct and indirect depends on the technology gap you want to fill
    In MRCA the gap was too huge, so cost too much an Indian can not pay for it.

    Concerning the rate of fell planes, the security issue, the spares issues, the huge 'success' of tejas even this forum is full of reference.
     
  6. Paliwal Warrior

    Paliwal Warrior Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    903
    exactly

    dasault is not naive they are too greedy and calculative

    but this time they miscalculated
     
  7. Paliwal Warrior

    Paliwal Warrior Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    903
    agreed on ToT part

    that was a gap needed to be filled and then the order was to be given to the co that offered to fill that gap at a lower cost

    and that those co had to bid taking all these things in account
     
  8. sam2012

    sam2012 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    577
    Country Flag:
    India
    Palliwal were those 5 Rafale assembled in HAL LOL :chilli::BVICTORY: delivered to France:devilwork:

    [​IMG]
     
    Paliwal Warrior likes this.
  9. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,111
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    Airbus Corporate Jets are airliners for corporate use. The smallest they have is the A318, with a length of "only" 31.44 meters. Compare that with Dassault's largest business jet, the Falcon 8X that is still in development, with a length of 24.46 meters. Very different niches.

    It's also hilarious that you believe Dassault doesn't have an "etablished sales and service".

    The MMRCA deal as originally conceived wouldn't have done much for the French programme since only 18 aircraft were to be built in France, out of the 40 that have to be exported. With the confirmed sale to Egypt of 24, that would have been enough, though, but then again selling 16 aircraft to Malaysia would also suffice.


    That's not what the French Navy thinks.

    Carrier operations are very punishing to an airframe, so the Navy's planes age faster than the Air Force's. They need to have a big enough pool of aircraft to rotate in and out of carrier duty.

    Besides, in-production Rafale M cannot be retrofitted to Egyptian or Indian standard since they haven't ordered any Rafale M. All urgent export orders are taken from the Air Force order for this reason.

    And the Rafale is economical compared to the M2K: you can fly a two-ship of Rafale instead of a six-ship of Mirage, that means only two airframes to maintain instead of six, four engines instead of six, and maintenance for both the Rafale and the M88 is simpler and faster than for the Mirage and the M53. Also, extending the life of the current Mirage 2000 would require modernizing the 2000D to 5mk2 standard, and that's expensive in its own right. (The B, C, and N are getting retired no matter what; there'd be no point to extending their life as they are already pretty much useless.)
     
    Big Pic likes this.
  10. positron

    positron Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    183
    Country Flag:
    India
    Are they as established as Boeing or Airbus? I doubt it. You can please put some info about the comparative services of that by Airbus and by Dassault.

    True, but money coming in is money coming in, So even if the people are kept busy for making 18 planes, the contractors will be making the avionics for 108 planes, so 216 engines at least made by Safran, 108 AESA and SPECTRA sets made by Thales, These will be exports too, as these would not be produced in India and if you consider the cost of engine and avionics, that is not miniscule. Get your facts. So though the 108 would have been made in India, the critical components as mentioned above, will be exported from France, thus the revenue goes into Dassault and its contractors and not into India. the only ToT was for making fuselage and wings basically the frame. We are already doing that. Remember AESA and SPECTRA was not part of ToT as these are not from Dassault but Thales.


    Now the French navy inspite of what you say they think are still using Super Etendard, else based on their service crash record of 22% they do look worse than Indian Migs.
    Rafale M is different and stronger airframe than Rafale C. so it cannot be just "changed"

    What you say about economical, I can debate it. Firstly usually and on daily flights, planes take off in pairs.
    So, Rafale and Mirage 2000 both 2 air frames, 4 engines for Rafale and 2 engines for M2K, automatically the cost becomes half,

    Now, the only scenario it works out is in actual combat, where the intelligence tells you of a target and the planes strike them and in that situation alone that 2 Rafale could be as effective as 6 Mirages, but on other scenarios flying Mirage 2000 becomes more economical than Rafale.

    Now let us assume that two plane section of Rafale or solitary Rafale is sent to hit the target but the target is no longer there, the cost involved in that mission is much higher if its two Rafale, and cheaper for 1, but on other hand it is way more cheaper for Mirage
    If we take 1 Rafale were sent and 2 Mirage 2000 were sent for similar mission and both came back without success, and all the maintenance, since Rafale has 2 engines and there are 2 engines on the 2 Mirage 2000, let us assume there is one team to maintain the engine, if suddenly after one engine is processed there is sudden need for the plane to go on CAP, then one of the Mirage 2000 is available (since only one engine is maintained) but the Rafale will be quietly laying undergoing maintenance as it cannot take off with just one good engine, So in that case Rafale with one good engine is as good as Mirage 2000 whose engine is being maintained. Thus the cost of just sitting there in hanger, its more expensive to have Rafale doing lazing than Mirage 2000.

    BTW Malaysia could still go for other choices.
     
  11. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,111
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    They're less established than McDonalds, since you're comparing things that aren't comparable. Dassault's business jets are small and fast. Airbus's corporate jets are bigger and slower. The niches are very different, and it's not a mistake that they even use different terms, "business jets" vs. "corporate jets". Dassault's competitors on the bizjet sector are not Airbus and Boeing, they're Bombardier (Global Express jets) and Gulfstream Aerospace.

    But if you want, here's what Dassault says about itself in its press releases:
     
    layman likes this.
  12. Immanuel

    Immanuel 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    133
    Indeed, silly to bring up crash rates. Most of the crashes of the MKI were on Russian built aircraft and technical issues were identified as being basic design errors from the OEM. Moreso, IAF MKIs are being used at over 225 hrs per year while the aircraft was designed for nearly for half that number of yearly hrs hence the issues with availability. Also MRO facilities were late in coming up.
     
  13. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    We will see.
     
  14. positron

    positron Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    183
    Country Flag:
    India
    Interestingly there is SAAB, Embraer, and Sukhoi who also cater to the same segment as Dassault, do they not?
     
  15. Anish

    Anish Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Country Flag:
    India
    In 2015 for use in combat what else is it if not useless?

    The only use is to order in small batches so one day HAL would make a basic 4th platform which IAF and IN can proceed to modify with foreign avionics, sensors etc
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page