mirage2000 out of iaf race for mrca

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #81
Sea Dog said:
--The MIG 35 program is going nowhere. I'm not going to get into a hissy fight over that fact.

--Don't assume things about why Singapore rejected the RAFALE. I'm quoting industry sources, try doing the same. Neither you nor I know if Singapore rejected the RAFALE because it did not want to be the "launch customer".

--All the other programs are a/c that are at the operational start of their life and there will always be bugs (God knows the F-14/15/16 had bugs at the beginning).

--India was not the "launch customer" for the Jags. France & UK had Jags, Ecuador had Jags, Oman had Jags, Nigeria had Jags. All of them well before India.

--The Sea Harrier was just the RN derivative of the original Harrier, which had already been deployed with the RAF, the Spanish Navy, and the USMC. So India was not a "launch customer".

----The only reason India bought the Fulcrum was because it was suffering an anxiety attack over the Pakistani F-16's. India's own experience with the 29 has proven the mistake such purchase was, and that their purchase of the M2000 was the correct move.

:lam
well if the programme is not going anywhere ,then how can the mig35 has been offered ,the mig35 programme incorporates most of the technology derived from the mig29ovt and the mig29m,also initially india had problems with mig29 engines ,this was made more complicated since india rejected russia's offer of tot for the mig29's as early as the 90's and also there was no service facility for these engines in india,everytime they failed the engined had to be sent to russia,however once the service facility was started in india ,the air force has not complained about this fighter ,as matter of fact they also gave a follow up ordr for these fighters.(check www.bharat-rakshak.com)

launch customer means the first country to which a product is exported,france and uk were the joint developers of the sepecat jaguar and hence you cannot consider them in the list.

besides mig29 india was also the launch customer of the mig27 which was nothing but the ground strike variant of the mig23.

i agree with you that the mig29 was purchased to counter the f-16's of paf ,but the mirage2000's were acquired primarily for nuclear strike role and ew role.

do you meen to say that the rafale is at the end of its operational life(agreed that the f-16,f14 and f15 had bugs when they were first developed so that is not exactly a call for their rejection).

as a matter of fact i believe that the f16 ,gripen ,ef2000 have absolutely no chance of winning the mrca order,that leaves with f18,rafale and mig35 of which two will be selected.

you must also realise that many defence deals are laso politically motivated.
the indian govt has communist party of india as their major political partners and they are firmly anti-american and fully support russia and france ,so that will prove to be a major factor.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
aaaditya said:
well if the programme is not going anywhere ,then how can the mig35 has been offered ,the mig35 programme incorporates most of the technology derived from the mig29ovt and the mig29m,also initially india had problems with mig29 engines ,this was made more complicated since india rejected russia's offer of tot for the mig29's as early as the 90's and also there was no service facility for these engines in india,everytime they failed the engined had to be sent to russia,however once the service facility was started in india ,the air force has not complained about this fighter ,as matter of fact they also gave a follow up ordr for these fighters.(check www.bharat-rakshak.com)
That web page has a a very entertaining back and forth cricket conversations going on in the forum section. And some nice pics.

The MIG 35 is not going to happen, and the sunset of the MIG 29 in IAF service is around the corner (probably will go out soon after the MIG 23). India has better uses for its money and much better a/c for the fighter mission.


aaaditya said:
do you meen to say that the rafale is at the end of its operational life(agreed that the f-16,f14 and f15 had bugs when they were first developed so that is not exactly a call for their rejection).

as a matter of fact i believe that the f16 ,gripen ,ef2000 have absolutely no chance of winning the mrca order,that leaves with f18,rafale and mig35 of which two will be selected.

you must also realise that many defence deals are laso politically motivated.
the indian govt has communist party of india as their major political partners and they are firmly anti-american and fully support russia and france ,so that will prove to be a major factor.
I don't think India will buy our F-18. Not unless they want to get their hands tied with political handcuffs (just look at how we quickly stopped the supply of parts for the IN's SEA KING's). This contract is RAFALE's too loose, and India is in a good position to wrest out of Chirac every single thing it wants (believe it or not, using India's incredibly slow and inefficient procurement process as a tool will achieve results in this matter). I forecast India joining, and funding, the "Post F3" Rafale development and purchasing it in large quantities.
:daz
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
sea dog, Mig-35 will happen, because IAF simply does not have the fund to pay 145 million for each fully equipped Rafale. Yes, the Indian local production would reduce the cost of producing Rafales, but the cost of purchasing the ToT will still be astronomical. If they are getting all Rafales, it would be upwards of over 12 billion US. That's not likely to happen. As for F-18, I still think it has a chance if APG-79 is actually offered. I'm not sure about AESA for Rafale, since AMSAR is not even certified yet. RBE2 is still quite a good radar.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
tphuang said:
sea dog, Mig-35 will happen, because IAF simply does not have the fund to pay 145 million for each fully equipped Rafale. Yes, the Indian local production would reduce the cost of producing Rafales, but the cost of purchasing the ToT will still be astronomical. If they are getting all Rafales, it would be upwards of over 12 billion US. That's not likely to happen. As for F-18, I still think it has a chance if APG-79 is actually offered. I'm not sure about AESA for Rafale, since AMSAR is not even certified yet. RBE2 is still quite a good radar.
If the MIG 35 production ever happens, not only will pigs fly, but if you come to DC I'll take you out to lunch at "Ben's Chili Bowl".:pimp

p.s. I'm very confident that I won't be buying you lunch.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Sea Dog said:
If the MIG 35 production ever happens, not only will pigs fly, but if you come to DC I'll take you out to lunch at "Ben's Chili Bowl".:pimp

p.s. I'm very confident that I won't be buying you lunch.
lol, alright, we got a deal:p:

shoot, just realized one liners are no good.
better add some insight.
36 rafales and 90 mig-35s
36 x 120 + 90 x 40 = 4.3 + 3.6 = 8 billion (of course, some of that is paid to local workers)
 

ajaybhutani

New Member
tphuang said:
lol, alright, we got a deal:p:

shoot, just realized one liners are no good.
better add some insight.
36 rafales and 90 mig-35s
36 x 120 + 90 x 40 = 4.3 + 3.6 = 8 billion (of course, some of that is paid to local workers)
why will there be a distribution of order??secondly 120 mn $ is the whole acquisistion price for rafale with missiles etc..ammunition orders will be sparate..
again we havent taken into consideration the fact that ony 20-30 will be imported and rest made in india .. thus bringing down the cost..

. while 30-40 will be only cost of mig35 without missiles etc..
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
ajaybhutani said:
why will there be a distribution of order??secondly 120 mn $ is the whole acquisistion price for rafale with missiles etc..ammunition orders will be sparate..
again we havent taken into consideration the fact that ony 20-30 will be imported and rest made in india .. thus bringing down the cost..

. while 30-40 will be only cost of mig35 without missiles etc..

....and a transfer of high-performance jet engine technology. It that's not part of the deal, India ought to tell the French where they can.....well they out to tell the French this: :finger
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
ajaybhutani said:
why will there be a distribution of order??secondly 120 mn $ is the whole acquisistion price for rafale with missiles etc..ammunition orders will be sparate..
again we havent taken into consideration the fact that ony 20-30 will be imported and rest made in india .. thus bringing down the cost..

. while 30-40 will be only cost of mig35 without missiles etc..
Yes, my cost estimation does include a moderate number of missiles. I think 8 billion is a reasonable cost (5 billion + AAM costs).

140+ million is the cost with all the sensor, whole EW kit + missiles and such. The cheaper Indian worker force will be offset by the cost of setting up the lines, training workers and the huge cost of purchasing the line and ToT. On top of that, I'm sure IAF would want to launch Brahmos on the MRCA planes. There are extra integration cost for that. I think 120 million per Rafale (including the cost of all that and missiles) is a pretty good guestimate.

Either way, India does have the French in a nice position for better ToT condition, since Dessault is getting desperate, but I don't think the French would lower the cost that much.
 

ajaybhutani

New Member
tphuang said:
Yes, my cost estimation does include a moderate number of missiles. I think 8 billion is a reasonable cost (5 billion + AAM costs).

140+ million is the cost with all the sensor, whole EW kit + missiles and such. The cheaper Indian worker force will be offset by the cost of setting up the lines, training workers and the huge cost of purchasing the line and ToT. On top of that, I'm sure IAF would want to launch Brahmos on the MRCA planes. There are extra integration cost for that. I think 120 million per Rafale (including the cost of all that and missiles) is a pretty good guestimate.

Either way, India does have the French in a nice position for better ToT condition, since Dessault is getting desperate, but I don't think the French would lower the cost that much.
1.can we carry brahmos on rafale ? (remember the EF2000 discussion.. at least we cant do it for EF2000 as theres no single point in the plane capable of carrying 2.5 T.).
2. there will be still a lot more things that we need to integrate.. like R77,R72,R27,KS172,astra,all russian A2G missiles etc.. the s/w of weapons controller shud be a part of ToT.. we cant afford to go to french for all the things.. infact its not even good to give away secrets of weapons to french.
3. The price of rafale will depend on how much ToT they offer. but in a way.. the plane has nothing more to offer in terms of tech apart from stealth..(unlike EF for engine.. F18 for aesa, mig35 for possible AESA & TVC and joint production..)
 

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #91
ajaybhutani said:
1.can we carry brahmos on rafale ? (remember the EF2000 discussion.. at least we cant do it for EF2000 as theres no single point in the plane capable of carrying 2.5 T.).
2. there will be still a lot more things that we need to integrate.. like R77,R72,R27,KS172,astra,all russian A2G missiles etc.. the s/w of weapons controller shud be a part of ToT.. we cant afford to go to french for all the things.. infact its not even good to give away secrets of weapons to french.
3. The price of rafale will depend on how much ToT they offer. but in a way.. the plane has nothing more to offer in terms of tech apart from stealth..(unlike EF for engine.. F18 for aesa, mig35 for possible AESA & TVC and joint production..)
rafale can carry nearly a 10 ton weapon load ,so if su30 can carry the brahmos then the rafale can definitely carry them ,though iam sure it will require some modifications,also the rafale can carry upto 3 storm shadow missiles as opposed to 2 of mirage2000,each storm shadow weighs about 1.5 tons
 

ajaybhutani

New Member
aaaditya said:
rafale can carry nearly a 10 ton weapon load ,so if su30 can carry the brahmos then the rafale can definitely carry them ,though iam sure it will require some modifications,also the rafale can carry upto 3 storm shadow missiles as opposed to 2 of mirage2000,each storm shadow weighs about 1.5 tons
can u give me the link for the 10 ton figure?? that seems to be a bit exaggerated to me :confused:
its not just about total weight u can carry but about wether u can 2.5T on a single pylon..and theres a lot of difference between a 1.5T and a 2.5T missile.
 

Sea Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
$140 million for a Rafale? Check out the price we may just start shipping F-22's to "trusted allies" (sorry, but India is not in that club yet)
----------------------------
Inside the Air Force

February 17, 2006

HEADLINE: PLAN TO EXPORT F-22A TO ALLIES GAINING MOMENTUM WITHIN AIR FORCE

Momentum is building within the Air Force to sell the service's prized F-22A Raptor -- which is loaded with super-secret systems -- to trusted U.S. allies, with Japan viewed as the most likely buyer, service and industry officials tell Inside the Air Force.

A Lockheed Martin official heavily involved in the Raptor program told ITAF Feb. 14 that a proposal to alter course and sell the Raptor to Japan is working its way through the Air Force. Lockheed is leading development and production work on the service's newest fighter.

"Right now, [the proposal] is at the three- or four-star level" within the Air Force, the Lockheed official said. "It's not at the highest levels yet . . . to the people who really count -- but it's getting there."

Several service officials, including a key four-star command chief, that have spoken with ITAF also have confirmed that the notion of selling a yet-undetermined number of Raptors to the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) is indeed picking up steam among blue-suited military and civilian decision-makers.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys told ITAF Feb. 2 after his remarks at a conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL, that service officials are debating the notion of putting the F-22A on the international market. Several service officials, who all requested anonymity, have since said the proposal is gaining strength and working its way through the Air Force's cumbersome bureaucracy.

The revived proposal comes as Lockheed has seen the Air Force dramatically scale back its F-22A program. The service initially intended to purchase 381 fighters, but has since scaled that figure back to just over 180. Overseas sales would help the defense giant swell its shrinking F-22A bottom line.

Several industry officials employed by companies partnering with Lockheed on the multibillion-dollar fighter program contacted by ITAF over the past two weeks also confirmed the notion is picking up steam within the air service.

"I'd say there is definitely a renewed interest to develop an international variant" of the F-22A, a Boeing official told ITAF Feb. 2 at the same Florida conference. Boeing is under contract to develop several Raptor components, including its wings, aft-fuselage and avionics systems, according to a company fact sheet. Boeing also is responsible for 70 percent of the F-22A's mission software as well as other components, the fact sheet states.

Defense officials and military analysts, including Loren Thompson of the Washington-based Lexington Institute, contacted this week all agreed Japan is atop what appears at first glance to be a short list of possible Raptor suitors.

Why would there be so few nations in line to buy what is touted by U.S. officials as the most capable fighter jet in history? Sources pointed to several reasons.

First, a list of the Pentagon's most trusted partners already are heavily invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program, having sunk millions into development work and are preparing to spend a large amount of their respective defense budgets on their own F-35 fleets. And second, China and an increasingly stubborn Russia are pegged by strategic military and political thinkers as the only two nations capable of mounting an air-to-air threat against the American military and its allies. Several analysts said that would mean having an extra squadron or two of the F-22As permanently "bedded down" in the region makes strategic sense for the Pentagon.

A Japanese defense official said Feb. 14 that the Asian nation is very interested in purchasing the F-22A as a replacement for its F-4 aircraft, and confirmed the JASDF has contacted both Raptor-maker Lockheed Martin and the Air Force about buying the fighter.

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force currently has four fighter jet models in its fleet -- F-15s, F-4 interceptors, F-2s and F-1s. The JASDF introduced the F-4s in 1973 and has indicated it will begin retiring them some time next decade.

At press time (Feb. 16), the Air Force had not responded to several requests for comment submitted by a reporter over the past two weeks.

The controversial proposal would need the approval of top officials at the Defense and State departments as well as on Capitol Hill. A collective decision to export the fighter would require a change of mind from the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom and Capitol Hill.

Each Washington entity has for years resisted exporting the Raptor -- even to the coziest of U.S. allies -- based on fears some of the F-22A's most-advanced systems could "migrate" to potential adversaries, especially China. The Asian giant is viewed by many Pentagon officials and military scholars as the most likely nation that could take on the U.S. military in a 20th century-style conventional war.

Air Force officials and military analysts said before the U.S. would agree to export the Raptor to Japan, officials there would have to agree to stipulations that F-22A technologies would not be resold to other nations.

"It's hard to envision the F-22A with its current capabilities being exported, even to our closest allies. Its capabilities would almost certainly have to be 'watered down' for export," according to Christopher Bolkcom, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.

"Would such an aircraft be attractive to foreign countries? Probably. Would it be priced affordably? That is more difficult to predict," Bolkcom told ITAF Feb. 14. "Technology transfer will likely be a critical issue" that U.S. policy-makers would have to iron out, he added.

Officials could potentially use another high-profile fighter program as a guide, if they opt to move forward with a plan to put the F-22A on the market, the CRS analyst said. "If the JSF program is able to resolve its technology transfer issues, DOD may have a model -- or at least a precedent -- for the F-22A to follow," Bolkcom concluded.

Though the F-22A is one of the Pentagon's most-valued -- and most costly -- weapon programs, existing laws place the State Department in charge of approving any sales of U.S. defense systems to other nations, defense officials and analysts were quick to point out this week. To that end, Lockheed, according to the company official, is merely "waiting for the Air Force and State Department to tell us what to do."

Meanwhile, the Japanese defense official declined to disclose the list of requirements the JASDF would slap on its potential F-22A fleet. The Lockheed official, however, noted the kinds of missions the self-defense minded Japanese air force would assign its Raptors would differ from the tasks that have been prescribed for U.S. F-22A squadrons.

Because a potential Japanese Raptor force would be focused on patrolling its native skies -- as opposed to waging combat operations in far-away and hostile territories like the U.S. models -- the JASDF could well opt to leave many of the air-to-ground capability upgrades planned for future U.S. models off their fleet, the Lockheed official said.

But overall, the company official said, if U.S. officials clear the way, Lockheed expects to sell Japan a Raptor that is "not that different" from the war planes that will fly with U.S. Air Force markings. "I wouldn't expect a dramatic change" to the fighter's closely held futuristic systems, the Lockheed source said.

As the proposal makes its way through the Pentagon and around Washington, U.S. officials are likely to engage in talks about the implications of putting the intricacies of three of the fighter's most-advanced systems in the hands of another nation -- even a close U.S. strategic partner like Japan, defense observers say.

Thompson of the Lexington Institute said Feb. 14 that defense and State officials, and lawmakers in Congress, are likely to remain hesitant to export three key F-22A systems: its electronic architecture; "aspects of its low-observable" technologies; and its next-generation data links, such as the Tactical Targeting Networking Technology waveform system.

Additionally, another defense analyst who closely follows Air Force programs pinpointed the fighter's electronic attack, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. In recent months, Air Force officials have stepped up their efforts to publicly tout the war plane's ISR capabilities.

It was not immediately clear how Japan would tailor its Raptor requirements, or how much a JASDF-specific F-22A might cost.

The Air Force's "fly away cost" per Raptor is about $130 million, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley told reporters following a Pentagon roundtable late last year. Asked how much the Japanese -- or any allied nation interested in buying the fighter -- likely would have to pay for each jet, the Lockheed official said the company "has shown the Japanese the same kind of [per-aircraft cost] numbers Moseley threw out."

The Japanese defense official told ITAF Feb. 15 that the JASDF plans to send an official to the United States later this year to discuss its fighter-replacement effort -- and the possibility of buying the F-22A -- with U.S. officials. "So, this year is the most important year for JASDF." -- John T. Bennett
 

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #95
ajaybhutani said:
can u give me the link for the 10 ton figure?? that seems to be a bit exaggerated to me :confused:
its not just about total weight u can carry but about wether u can 2.5T on a single pylon..and theres a lot of difference between a 1.5T and a 2.5T missile.
check out www.airforce-technology.com and www.fas.org ,off course you can carry when su30mki can carry brahmos which weighs 2.5 tons then why cant the rafale carry it when it has a comparable weapons load,also the rafale can carry the french asura and asmp missiles (these missiles have a 400kms range and are in the same category as the brahmos),maybe they may have to modify the wings a bit to accept the brahmos,but iam quite sure that the rafale can carry brahmos.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Sea Dog, 140 million US for Rafale is including all thinkable cost.

F-22's actually cost including the development cost is probably 400 million. If you add the sensor and a whole set of AAMs, who knows what the cost is. Fly away cost is not equivalent to how much you are going to sell it for.
 

ajaybhutani

New Member
aaaditya said:
check out www.airforce-technology.com and www.fas.org ,off course you can carry when su30mki can carry brahmos which weighs 2.5 tons then why cant the rafale carry it when it has a comparable weapons load,
also the rafale can carry the french asura and asmp missiles (these missiles have a 400kms range and are in the same category as the brahmos),maybe they may have to modify the wings a bit to accept the brahmos,but iam quite sure that the rafale can carry brahmos.
1. dont give me links to websites but links to the webpages.
2. the links you have given are contradictory to each other.
3. SU30MKI cannot carry brahmos on its wings.
4. do u realise u are trying to fit the 8.4 m long missile on a 10.3 m long plane. ( su30 is 14 m long).
5. even prithvi is 300 km range. then i guess we can even carry prithvi on rafale/su30.
6. about the missiles u have mentioned please care to give the links for the same. ?
 

chrishorne

New Member
P.A.F said:
Why are we forgetting about the Gripen. SAAb of late have been marketing their product heavily to the indian. take a look.
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=99032
From an outsiders view I'm surprised the gripen isn't the front runner, at least doesn't seem to be with the mirage 2000 out of the picture.

Compared to its competition its cheap, easy to maintain and the best of its class. It does have limitations but really do these matter - all depends on the direction where the IAF is going. The LCA is a good step but is taking too long and even when its finished I doubt anyone will be able to argue its better than the gripen is today. Perhaps a better idea would be to take gripen c/ds as phase one, get a nice licensing agreement with saab/volvo/GE and build a lca/gripen hybrid. A carrier capable gripen with Ge414?, nice :)

As long as there is no problems with parts or supplies from external sources which i'm sure saab would be happy to supply then I don't see a problem. gripens and gripen hybrids aren't all of the solution to indias air defense but would be a major part of having a sustainable and reliable modern air force.
Having the cheaper gripen also would allow india to buy more of them, and even give them options if the lca doesn't work out. Quanity has a quality all of its own and the gripen fights well above its weight.

As for the rest, india is not going to get the f-22 ever and i doubt it can aford it anyway so nice big russian flankers or even hybrids similar to the current ones would likely be the way to go - it makes no sense to exclude the russians totally. In the end thou it doesn't really matter how each seperate airframe/system works - its how everything works together that matters.
 

Izzy1

Banned Member
Chris, I couldn't agree more, but the major problem I see with Gripen is it's unrefulled range limitations in regards Indian requirements.

Also, would India's air force want to diversify to yet another air munitions supplier - they already fly aircraft with French and Russian-made missiles, Gripen would either have to come ready to support these systems (adding to overall cost) or India would have to consider purchasing new US/European missile systems to support Gripen.
 
Top