Indian Naval Aviation : Updates and Discussions

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
We can't independently support the jet without being able to produce it.
No not true. We can always invest in a dedicated facility for its total overhaul. That is what I suggest should happen. During G2G ask for permission to integrate other weapons on the platform or to modify the computer systems, etc which do not compromise the airframe life.

This can be done and a lot of nations are doing it now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
Lastly it's just a waste of money not to do it on our own. An entire industrial ecosystem can be created on the back of just 100 jets. It can bring us 10000 jobs for 30-40 years. It's gonna be pretty dumb on our part to miss out on that, quite literally.
You understand that the crucial components of the aircraft will need to be imported? We will be able to manufacture the airframe. We will be able to manufacture the landing gears. We will be able to part manufacture the engine and Radar. And assemble the important on board computers at best.

This is not going to add something to our existing eco system.

I do not think therefore it's wise for just 100 aircrafts.

Even Japan gave up assembly of F35 even when they had a 100+ order in mind. Doesn't make economic sense.

And they had in past done assembly of F2 and they are yet again able to fly their tech demonstrators. I think the capabilities were preserved. If they can do it, we can do it.

Every nation which licence built the F16 is directly importing the F35 today. We need to understand the costs.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
Exactly what I am saying. Doing it again with Rafale will not change anything.

It will. 'Cause this deal is going to the private sector. HAL has reached the peak of screwdriver-giri, the others are just beginning.

No not true. We can always invest in a dedicated facility for its total overhaul. That is what I suggest should happen. During G2G ask for permission to integrate other weapons on the platform or to modify the computer systems, etc which do not compromise the airframe life.

This can be done and a lot of nations are doing it now.

Stuff that costs more money than if we do it by ourselves.
You understand that the crucial components of the aircraft will need to be imported? We will be able to manufacture the airframe. We will be able to manufacture the landing gears. We will be able to part manufacture the engine and Radar. And assemble the important on board computers at best.

This is not going to add something to our existing eco system.

It does, because it's going to the private sector.

Even Japan gave up assembly of F35 even when they had a 100+ order in mind. Doesn't make economic sense.

They restarted assembly again.

And they had in past done assembly of F2 and they are yet again able to fly their tech demonstrators. I think the capabilities were preserved. If they can do it, we can do it.

HAL is already doing it with LCA and TEDBF.

The private sector is yet to catch up. With Rafale, DRAL will be our alternative to the HAL. And the company that wins AMCA will follow, although still lumped with HAL. Regardless, Rafale will give us an alternative capable of competing with HAL in the long run.

Every nation which licence built the F16 is directly importing the F35 today. We need to understand the costs.

Only the smaller air forces are only importing. The bigger ones have alternate indigenous programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
It will. 'Cause this deal is going to the private sector. HAL has reached the peak of screwdriver-giri, the others are just beginning.
Do we expect a Boeing or LM to rise from the pvt sector? Helicopters and Cargo aircrafts are happening now for pvt sector.

Still I don't see a strong argument.

But I was reading something in previous page , which says that the French line is full. That is a argument which imo is fair enough to go for MII.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
Do we expect a Boeing or LM to rise from the pvt sector? Helicopters and Cargo aircrafts are happening now for pvt sector.

Still I don't see a strong argument.

Yes, that's the idea.

But even without private sector participation, from a business perspective it doesn't make sense to pay for 100 jets and not produce them in country, even if it's HAL producing it.

But I was reading something in previous page , which says that the French line is full. That is a argument which imo is fair enough to go for MII.

It's not an issue for France to increase production. Apart from adding more assembly lines, they can even add more shifts.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
But even without private sector participation, from a business perspective it doesn't make sense to pay for 100 jets and not produce them in country, even if it's HAL producing it.
We are then going to pay like 17-18 billion USD. And a run of say 10 years from 2027 to 2037.

We need the aircrafts faster than those. Not that late.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
We will have to pay for that expansion then.

The cost will be covered in the contract. Anyway, our goal is to set up our own production line.

We are then going to pay like 17-18 billion USD. And a run of say 10 years from 2027 to 2037.

We need the aircrafts faster than those. Not that late.

Although it's very late, that's the timeline the IAF is chasing after. The alternative is gonna be much slower.

If you look at MKI, we inducted 25+ jets between 2009 and 2015. The same can happen with Rafale, with 2 production lines delivering that many jets. The Indian line could deliver 12-16 per year, and the options exercised can see us taking deliveries of 12 more jets in parallel in the form of kits from France. This will give us 114+57 within those 10 years. Dassault can also choose to fully assemble the options in India, that's their choice.

In the first phase, we need technology. In the second phase, we need numbers. We got the first phase taken care of with the 36 jet GTG. The first MRFA squadron will further add numbers quickly. Post which is the second phase, which will see us taking delivery of Indian made jets and the exercising of options. The massive second phase is also why the IAF is pushing for tendering, 'cause that's the only way to get decent numbers.

With just imports, red tape will delay inductions and cut down numbers. There is always a lot of lobby work going on behind the scenes with the aim to make the military weaker. Pushing for batchwise imports will obviously cripple the IAF.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JustCurious

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,515
4,615
The cost will be covered in the contract. Anyway, our goal is to set up our own production line.



Although it's very late, that's the timeline the IAF is chasing after. The alternative is gonna be much slower.

If you look at MKI, we inducted 25+ jets between 2009 and 2015. The same can happen with Rafale, with 2 production lines delivering that many jets. The Indian line could deliver 12-16 per year, and the options exercised can see us taking deliveries of 12 more jets in parallel in the form of kits from France. This will give us 114+57 within those 10 years. Dassault can also choose to fully assemble the options in India, that's their choice.

In the first phase, we need technology. In the second phase, we need numbers. We got the first phase taken care of with the 36 jet GTG. The first MRFA squadron will further add numbers quickly. Post which is the second phase, which will see us taking delivery of Indian made jets and the exercising of options. The massive second phase is also why the IAF is pushing for tendering, 'cause that's the only way to get decent numbers.

With just imports, red tape will delay inductions and cut down numbers. There is always a lot of lobby work going on behind the scenes with the aim to make the military weaker. Pushing for batchwise imports will obviously cripple the IAF.

Sir , As I look at the Situation , it appears as

1 IAF wants F 4 RAFALE

IAF does not want F 3R

2 There is No money for 114 F4 Rafales , especially when it is known from Su 30 experience that Make in India makes the plane more expensive

3 IAF can order 36 more F4 s BUT they will have to stand in QUEUE behind other customers , thus causing huge delays

4 The Govt Of India is wary of the Strategic Partnership Model to Make the Rafales in India given the last experience of Ambani and DRAL

5 HAL and Dassault can be made to work together but then the old questions of Work share , Quality , Costs , Management control will Arise again , thus causing delays

Basically what happened between 2016 -- when we signed the deal and NOW , is that Rafale is now a global Best Seller , So Indian orders have lost their "Sheen "
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
Sir , As I look at the Situation , it appears as

1 IAF wants F 4 RAFALE

IAF does not want F 3R

2 There is No money for 114 F4 Rafales , especially when it is known from Su 30 experience that Make in India makes the plane more expensive

3 IAF can order 36 more F4 s BUT they will have to stand in QUEUE behind other customers , thus causing huge delays

4 The Govt Of India is wary of the Strategic Partnership Model to Make the Rafales in India given the last experience of Ambani and DRAL

5 HAL and Dassault can be made to work together but then the old questions of Work share , Quality , Costs , Management control will Arise again , thus causing delays

Basically what happened between 2016 -- when we signed the deal and NOW , is that Rafale is now a global Best Seller , So Indian orders have lost their "Sheen "

2. There is money for 114 Rafale. There's money for 228 Rafales even. Just 'cause Parrikar once said we don't have money for a 2-month period at the end of a financial year, people have wrongly assumed we don't have money at all. This is even after proving that the IAF's procurement budget is only 3 times smaller than the USAF's. The IAF is pushing for doubling their procurement budget, making it only 50% smaller than the USAF's, there is no money for that yet. I will never get the logic of how people think $7.5B a year is equal to no money. Otoh, the USAF is spending $4.5B for 48 F-35s a year.

Make in India under HAL will make it expensive, but not under DRAL. DRAL is gonna follow the process created by Dassault with greater automation instead of following HAL's manpower heavy process.

4. There's nothing wrong with DRAL. Congress was merely on a fishing expedition and failed. It's a closed chapter.

5. Will never happen. Dassault's sticking with Reliance.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,515
4,615
2. There is money for 114 Rafale. There's money for 228 Rafales even. Just 'cause Parrikar once said we don't have money for a 2-month period at the end of a financial year, people have wrongly assumed we don't have money at all. This is even after proving that the IAF's procurement budget is only 3 times smaller than the USAF's. The IAF is pushing for doubling their procurement budget, making it only 50% smaller than the USAF's, there is no money for that yet. I will never get the logic of how people think $7.5B a year is equal to no money. Otoh, the USAF is spending $4.5B for 48 F-35s a year.

Make in India under HAL will make it expensive, but not under DRAL. DRAL is gonna follow the process created by Dassault with greater automation instead of following HAL's manpower heavy process.

4. There's nothing wrong with DRAL. Congress was merely on a fishing expedition and failed. It's a closed chapter.

5. Will never happen. Dassault's sticking with Reliance.

You are really the Most Optimistic person in the Whole WORLD 🤣🤣
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
You are really the Most Optimistic person in the Whole WORLD 🤣🤣

It's just common sense.

Even at $120M, 24 Rafales are $2.88B. At $50M, 24 LCA Mk2s are $1.2B. So the total expenditure on 24 Rafales and 24 LCAs is $4B per year. We can afford it even today, never mind a budget 5 years down the line.

Assuming a $10B procurement budget in 2027, merely $2.5B more than today, we can buy 48 jets a year for $4B and still have $6B a year left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
17,340
13,267
Mumbai
As usual we don't have details of whether the USAF's budget includes the budget for MLU of their various aircraft systems - a vital component of any self respecting air force. Ditto for the IAF.

We still don't know the scope of the Super Sukhoi upgrades. Assuming they go the whole hog & include new aircraft engines to be built in India, you can well imagine what the budget is going to be.

Add to it fresh procurements apart from the other upgrades to aircrafts - fighters , transportation & rotary wings & think where's the money going to come from for all these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
USAF's procurement budget includes everything to do with capital expenses, including modernisation. Both buying new jets and upgrading old jets are covered in it.

MKI MLU is not expensive compared to buying a jet. As per Indranil's tweet, which I opposed, even he said that a $20-30M upgrade is cheaper than a $200M purchase. Since the jet undergoes standard overhauls, the upgrades are coming in during those overhauls, which saves cost. And it's primarily an electronics upgrade, and even if the engine is changed, it's only a drop fit, so most of the costs associated with the upgrade are merely the production and supply of electronics and engine. Even assuming a very expensive $40M per jet, which is unlikely, it's about $11B spread out over 15 years for all the jets. That's less than $750M per year, or even $1B per year for a shorter timeframe. Even at 37-42 overhauls/upgrades a year, even if the upgrade process finishes in just 7 years, it's still only $1.5B a year.

Other aircraft are not expensive compared to fighter jets, 'cause we only buy a handful. Most of our force multipliers in the form of ISTARs (5), AWACS (6), EW (7), tankers (6) etc will be delivered before MRFA and Mk2. Light transports have already been contracted. SAM deliveries will complete in a few more years. New strategic transports are 15 years away, post the completion of MRFA/Mk2. And helicopters are not capital intensive when it comes to procurement. Unit costs range from $5M to $25M per unit depending on the type. Also the fact that the IA will become the primary user of helicopters, not the IAF, so the impact on the IAF's capital budget is a bit more muted in the long run.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JustCurious

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,833
Republic of Wadiya

 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,821
4,433
74
France

The Rafale-M aircraft is the F4 equivalent standard naval version of the Rafale. The marine version of the Rafale jet has a reinforced undercarriage and nose wheel, a bigger arrester hook, an integrated ladder, and other minor differences from the Rafale currently in use in the Indian Air Force.

According to people familiar with the matter, the Rafale-M is better suited for use on the aircraft carriers than the F18 Hornet fighter from the US for several reasons. They pointed out that it can fit into the lift bay of the Vikramaditya, unlike the F18 which cannot fit the lift of the Vikramaditya even with folded wings. The Rafale-M's dimensions also mean more of them (14) can fit onto the deck of the Vikramaditya as compared to 10 or 11 F18s.
[...]
The Rafale-M can carry up to four-five tonnes of external load (with full internal fuel) for a ski take-off. With lesser internal fuel, it can carry more weapons depending upon mission requirements. Thus it can carry out all roles, including combat air patrol, intercept, AD escort, as well as sea and land-strike with full internal fuel.

Officials familiar with the matter also added that unlike the F18s, which requires the carriers to be fitted with a new carrier optical landing system, the Rafale M’s can work with the existing one on the Vikramaditya.

[...]

The Rafale-M sent for testing is the latest version of the fighter with India-specific enhancements. It is nuclear-capable, carries Meteor air-to-air missiles, SCALP air-to-ground missiles, and Hammer precision guided ammunition.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
With pretty much guaranteed double digit growth over the next few years, the IAF's capital budget is set to peak before 2030. It's $7.5B today, and should double in 5-6 years. A few more years of double digit growth would take us well beyond $20B. Which is well beyond our needs, since we do not have large scale requirements like the USAF, like multitudes of bombers, strategic transports and tankers. But we will have more than enough money by then to cater to any need. Our next major fighter replacement cycle is only after 2045, when the bulk of our MKIs and LCA Mk1/As will come in for replacements, followed by one in 2075 meant to replace LCA Mk2, MRFA and AMCA.

In fact, I'd say the IAF's capital budget should begin stagnating well before 2030 for our current modernisation cycle (2027-2042). Any funds beyond that will only serve the purpose of buying time by cutting down the procurement timeframe with greater yearly buys of the same stuff. Once peaked, the capital budget growth for the IAF will trickle down to only manage inflation, like it's the case in advanced economies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
The Rafale-M aircraft is the F4 equivalent standard naval version of the Rafale. The marine version of the Rafale jet has a reinforced undercarriage and nose wheel, a bigger arrester hook, an integrated ladder, and other minor differences from the Rafale currently in use in the Indian Air Force.

According to people familiar with the matter, the Rafale-M is better suited for use on the aircraft carriers than the F18 Hornet fighter from the US for several reasons. They pointed out that it can fit into the lift bay of the Vikramaditya, unlike the F18 which cannot fit the lift of the Vikramaditya even with folded wings. The Rafale-M's dimensions also mean more of them (14) can fit onto the deck of the Vikramaditya as compared to 10 or 11 F18s.
[...]
The Rafale-M can carry up to four-five tonnes of external load (with full internal fuel) for a ski take-off. With lesser internal fuel, it can carry more weapons depending upon mission requirements. Thus it can carry out all roles, including combat air patrol, intercept, AD escort, as well as sea and land-strike with full internal fuel.

Officials familiar with the matter also added that unlike the F18s, which requires the carriers to be fitted with a new carrier optical landing system, the Rafale M’s can work with the existing one on the Vikramaditya.

[...]

The Rafale-M sent for testing is the latest version of the fighter with India-specific enhancements. It is nuclear-capable, carries Meteor air-to-air missiles, SCALP air-to-ground missiles, and Hammer precision guided ammunition.

Lol. It's a lobby article.
 

Hydra

Banned
May 19, 2020
3,300
1,602
Mumbai
USAF's procurement budget includes everything to do with capital expenses, including modernisation. Both buying new jets and upgrading old jets are covered in it.

MKI MLU is not expensive compared to buying a jet. As per Indranil's tweet, which I opposed, even he said that a $20-30M upgrade is cheaper than a $200M purchase. Since the jet undergoes standard overhauls, the upgrades are coming in during those overhauls, which saves cost. And it's primarily an electronics upgrade, and even if the engine is changed, it's only a drop fit, so most of the costs associated with the upgrade are merely the production and supply of electronics and engine. Even assuming a very expensive $40M per jet, which is unlikely, it's about $11B spread out over 15 years for all the jets. That's less than $750M per year, or even $1B per year for a shorter timeframe. Even at 37-42 overhauls/upgrades a year, even if the upgrade process finishes in just 7 years, it's still only $1.5B a year.

Other aircraft are not expensive compared to fighter jets, 'cause we only buy a handful. Most of our force multipliers in the form of ISTARs (5), AWACS (6), EW (7), tankers (6) etc will be delivered before MRFA and Mk2. Light transports have already been contracted. SAM deliveries will complete in a few more years. New strategic transports are 15 years away, post the completion of MRFA/Mk2. And helicopters are not capital intensive when it comes to procurement. Unit costs range from $5M to $25M per unit depending on the type. Also the fact that the IA will become the primary user of helicopters, not the IAF, so the impact on the IAF's capital budget is a bit more muted in the long run.
Asper your time line, if we start super Sukhoi upgrade today ,the last jet will be completing it's upgradation by 2037. And, let's assume the upgraded MKI will serve minimum 15-20 years more and by going IAF track record, we will phaseout mki around 2060. Do we really need to use MKI till then? Also not to forget that the upgradation we envisioned now most probably will be a mediocre one by 2037.
So my question is instead of wasting money on MKI upgradation,why don't we induct more capable fighters ,say by 2035 onwards?