Rafale didn't compete, because the tender was too F35 oriented.
But use swiss eval, with a comparison between Rafale and EF and you can "imagine" where Rafale would have been.
IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
But use swiss eval, with a comparison between Rafale and EF and you can "imagine" where Rafale would have been.
Early Egyptians Rafale were delivered in 6 months. Qatar ones in 3 years, as Indian ones.
Please watch your back also. I remember how test pilots and scientists assoiated with LCA used to disappear. Bharat has to make a few fighters of its own and since we are able to sell at lower price, and I think smaller nations favour us over USA r any other nation to buy from because of NAM movement, I think that will strengthen our country and also weaken the military industries of other nations. I think so far these competitiors have underestimated you. ANd that is why you never saw any heat on you. But please hire some bodyguards and security for you. A tip I can give is also hire some IAS students (you'll find pleanty who scored till mains atleast twice but lost at inerview), you can offload beaurocrasy to them.
What you are doing is something that will affect the future of this country for every, just like Modiji came and changed the fate of this nation. Please go for it, its worth it, even risking your job, life and family for it.
|| Dharmo rakshite rakshitaha ||
Those 25% are included in the French price. Just imagine no export sales : you imagine Dassault, Thales, Safran, MBDA absorbing this as a financial loss? No way !
The initial target was 320, then 286 planes. until that achieved, these 25% are to be absorbing. In France and with all export customers.
A delay will involve taking away IN's funding now. The magic word is "now". That doesn't mean IN cannot have their own program much later. That's why I prefer IN pushing their procurement by a few years.
The capital budgets are separate. But the allocation is not. IAF is aiming to get the first priority for allocation.
The issue with commonality is, it simply won't work. IAF wants jets to operate in the mountains, IN's needs are entirely different. Their environment is different, the threats they face are different, their objectives are different etc.
I had made my views clear on the other forum. I don't believe IN should be buying current generation jets. They shouldn't think of anything more than a modernized Mig-29K for now. They should instead put their money into a new aircraft that is specific to their own requirements otherwise they will become slaves to the IAF's will. This is something even the USN is vehemently fighting against in the F-35 program.
Basically, IAF and IN should never operate the same aircraft. One must never become subservient to the other, it will only make our country weaker. Budget be damned, you don't save a lot of money with commonality anyway.
Let's face it. If a tender happens, Rafale is sure to win. The GTG has already amortized a lot of the costs necessary for infrastructure.
Provide some share options. Simple. You will retain them. Also point out that history will remember their names, unlike being nobodies elsewhere.
You can make such an assertion if the IAF rejects your aircraft after the MSA flies and equals Rafale's capabilities. Until then, I see the IAF as victims of the indigenization ghost.
That is what I have called upon them. Join me to give India its first and finest stealth aircraft which is small and yet have internal load-out far superior to any design of the world.
IAF is a victim of its own doings. Their refusal to own and support LCA has landed them in this situation. AND their present attitude will not help the nation and them at all.
Its not just about funding or who gets the first allocation. Navy has explicatively stated that they want the OEM to make them here under MII, which is not possible unless they club the order with that of IAF. The only way to do that is through GTG or if Rafale wins both IN and IAF tender.
The "now" you're talking about is around 5 years in the future, if normal tender timelines are to be followed from RFP to trials to conclusion of negotiations. That is a problem for IAF. The only way around is if IN agrees to GTG as well and convinces the govt to the same. If IN wants to take time and evaluate both Rafale and SHornets, resulting in a win for the SHornets, its a huge blow to the IAF, who will have to wait that long for nothing. And again, the problem with MII, as now there are two different winners.
Commonality simply won't work? Just because they need to work in different theatres of operations, does that mean they need different types of maintenance facilities? weapons depots? armaments? spares? differently trained technicians? what?
MiG-29K is enough for a threat from the Arabian Sea but not from SCS. Also, US is buying additional Shornets because the F-35C is late and the older Hornets are retiring. And not because of the reason you pointed out.
And how does operating the same aircraft by two forces make a country weaker?? What kind of an illogical argument is that?
UK - RAF and RN both operated Harriers
France - AdlA and Navy both operate Rafales
Russia - Su-27/Su-33
China - J-11/J-15
US operates different jets because it can and also their requirements were different.
Last edited:
ADA treated them like dirt. IAF wanted to be involved from day one of the project but ADA did not allow them to even check the progress of the project. There was a huge difference in the way ADA treated the IAF versus foreign companies. ADA forgot that the customer is king, but at least now they are trying to fix it with AMCA.
As for LCA, it is yet to meet ASR. No matter how much support IAF gives, if the ASR is not met, it is junk. Do you think it's the IN's fault that they rejected the N-LCA? They gave more support than ADA deserved, so how has IN's support actually helped the N-LCA? IAF is already making concessions for the induction of Mk1A.
LCA's success or failure has nothing to do with the support of the user, all you need is money. If you are given all the money in the world to develop the MSA by the govt, why do you care if the IAF supports your project or not? All you have to do is deliver what you promised and they will themselves come knocking on your door. If you spend lots of money and end up with a lemon, how can you expect the IAF to support you?
Even the IAF has a job to do. If you fail at your job, the IAF is not as affected by it because they have other options. But if the IAF fails to do their job, it will be as catastrophic as a natural disaster. So the risk factor is always in favour of the IAF.
Is @Nick , Sancho ? The line of questioning seems the same. Plus you seem to like avoiding him too in some parts .
"Now" is the next 5 years. The IN's deal is expected to cost $15B. And even that is a lower estimate because they are not considering how much the actual expense will be if they attempt to modify the aircraft to operate from the carriers and the carriers to handle non-Russian aircraft.
If we go by your argument, it's better to buy the Rafale-M because IAF will soon be the operator of Rafales through the GTG.
The infrastructure is all the same wherever you go.
Our geography is so vast that Rafale bases in Sirsa and Hasimara will not affect IN's base in Vizag or Nicobar. You ultimately have to train the same number of people, get the same amount of bases, get the same amount of spares etc.
USN's SH purchase has nothing to do with the F-35 being late. They plan to replace their older Hornets with the F-35 and they plan to replace their SHs with the new F/A-XX.
Most of those examples are small countries. UK and France are very small as countries, their orders are also small.
The Soviets planned to build different aircraft for carrier aviation, which got junked. The F-35B uses the same propulsion design as the Soviet Yak-141, which LM bought after the Soviet dissolution. Even they had plans of building new carriers with dedicated aircraft.
US, India and China will have large carrier forces eventually. So the navies can justify having their own independent programs. Our navy will eventually have an air force that is more numerous and powerful than the PAF, think about it.
The US operates different aircraft because the planners know how important it is for the navy to be independent.
That's also why, if we setup theater commands, the navy will get their own independent command in the south. Which means the navy will be in charge of the army and air force in the Southern Command. The army and air force do not have a clue about how the navy operates, but the navy has a pretty good idea about how the army and air force operate. Do you see why it's important to let the navy do their own thing?
India does not have too much time as India is already late. In addition, the manufacturing and logistical costs end up too high to make different planes. It is simple to make one plane with different variants with minor differences. If necessary, it is okay to make the navy as priority over AF, design the planes for Navy and then adapt to AF. But, making 2 planes is a nightmare. USA Navy is the world's second largest airforce after USAF. So, USA Navy is a special case. The same can't be said for others.
Because they were nearly-finished aircraft built for the ADLA. It helped that the Egyptians required very little customization.
Qatar and India demanded a lot more customization, which requires more time to develop, so even if they were given, like the Egyptians, nearly-completed aircraft originally built to French specifications, these first deliveries would not be in the desired standard and would have to be retrofitted once the customer's standard is certified.
I'm starting to think the best option for the IN is just order the Mig29k.
invest that money into a fifth gen naval fighter, helicopters and drones. no point in going from 4 > 4.5 when you can one day get the F-35, naval AMCA or MSA.
modifying the SH and Rafale is just too much money when the navy doesn't need to project blue water yet.
invest that money into a fifth gen naval fighter, helicopters and drones. no point in going from 4 > 4.5 when you can one day get the F-35, naval AMCA or MSA.
modifying the SH and Rafale is just too much money when the navy doesn't need to project blue water yet.
USA is now feeling trapped big time.
It wanted G2G and was offering carrots.. wanted to avoid a clear cut tender and knockouts..
And now IAF said ok let's hear G2G but equate the deal with same type of technology sharing as done by France..
Government agreed to IAF as it's first time IAF is confirming G2G inclination of what MOD/PMO wanted for months.
But same level of technology had caught USA in a tight spot.. France giving access and sharing tech.. so many modalities have changed.
Livefist is off track on this.. lifts are getting extended. Landing system and weapon bays getting modified plan sent for approval with MRCBF proposal. IN submission is still Rafale M not F18. Hornet SH has a limitation outside this forum scope. It's impractical for IN doctrine. Especially for something which is strategic and has supply chain limitation.
It wanted G2G and was offering carrots.. wanted to avoid a clear cut tender and knockouts..
And now IAF said ok let's hear G2G but equate the deal with same type of technology sharing as done by France..
Government agreed to IAF as it's first time IAF is confirming G2G inclination of what MOD/PMO wanted for months.
But same level of technology had caught USA in a tight spot.. France giving access and sharing tech.. so many modalities have changed.
Livefist is off track on this.. lifts are getting extended. Landing system and weapon bays getting modified plan sent for approval with MRCBF proposal. IN submission is still Rafale M not F18. Hornet SH has a limitation outside this forum scope. It's impractical for IN doctrine. Especially for something which is strategic and has supply chain limitation.
Are you saying that the cost of supporting/maintaining 2x sqn of Jet 'A' is the same as supporting 1x sqn of Jet 'A' and 1x sqn of Jet 'B'??
Cost of training 2x technicians on the same jet is the same as training them separately on different jets?
Maintaining 2x spare inventory of a jet is the same as maintaining an inventory for two different jets?
Cost of having 1x MRO facility for a jet is the same as having 2x MRO for two different jets?
If your answer is 'yes' to all the above questions, then I have nothing more to talk to you about commonality.
These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”
Navy Wants to Spend $7.1B on 80 More Super Hornets Over the Next Five Years
The Hornets were originally set to retire by 2035, but the Navy was forced to reevaluate that date in 2015 due to persistent delays in the F-35’s development.
The F-35Cs are expected to reach initial operational capacity this year, but the Navy needs additional Hornets to fill its inventory shortage until more of the new jets are purchased.
Trump wants 24 new Super Hornets, reverses Obama decision
Try again.
Royal Navy purchased 60 Sea Harriers
French Navy has around 50 Rafale M
How did that make their countries weaker??
As per your argument "Basically, IAF and IN should never operate the same aircraft. One must never become subservient to the other, it will only make our country weaker. "
Having independent programs doesn't mean having different fighters.
So? What does that imply?
USN operated SHornets because it won the competition, not because USN wanted a different fighter from the USAF.
By that logic F-35 program shouldn't exist!!
It is amazing, the stuff that you can just come up with out of nowhere!!
Last edited:
- Status