MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 28 12.3%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 180 78.9%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.6%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 10 4.4%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 7 3.1%
  • Mig-35

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    228
This does not put French tech at risk, in fact it's the opposite. With 36 + 57 alone, Dassault will have to build a pretty sizable spares industry in India anyway. More orders means more ToT. No orders means no ToT. Like, we do not need full ToT for the engine and airframe if we don't plan on building more Rafales, all we need is spares production. It will limit the IAF's flexibility, but Dassault would get away with a massive 93 jet order without having handed over much ToT and we will still be dependent on their supplies. Dassault wins gloriously if this happens. Even more so if they win the IN's deal.

MRFA is indeed a huge deal...if it happens. And history says it won't.

Rafale is no longer the jet nobody wanted to buy (which it was prior to IAF selection), they're bagging orders left right & center, the overall foreign orders in recent times are bigger numbers than what we hope to buy with MRFA+subsequent order from local line combined (which itself is a big if). When they can do that without parting with any ToT whatsoever, they can afford to play hardball.

Our tender is no longer as lucrative as the original 126 MMRCA with option for 63 more, and Dassault is no longer as desperate as they were for foreign orders pre-2016. Combine that with the fact we're already heavily invested into Rafale platform, and you realize we don't hold as many cards wrt ToT as we think.

We're likely to get as much ToT as we did with purchase of 60 M2Ks...which is zilch. Which means that when time comes to upgrade Rafales in the future, Dassault can offer ToT for spares at that point and bag another deal worth billions. Exactly like with M2K-5 upgrade program. Also, remember that the original IAF request in 1980 was for 150 M2Ks but we ended up buying only 1/3rd that.

They stand to lose quite a lot by offering ToT (of any grade) for such small orders and denying themselves a revenue stream that would extend well into the future.

since the L2 can always be brought in if negotiations with L1 fail, new rules.

And spend another $2B on top of deal cost for a fresh set of ISEs? No way we can afford that. The new rules are useful to avoid running into single vendor situations, but can't circumvent financial realities. We kind of painted ourselves into a corner when we bought only 36 jets but spent a fortune modifying them as though we were buying 200.

And like it or not, reason we bought only 36 (instead of 126) was finances, plain & simple. And our GDP growth prospects today are not as strong as they were in 2016.
 
Last edited:
MRFA is indeed a huge deal...if it happens. And history says it won't.

Rafale is no longer the jet nobody wanted to buy (which it was prior to IAF selection), they're bagging orders left right & center, the overall foreign orders in recent times are bigger numbers than what we hope to buy with MRFA+subsequent order from local line combined (which itself is a big if). When they can do that without parting with any ToT whatsoever, they can afford to play hardball.

Our tender is no longer as lucrative as the original 126 MMRCA with option for 63 more, and Dassault is no longer as desperate as they were for foreign orders pre-2016. Combine that with the fact we're already heavily invested into Rafale platform, and you realize we don't hold as many cards wrt ToT as we think.

We're likely to get as much ToT as we did with purchase of 50 M2Ks...which is zilch. Which means that when time comes to upgrade Rafales in the future, Dassault can offer ToT for spares at that point and bag another deal worth billions. Exactly like with M2K-5 upgrade program.

They stand to lose quite a lot by offering ToT (of any grade) for such small orders and denying themselves a revenue stream that would extend well into the future.

Basically you're saying Dassault doesn't care about India's new orders and will happily allow someone else to win it?

All OEMs will have to meet the ToT obligations by contract or they can't even enter the tender. The M2K deal was signed without expecting ToT, it was supposed to come with a much larger deal for 110 jets that included license production.

You've switched your opinion from this being a loss-making venture for FOEMs into a complete advantage for them. It doesn't work at such two extremes.

And spend another $2B on top of deal cost for a fresh set of ISEs? No way we can afford that. The new rules are useful to avoid running into single vendor situations, but can't circumvent financial realities. We kind of painted ourselves into a corner when we bought only 36 jets but spent a fortune modifying them as though we were buying 200.

Some of the ISE for F3R may not matter for F4.2 due to replacement of old tech, like the HMDS and towed decoy. And some of the ISE is transferrable to F4.2, like cold start, weapons integration, so it pays for itself. We may see new ISE as well. ISE is constantly done to all our jets, which is among the reasons why we want ToT. The MKI is the poster boy of ISE.

And like it or not, reason we bought only 36 (instead of 126) was finances, plain & simple. And our GDP growth prospects today are not as strong as they were in 2016.

Our GDP growth prospects are much better because we are going into volumes with a higher base effect. Tax collections are rising at nearly 2x the GDP growth as well, which is where the defence budget comes from.
 
Basically you're saying Dassault doesn't care about India's new orders and will happily allow someone else to win it?

Nobody else can realistically win it - once you factor in costs of developing infrastructure, Rafale automatically becomes L1 because we've already funded that.

The Russians can perhaps beat out on the price front, but the capability deficit will be too much and IAF will not buy unless pressured by GoI to do so (same was case for MiG29s, IAF didn't want them in stead of M2K). But the Russian jets cannot effectively perform the DPSA role and our requirement for that cannot be met by the 36 we have - we'll have no option but buy another batch of Rafale, whether it wins in MRFA or not.

That is why Dassault insists on 100-jet order for ToT. They know they've already got the cat in the bag. These are the only two possibilities ahead:

A) Rafale wins MRFA, India coughs up enough for a 114-jet order at one go, in which case Dassault is happy to provide full ToT

B) Rafale loses MRFA either because GoI applies pressure to buy some other jet or because 54 order is not enough for ToT, leading to break down of negotiations. The loss of time would result in a batch order for at least 36 off the shelf, it'd be a no-brainer for us as we need to take advantage of the infrastructure we've already created for it + Russian jets can't do DPS well.

More Rafales for India are assured either way - its just a question of either 114 + full ToT now, OR 36-57 more now but retaining the option to sell ToT (for upgrades, spares) later on as happened with M2K, while continuing to earn revenue selling spares & performing maintenance till then.

In the long run, it doesn't make much difference to Dassault which way we go.
 
Nobody else can realistically win it - once you factor in costs of developing infrastructure, Rafale automatically becomes L1 because we've already funded that.

The Russians can perhaps beat out on the price front, but the capability deficit will be too much and IAF will not buy unless pressured by GoI to do so (same was case for MiG29s, IAF didn't want them in stead of M2K). But the Russian jets cannot effectively perform the DPSA role and our requirement for that cannot be met by the 36 we have - we'll have no option but buy another batch of Rafale, whether it wins in MRFA or not.

That is why Dassault insists on 100-jet order for ToT. They know they've already got the cat in the bag. These are the only two possibilities ahead:

A) Rafale wins MRFA, India coughs up enough for a 114-jet order at one go, in which case Dassault is happy to provide full ToT

B) Rafale loses MRFA either because GoI applies pressure to buy some other jet or because 54 order is not enough for ToT, leading to break down of negotiations. The loss of time would result in a batch order for at least 36 off the shelf, it'd be a no-brainer for us as we need to take advantage of the infrastructure we've already created for it + Russian jets can't do DPS well.

More Rafales for India are assured either way - its just a question of either 114 + full ToT now, OR 36-57 more now but retaining the option to sell ToT (for upgrades, spares) later on as happened with M2K, while continuing to earn revenue selling spares & performing maintenance till then.

In the long run, it doesn't make much difference to Dassault which way we go.

You are just looking at two extremes, either it won't happen at all or it will in full. The answer as usual lies in between. Even for the 114 jet deal, the ToT expectation is only 50%. For 57, they can stop with just a full assembly line, this line can eventually provide repair and overhaul services too. So this is how the transition happens. In any case, even the Print article talks about follow-on orders. So we are just gonna buy more squadrons after the initial 57, and the FOEMs would also know that, it's how they operate as well.

Saab's provided Brazil with a lot of production ToT for an order of just 36 jets.

The Brazilians are manufacturing the front fuselage, and the front and rear fuselages of Gripen F, along with fully assembling the jet. That's what they got for 36 jets. Dassault is in a position to provide much more than that for 57 jets, including engine production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
What I am saying is that if I was an OEM, I would say that my product fits the profile. It doesn't matter. When IN says that it go ahead and ask for a proposal, only then we will truly know.
we will know, after IN asks for proposal, OEM responds, MoD responds, CCS gives approval and MoD finalizes contract and then Rafale responds and in all this hope the Congress Clown does not create a new issue.

Only then will we know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ankit Kumar
What I am saying is that if I was an OEM, I would say that my product fits the profile. It doesn't matter. When IN says that it go ahead and ask for a proposal, only then we will truly know.

Of course, I know what you meant. But all I'm saying is this is not merely a simple marketing claim from an OEM. It's a message for people within the SH ecosystem. It's basically a clue for their vendors. It's worth a two-year additional production run.
 
In addition to the technical specifications , there is another aspect of Folding Wings and Lift size of INS VIKRANT

A usable two-seat version, needed for training pilots, battlespace management, some strike missions and drone control.

And the emphasis on pilot training is important because pilots will need to operate from two different types of carriers and on land.

Seamless integration with American-supplied technologies, like P-8I, SeaGuardian and MH-60R.

Seamless integration with QUAD and allies, including France, UK etc through an American-owned network.

Faster roadmap for drones.

Engine commonality with TEDBF.

A large fleet of SHs and Growlers to cannibalise in 20 years.

The Rafale M does not provide any of these advantages.
 
IAF plans to build 96 fighter jets in India under Rs 1.5 lakh cr for 114 combat aircraft
Read more At:
 
18 import + 36 paid in USD/EUR (I think CKDs) + 60 to be paid in rupees to Indian Vendor (who can then pay in EUR/USD to OEM) aim here is to get 60% localisation of the manufacturing process. So apart from Engine, Radar, Ejection seats, weapons of foreign origin, irst if applicable, etc we will kind of pay a ToT fees to enable us to manufacture the rest.

The aim is to create some sort of capability and experience in the private vendor.

Let's see how it goes.
 
18 import + 36 paid in USD/EUR (I think CKDs) + 60 to be paid in rupees to Indian Vendor (who can then pay in EUR/USD to OEM) aim here is to get 60% localisation of the manufacturing process. So apart from Engine, Radar, Ejection seats, weapons of foreign origin, irst if applicable, etc we will kind of pay a ToT fees to enable us to manufacture the rest.

The aim is to create some sort of capability and experience in the private vendor.

Let's see how it goes.

I hope and wish that US rejects
These conditions quickly

So that we can enter into an agreement with Dassault

Euro fighter and Gripen are anyway not going to be selected
 
18 import + 36 paid in USD/EUR (I think CKDs) + 60 to be paid in rupees to Indian Vendor (who can then pay in EUR/USD to OEM) aim here is to get 60% localisation of the manufacturing process. So apart from Engine, Radar, Ejection seats, weapons of foreign origin, irst if applicable, etc we will kind of pay a ToT fees to enable us to manufacture the rest.

The aim is to create some sort of capability and experience in the private vendor.

Let's see how it goes.

This is going exactly like the MKI program. All we need to know now is about the options clause and the type of delivery we will see, whether kits or full production.
 
18 import + 36 paid in USD/EUR (I think CKDs) + 60 to be paid in rupees to Indian Vendor (who can then pay in EUR/USD to OEM) aim here is to get 60% localisation of the manufacturing process. So apart from Engine, Radar, Ejection seats, weapons of foreign origin, irst if applicable, etc we will kind of pay a ToT fees to enable us to manufacture the rest.

The aim is to create some sort of capability and experience in the private vendor.

Let's see how it goes.
Approx 19 billion, so like 1.5 billion USD a year for 13 years. Funds shouldn't be a problem.
This is going exactly like the MKI program. All we need to know now is about the options clause and the type of delivery we will see, whether kits or full production.
MKI for a pvt sector entity. Hopefully it is more fruitful than MKI was for HAL.