If govt signs without the L1, all hell will break loose and govt cannot afford that before 2024. And if it asks for commerical bids then anyways it will be delayed beyond 2024.
its like telling we're keeping this under consideration till we get a good deal for rafale
Rafale M Or F-18, Navy ‘Okay’ With Both, Ball Now In Govt Court: Navy Chief Hari Kumar
With the Air Force already operating Rafale jets, there may be commonality for spare parts for Navy’s fighter programme for INS Vikrant, Chief of Naval Staff R Hari Kumar tells ABP Livenews.abplive.com
Does the last sentence mean that we're politely telling Uncle SAM that your jet is good but we're going for Rafale-M because of ease of maintenance
Along with what you said, the French will allow us to integrate our indigenous weapons on Rafale-M, will the Americans on Super Hornet?
What if they club MRCBF with 36 follow on Rafale procurement
if it is mentioned in contract, then they have to.
IAF is waiting for a clearance from Cabinet so that it can proceed to issue the RFP of MRFA. For wrong or right reasons, IAF is sticking with MRFA, even if it means 114 Rafales in 2030-40.
I don't see anything getting them or MoD or the PMO into their senses.
How do we know what the L1 is ? One would assume that both parties have enclosed their bids . Once the bids open the GoI can ask Dassault to match the prices assuming they're on the higher side & add a few terms & conditions of their own . This isn't a tender where the prices would have to be officially notified to the public at large . That's the advantage of G2G deals .
That IS the game plan . Get better prices & more value addition thru ToT on engines as well as local mfg .its like telling we're keeping this under consideration till we get a good deal for rafale
US G2G deals are okay because exact prices are more or less revealed and the items bought till now from US has no working alternative.
If GoI moves to award MRCBF without calling official RFP commercial bids before 2024, the backlash it will get... If Dassault gets it, Boeing will fund the backlash and of Boeing gets it, Russians, French, etc everyone will fund the backlash.
That's why I am saying again and again, wait , just wait and watch. And don't be so optimistic.
I am personally against spending on MRCBF before we sign a follow on P75 or P75I deal.
It would be equivalent to IAF obsessing over Apaches and forgetting Rafales.
Haven't the commercial bids already been offered by the respective parties ? What's the point of all this then ? I find it hard to believe that the commercial bids haven't already been offered given that we've wide speculations already about how the technical evaluations have gone .
In case the commercial bids are due , won't the party which hasn't been validated crash the prices given their resources in finding out exactly which FA is in pole position & Delhi is a notoriously leaky place.
If , commerical bids are in place then IN wouldn't have said that both are good.
And it's upto the government now.
Commercial bids aren't evaluated by the services which is done by the MoD . The services's job is to technically evaluate the item. Once their evaluation report reaches the MoD , the latter commences the process of comprehensive evaluations including both the technical commerical & other sides to be considered.
Frankly even I've my doubts whether they'd be signing it during Macron's visit . But I doubt whether they can delay this procurement any further. It has to be inked this year - whether this calendar yr or Financial yr remains to be seen .
8 jets should indicate how many pilots were planned to be trained.
Maybe for future/ original requirements (54 nos. MRCBF).
More so if it cannot be operated from deck.
--------------------
I doubt we ll buy Rafale navy trainers.
[ even LCA navy can operate from deck ]
1.Best is for Dassault to optimize Lca Navy for training Rafale pilots.
2.we buy some more twin seaters for Airforce and let Naval pilots do some training in that.
3.Delegate those Rafale Twin seaters for training and also shore based protection..
Like in kalaikunda / Karwar / Andaman.
If it's 8 trainers then it's obvious this procurement is the first tranche. I hadn't gone thru the details of this deal earlier except cursory reading of it .
Frankly if the Rafale M can't do deck training then I'm not sure what exactly are they training for , meaning whether they can't go abroad the INS Vikrant & can do so aboard their own AC or are they generally not equipped for deck landing ? @Picdelamirand-oil
Either way that's a big handicap coz even otherwise they lack a twin seater version the IN desires.
If indeed we do go in for the Rafales in spite of all this , it clears the way for inducting 1-2 squadrons on N -LCA , not that the IN couldn't do so otherwise but I suspect had they done so otherwise the CAG could be expected to raise questions on such expenditure which it could well deem unnecessary.
We can't possibly go in of another make just for 2 seater trainers.
The biggest drawback for the F-18s is that they're about to shut down their line within 2 yrs & possibly by 2040-45 the support Boeing extends to such users will cease. In case of the US by then they'd have transitioned to the various versions of the F-35 replacing these F-18s apart from the 6th Gen FA expected to make first flight in the early 2030s.
You make a big deal about the need for two-seater aircraft for training, but the last time I checked, France doesn't have any. And it's the same with F-35.
In fact, if you know how to dock on the carrier with an aircraft, you know how to dock with all the aircraft you are able to fly.
So you can already use your MiG 29 in the training course. In addition, from F4.1 onwards, the Rafale has an automatic function to land on carrier, like the Magic carpet of the F-18 SH. This makes this phase of the flight so easy that I don't see the problem.
For the takeoff it is within the reach of any pilot and besides you have facilities on the ground to practice before going to the aircraft carrier.
It's the IN's specification not mine that they've asked for a 2 seater. The very fact that they've considered participation of the Rafales in spite of the latter not having a 2 seater obviously means it's been waived off specifically for the Rafales .
Besides my larger question was whether the Rafale trainer can't land on only the INS Vikrant or it true of the Charles de Gaulle too?
Well if the IN's supposed to use the MiG-29K for training why exactly is the IN going in for the Rafale trainers ? Besides assuming the Rafale trainers can't land or take off from any of the ACs whether Indian or French , to begin with why was it designed in such a way & what function would such a trainer fulfill ?
It makes more sense to go in for an AIr Force Rafale trainer then .
There is no Rafale Trainer, the only Rafales that exist are the Rafale C, which is a single-seater and is used by the air forces of the countries where it has been sold, the Rafale B, which is a two-seater and is also used by these air forces, and the Rafale M, which is a single-seater and can be carried on a carrier.
In France, the Rafale B is not considered as a training aircraft but as an aircraft that can carry out particularly complex missions more easily and in particular the nuclear mission.
In which case I don't know where did @vstol Jockey come up with his 16+8 formula ? Or perhaps that was the original requirement in the tender - 16 FAs + 8 x 2 seater trainers.
Frankly I really don't know what prompted him to state the "Rafale trainers " don't land on the AC when there aren't any dedicated marine trainers to begin with according to this post .
Pls check #1398 by vstol jockey .
He just consider that IN will buy 8 Rafale B as "trainer" because IN asked for trainer. But if I had to decide I would buy 24 Rafale M.