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.

India draws bottom line for Rafale

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by tusharm, Apr 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Sorry had to take time to reply, few other urgent things. True that Rafale was deployed in Afghanistan and its not a new info, but it was the "WAR ON TERROR" and inadvertantly most countries got involved in it. There are very few countries which have not involved themselves in Afghanistan.
    My aim was about Libya where for reasons really unknown, France which was earlier not so aggressive about taking lead on international missions (rather they would just contribute) took a very central and aggressive role. Many observers believe that it was done so to provide a Live demo of Rafale ability and firepower. In that way even Eurofighter did test their ability to fire A2G weapons (using the pods of Tornado) Afghanistan was there because France did not want to be seen soft against Terrorism, but Libya was some thing else altogether.


    I feel its speculative at the most for you say that they would be replaced by Rafale, I think France, UK and most european countries (except Sweden) got suckered into having the best plane. So Rafale and Eurofighter were both the best and powerful planes, but unfortunately they forgot about the economy of flying the planes. Two engines more reliability, but it means more cost of operation and maintencance, more time for maintenance, France went for Twin engine because they have seen Super Etendard drop down like flies in many accidents, the rate as high as 20%,
    France also seen that though Mirage 2000 was commercial success the follow up Mirage 4000 was not even noticed. Because there already were the powerful twin engine planes from USA making noise, F-14, F-15 and F-18, and sadly the puny Mirage 2000 was not close to the performance of these beasts.
    Unfortunately what the European countries did not notice is that though the Americans have these beasts, what they have more is Single engine F-16 which were the backbone of USAF and still are being used. It would be replaced by F-35 which is more Advanced than F-16 with new technologies, but developed to keep cost of operation and maintenance low (have they managed it, that is another question and not here for that discussion)
    Only Gripen is the plane that can give a good balance of Firepower and economy. where as Rafale and Eurofighter give good firepower, but lack the economics. France earlier did plan to replace all the Mirage 2000 with Rafale, but lets just take some numebrs. France has 300 odd Mirage 2000 operational and about 100 odd Rafales, now with the present Rate of production given by the french govt to Dassault, how many years you think will be needed to replace 300 mirages ? 60 years?
    IF say 100 Rafales have replaced 100 or so mirages that is another 200 mirages still to be replaced, that is going to be another 40 years, you think the line will b working till then?
    There was some recent comparison that I read here on this forum, 2 Rafale can do the job of 5 Mirage 2000, in that case Ratio of 2:5, hence France will need about 120 Rafales more to replace 300 Mirages and with the low rate requested, that would take 24 years. It is true that the rate of production can be changed whenever required, but I think France now understands that the economics of operation of Rafale is not good and they need to have single engine planes to control the costs. You will see that France will continue to operate Mirage 2000 for another 10 years at least. Most European countries are cutting down on cost. Germany UK, Italy are right in that big mess. Even Russia is in that mess. For a big or middle size countries operating more than 400 fighter planes, its best they have a ratio of 1:3 for their single engine vs twin engine MRCAs to ensure the cost of operations are well withi control.

    more continued in next post
     
    Paliwal Warrior likes this.
  2. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    True, but the requirement came from UK which saw the Russian missile ranges quite outrageously high.
    France was more comfortable with its MICA, and had the British drumming about how Eurofighter could be
    able to take down planes at much longer ranges then France joined in, By the way MICA is more expensive than Meteor I understand. Swwden has been the first country to induct it, because Gripen is perhaps the plane which has more active orders than either Eurofighter and Rafale and it feels that the best way to do is to put in newer technology. Gripen in terms of avionics is more than a match for Rafale. Some commentators have said that the EW Suite of Gripen is the most advanced (lets hope the marketing guy is not ex Dassault) Eurofighter and Gripen have a two way datalink with Meteor where as Rafale has one way datalink, which in a way makes it more effective on Eurofighter and gripen.

    Now as you see there is difference between BVR and long range. If you consider Su-35 vs Rafale, Su-35 will detect Rafale at much longer ranges, and also it has more longer ranged missiles than MICA, and the Russians always fire a two missile salvo at a target. What are the probablity of the survival of Rafale in this case?
    Doppler Radars are old tech, and RDY-3 is not a leap forward from RDY-2 but more or less an incremental development. Tejas on other hand, will be getting an AESA, so how is that Tejas can get an AESA and Mirage 2000 cannot? Does Mirage 2000 not develop enough power? France no longer wants to develop high end avionics for Mirage 2000, they cannot afford to put AESA on Mirage 2000, in a way its not required. France want to keep Mirage 2000 flying with some minor upgrades so that it can fly and hence at an average keep the cost of operation for AdlA lower. If the situation they need some powerful solution, the big brother Rafale is there. If France was to replace all its Mirages with Rafale, it would be very very big mistake.

    LITENING is supposed to be more better and capable than Damocles. India has been using LITENING and is supplied by ISRAEL and it also comes with excellent support from RAFAEL (company that makes them) further the pods being used by IAF can be upgraded to the latest standards.Israel has made its name in high end avionics.

    45 million per plane is expensive based on what we know about what the upgrades are going to be. Nor am I justifying the cost of upgrading Ka-28 either, but if the version is the AEW version that Indian navy uses then the cost could be justified in a way. these helicopters make sorties that give an advance situation awareness. These are the best of AEW that Indian navy has at the moment.


    So it seems and then it also could be true that the dassault marketing is trying to hype the Mirage 2000 to help its sales (which most companies do) but maybe they are spinning more than what actually is about Rafale too.

    A-10's gun is very powerful, rather the concept (idea behind A-10) comes from the second world war German planes like Ju-87 and Ju-88, The Germans had one anti tank plane which had an 88 mm gun (very similar to A-10) and it would fire through the nose, the plane would almost stall when the gun was fired. A-10 not sure it really has real use except to strafe the tank, after all its high KE round, but then the plane has to "line up" with the target, making the plane a target too. On other hand Maverick missiles they get the job done. If I now would redesign A-10, i could design it without the 30 mm gun, or make it a lighter gun (20 mm or something) Or a 12.7 mm gun like the one under chin of APACHE slaved to the helmet (at least the gun can be rotated and aimed at the target)

    NOW YOU GET TO THE POINT. Most fighter planes now are multi role capable or can be modified for that role with few upgrades. What mission the plane can handle is based on how the tactician (operations officer) decides. And he decides as per the mission parameters given as per intelligence available

    In the present world, every fighter plane is an MRCA with exception of B-1 and B-2 and possibly MiG-31 and Su-25. The aircrafts have to handle air superiority, Strike, anti shipping and various other roles because countries are trying to reduce their defence expenses.

    I do agree with your point about the Mirage 2000, and yes Rafale was designed to be an MRCA, but other countries like Russia and USA had funds enough to have specilaized plane for each role like Su-24, MiG-31, Su-30 (started as Air dominance plane and now its MRCA), F-14 tomcat, F-15 Eagle etc. but now if you see the countries want to reduce their defence expenditure, or rather streamline the defence expenditure and hence the planes which were designed for air superiority now with few modifications become top of the line MRCA
     
  3. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Try posting something new, already this was reported here
     
  4. Ezco

    Ezco Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    256
    Country Flag:
    France
    Again we just explain you how wrong you are with your justification about Rafale only doing event blabla, and now you jump on the fatc that Lybian and Afghanistan was only a show of force !! And if it is true whats does it change concerning your previous demonstration ? you re still wrong, ask the guys that receives bombs in Lybia or Afghanistan what it change for them ?

    Last but not least you try to explain use that maintaining two aircraft model in an army is cheaper than maintaining only one because the second model is a single engine ? .... :haha:

    The Mirage will be replace by Rafale that is the plan since the beginning and yes the production line will stay open until we need it.
     
    Big Pic likes this.
  5. Ezco

    Ezco Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    256
    Country Flag:
    France
    As everyone make the effort on the forum to reference some sources please do the same, I asked you two times to give me some source concerning the list of qualified weapon for Tejas and I still waiting for it.... please give a source also for the requirements that was done by English for meteor.

    concerning multirole discussion you over simplifying... you completely wrong again when you say most fighter is today multirole. You can qualify sparrow on a B52, he can shoot it, it will not make a b52 a good fighter.... you see the point. Now what about the Rafale, it is not that the Rafale is qualifying on a various weapon class. It is more than when the Rafale is configure as an interceptor, it is considered today as one of the best interceptor. When the Rafale is configured for low altitude penetration, there is no so much plane that can to the same better even specialized plane. When the Rafale is configured as a pure fighter, he is considered as one of the best dog fighter in production (not so much plane have evidence of shooting a F22 that is considered as the best fighter today). That is what we called omnirole. Then add the fact that Rafale is exist in sea version, can distribute nuclear weapon and so is ECM resistant etc. Then you start to have an idea about what is a multirole aircraft. Does the SU 35 do that ? No, end of the story.

    now if you want detailed about what I explain in term of performance, have a look on the swiss evaluation. Have a good day
     
    Big Pic likes this.
  6. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Honestly, what did Rafale change? Afghanistan is still mess and the Combined forces are now trying to run out with the tail between their legs. Considering that what you say that "Rafale is a war winner" have the combined forces really been able to win in Afghanistan with the taliban still active?

    Now few things, to educate you, if you see French, British and the Germans always went for the most powerful platforms, top of the line things, Mirage Family, Rafale, Tornado, Eurofighter, Lightning etc for planes, Leclerc, Challengers, Cheftain, Leopard etc Where as the Swedes always went for the designs that were very practical for them, Viggen, Gripen, S-tank. Easy to use, maintain and cheap to operate.
    During the time when other countries were building tanks with powerful turrets, S-tank was turretless, and the logic was that when operating in the forest, the turret cannot be turned because of strong trees, where as with S-tank there was no turret and hence the tank was shorter, had smaller silhouette, hence easy to hide, and in a way pretty much survival.
    Since we are talking of Gripen, Gripen was designed for the small European countries, has better value for money in terms buying maintaining and operating. Carries a useful load and does all the roles.

    Now to your question,
    Single engine planes have usually short range, and less capable than twin engine planes due to power produced.
    Twin engine planes are more capable, but day today cost of using them and maintaining them is more expensive than single engine planes.
    If you ask information from French airforce, you could be surprised at the cost of using and operating say 200 mirage will be much cheaper than operating 100 Rafales. You want to use twin engine planes as interceptors? That will increase the cost, that is same as driving car on first gear on highway. Maybe you should read about economics concerning planes.

    Also since Rafale and Mirage have about 70% of commonality of parts, I do not see there to be issue with spares.

    Rafale lines will close soon, and Frane has no intentions to replace all its mirage 2000 with Rafales and if it had, it would not reduce the production rate, already the Rate what France wants is 5 per year max. Why do you think France virtually paid for Egypt? so that way they can sort of control their minimum commitment to Dassault. There is no pressure on Dassault because it has agreement with France, it is the French govt which has to pay, if they buy or not. So from earlier previous Low requirement of 9 per year it was reduced to 5, I really doubt France would ever replace all their mirages with rafale, at the most they can just moth ball Mirage 2000 and only the 100 odd Rafale might be in service. But replacing the 300 odd mirage 2000 by Rafale? NO CHANCE.
     
  7. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    I did say fighter plane, and MRCA, did I say Bombers? In my earlier post, I did mention the fact that planes like B-2 and B-52 cannot be MRCA still you rant of stupidity.

    You asked me the link about which expert mentioned that Tejas was better than Mirage 2000, I had already pasted the link to you, you might read now two pages ago. Now Rafale exist in sea version, and can distribute nuclear weapon and is ECM resistant, what makes you say Sukhoi planes are not. by the way, you use Rafale in general term when it is Rafale M which is Sea version. Rafale B and C are not sea versions. I do not see Rafale B or Rafale C on carrier do you? So dont use Rafale generally and use Su-35 specifically.
    Now to reply to you
    Su-33 is a carrier version, Russia has it and so has china.
    Su-30 MKI that India has, the Super Su-30 MKI which are being upgraded, they will be hardwired for nuclear delivery.

    and when you talk about ECM, you should read about Khibiny pod that are developed and the pod version of it was "tested" on USS Donal Cook an AEGIS destroyer. please read about it.

    Why you feel that Sukhoi planes are without any ECM? Is that French arrogance? Indian Sukhois have Israeli Avionics, and the ECM suite is the same one that the Israelis use it on their F-15s
     
  8. smestarz

    smestarz Lt. Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    1,803
  9. Big Pic

    Big Pic Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    223
    Country Flag:
    United States
  10. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    rch 11/15: Dassault reports UAE in talks again. A Reuters report indicates that Dassault Aviation is in talks once more with UAE to replace its fighters. Dassault indicated it could ramp production up from one per month to 2.5 per month in the face of export orders.
    March 10/15: Egypt says yes. Egypt will buy 24 Dassault Rafale fighters [​IMG]. Egypt already flies predecessors Mirage Vs and Mirage 2000s, and was once looking at upgrading its already large fleet of F-16s to more modern versions. Dassault’s fighters have the benefit of not having many political strings attached, and for a government arguably installed by coup, this has a certain charm.
    Keep reading for the whole story with recent events put in context[​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Dassault Rafale
    (click for cutaway view)
    Will Dassault’s fighter become a fashionably late fighter platform that builds on its parent company’s past successes – or just “the late Rafale”? It all began as a 1985 break-away from the multinational consortium that went on to create EADS’ Eurofighter. The French needed a lighter aircraft that was suitable for carrier use, and were reportedly unwilling to cede design authority over the project. As is so often true of French defense procurement policy, the choice came down to paying additional costs for full independence and exact needs, or losing key industrial capabilities by partnering or buying abroad. France has generally opted for expensive but independent defense choices, and the Rafale was no exception.
    Those costs, and associated delays triggered by the end of the Cold War and reduced funding, proved to be very costly indeed. Unlike previous French fighters, which relied on exports to lower their costs and keep production lines humming, the Rafale has yet to secure a single export contract – in part because initial versions were hampered by impaired capabilities in key roles. The Rafale may, at last, be ready to be what its vendors say: a true omnirole aircraft, ready for prime time on the global export stage. The question is whether it’s too late. Rivals like EADS’ Eurofighter, Russia’s Su-27/30 family, and the American “teen series” of F-15/16/18 variants are all well established. Meanwhile, Saab’s versatile and cheaper JAS-39 Gripen remains a stubborn foe in key export competitions, and the multinational F-35 juggernaut is bearing down on it.
     
  12. Ezco

    Ezco Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    256
    Country Flag:
    France
    Sorry but I asked you is the list of qualified weapons on Tejas... third request and still nothing... I put it in bold perhaps it is more clear now.

    I made a mistake I wanted to say that Rafale is qualified for nuclear weapon and protected against EMP... (not ECM), sorry for that. That said I note that you already need to mentioned two aircrafts: Su-33, SU30MKI to have :
    - a future capability of launching a nuclear missile (will, would etc.)
    - a carrier version.
    Perhaps you should also add Su-35 as you mentioned before.
    How do you do a multirole fighter with that, you attach a Su-35 using a cable to a SU-30 then you attached both to a SU33 that can take off from a carrier ?
     
  13. abhitej

    abhitej Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    125
    Country Flag:
    India
    R-73 & R-77 will be used on Tejas. It will be basically used as an interceptor.

    For nuclear strike we will use Bhramos on Su-30. Missile will be fired from 300 kms from target so no need for EMP.

    For carriers we use MIG 29. We have STOVL carriers so Rafale M will not be useful.

    For price of 1 Rafale we can buy 1 Su-35, 1 Su-34 & 1 MIG 29. Su - 35 as air superiority. Su-35 as strike and MIG-29 as carrier. These 3 planes can be at 3 different places at same time but 1 Rafale cannot be at 3 different places.
     
  14. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Puts price at 118 million per plane.
     
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    yes but that includes the cost of setting up manufacturing facilities and TOT cost also.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page