MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • JSF F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 22 12.1%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 144 79.1%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 4 2.2%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • SH F-18

    Votes: 8 4.4%

  • Total voters
    182

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,444
7,107
India
If the Rafale could not fit the Indian carrier lifts, would the Navy be about to organise a competition between the Rafale and the F-18 SH?

It's unclear if it's still been tested. Plus there's the issue of Vikramaditya as well.

If we buy Rafale, we will likely end up with a partime carrier fighter that can operate only from 1 carrier. And that's the biggest drawback of the Rafale.

I'd much rather have the Rafale than the SH. But reality cannot be questioned.
 

raghu1974

Member
Nov 19, 2020
113
83
Phoenix, AZ USA
Yeas, and no. Regarding tye delay both IAF & GOI is equally responsible, IAF has completed mmrca evaluation and declared EF &Rafale as technically qualified bidder in 2010. They took more than 10 years from 1999 to make up their mind on what they want. Goi again started drama to choose L1.
When u purchase any aircraft you are not paying just for tye jets. If you compare the rafale deal cost for Egypt, Qatar with that of India you will come to know that the price is almost same for these three countries. What you are seeing is the cost for the deal. The cost for the deal will be less than that of Rafale deal if you are purchasing f18 or 16 or mig.
Regarding US, till no pm or government has surrendered our sovereignty to USA at the cost of our interest. Go and see how MMS has screwed the uncle same while signing nuke deal with them. And go and read what we have done to USA during Devayani incident too. And FYI we stopped purchasing or reduced the cheap oil import from Iran under US pressure, this has happened under Modi.
I don't want to argue with you. You have your views, I respect that and trust the information you post. I am here to post my thoughts on topics of my interest and willing to correct my thoughts. Thanks for your views.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,444
7,107
India
SH F-18s do the job flawlessly and except for Rafales which I do agree is superior no other naval carrier fighter can beat F-18s at sea. Whatever the PLAnavy can throw at us in near future and even up till 2032-35 F-18s can handle it. What is important in India's context is it's cheaper to buy even cheaper to lease, cheaper to maintain, cheaper weapons and ammunition thanks to mass production which makes it affordable for Indian navy while at the same time builds capabilities which are superior to our adversaries IE Pakistan and China. Rafales are too expensive, reason being stubborn dassault which does not believe in mass production but fewer quantities with huge profits. They scuttled the whole mmrca process by filing wrong quotations and back tracking on technology transfer especially turbofan engine technology and cooperation with HAL otherwise India would have gone for full requirements of more than 250 fighters with Rafales which is now filled with mix of F-18s, Rafales in fewer numbers, MWF, Mig29, Su30mkis, etc..

Saarji, you have murdered facts.

Even the USN doesn't believe the SH is as good as you have stated. They made a desperate decision and ended up with the SH due to money problems after the Cold War. They are not as happy with it as people are led to believe. Which is why they started their own independent project to replace it called the NGAD instead of tagging on to the USAF's projects like they have done with the Hornet and F-35.

And Rafale is way, way cheaper to maintain and operate than the SH. Rafale's LCC is going to be cheaper than the Mirage 2000 for sure, counting inflation, but you won't know that for at least 20 more years, when data will slowly be made public. Even today, after 30 years of operation we are still spending a lot of money to keep the Mirage 2000 viable, whereas the spending on Rafale at 30 years will be negligible. And in 30 years, while Rafale will still continue to get customised electronics, SH will have to be retrofitted with whatever's available, like we are doing with Jaguar today, as long as the US allows it, or we will have to retire it, like we did with Marut. The SH won't even have a customised engine.

Although the new SH engine is good, the aircraft is still bigger and heavier than the Rafale, while also not being modular, plus it uses more fuel to get to the same place, so it's logical that the CPFH of the SH will be greater than the Rafale's while having a much lower availabilty.

Lastly, you haven't considered the benefits of the offsets package with France compared to whatever the Americans provide. The Americans provide no technology transfer and only basic production rights, like airframe and wings, whereas the French have set up a production line for the Falcon jet, and the same line can also assemble Rafale. Plus technology transfers in other areas to DRDO. You can bet the offsets package for the SH, if there is one, will be low quality stuff with no future.

As for Rafale's production, it's one of the best optimised production lines ever created for a fighter jet. It uses the least amount of manpower and delivers at the fastest rate. As long as you place a large enough order, the production can be scaled up, so it's not Dassault's fault that the French govt wants only 200+ Rafales. If the Soviet Union still existed, they would have made 500+. It's extremely cheap considering how advanced it is.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,444
7,107
India
Or it will be like su30 & mki deal. We have returned the first 40 su30 airframe to Russians after they started delivering much capable mki.
In can return f18sh when much advanced blk3 started flying.

We returned the first 18, and those were only used for training. And they were returned because they couldn't be modified to MKI standards. The initial plan was to upgrade it.

But, no, the deal won't be like MKI. A lease is a totally different deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,232
586
Mumbai
We returned the first 18, and those were only used for training. And they were returned because they couldn't be modified to MKI standards. The initial plan was to upgrade it.

But, no, the deal won't be like MKI. A lease is a totally different deal.
So we will end up with current, about get obsolete version of SH. Anway its still better than Mig29K.
 

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,232
586
Mumbai
Saarji, you have murdered facts.

Even the USN doesn't believe the SH is as good as you have stated. They made a desperate decision and ended up with the SH due to money problems after the Cold War. They are not as happy with it as people are led to believe. Which is why they started their own independent project to replace it called the NGAD instead of tagging on to the USAF's projects like they have done with the Hornet and F-35.

And Rafale is way, way cheaper to maintain and operate than the SH. Rafale's LCC is going to be cheaper than the Mirage 2000 for sure, counting inflation, but you won't know that for at least 20 more years, when data will slowly be made public. Even today, after 30 years of operation we are still spending a lot of money to keep the Mirage 2000 viable, whereas the spending on Rafale at 30 years will be negligible. And in 30 years, while Rafale will still continue to get customised electronics, SH will have to be retrofitted with whatever's available, like we are doing with Jaguar today, as long as the US allows it, or we will have to retire it, like we did with Marut. The SH won't even have a customised engine.

Although the new SH engine is good, the aircraft is still bigger and heavier than the Rafale, while also not being modular, plus it uses more fuel to get to the same place, so it's logical that the CPFH of the SH will be greater than the Rafale's while having a much lower availabilty.

Lastly, you haven't considered the benefits of the offsets package with France compared to whatever the Americans provide. The Americans provide no technology transfer and only basic production rights, like airframe and wings, whereas the French have set up a production line for the Falcon jet, and the same line can also assemble Rafale. Plus technology transfers in other areas to DRDO. You can bet the offsets package for the SH, if there is one, will be low quality stuff with no future.

As for Rafale's production, it's one of the best optimised production lines ever created for a fighter jet. It uses the least amount of manpower and delivers at the fastest rate. As long as you place a large enough order, the production can be scaled up, so it's not Dassault's fault that the French govt wants only 200+ Rafales. If the Soviet Union still existed, they would have made 500+. It's extremely cheap considering how advanced it is.
Rafale is a fine aircraft, but problem is how we will manage the initial investment? And how we will tackle USA. USA has already sanctioned Turkey, a NATO country for going s400. We need to give them an offer which they cannot deny, mmrca2 will be that offer .
Personally i prefer another 54 rafale in g2g route and F15EX or Rafale in mmrca2 route.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,444
7,107
India
Are we going to lease brand new block 3 that's meant for USN or upgraded F18 s?

It's still not clear what's the actual plan. We have to first wait for official confirmation, right now we are relying on tweets. I'm sure the IN is referring to the Block 3. But we don't know if it's newly built Block 3s or the older upgraded version. The lease cost for the new jets will be higher than upgraded ones, but the capability will be more or less the same. So I guess it depends on their long term plans.
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,763
781
France
Both f18 & f16 were initial pitted against each other for USAF during development. F16 design has won the contract for USAF and USN used the f18 design.
YF16 was better, this is why it was chosen by USAF. USN wanted a twin engine, for safety reason, so they used the YF17 prototyp to create the FA18.
SH18 is only marginally better than FA18, despite being heavier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,849
2,301
72
France
transition.wifeo.com
It's unclear if it's still been tested. Plus there's the issue of Vikramaditya as well.

If we buy Rafale, we will likely end up with a partime carrier fighter that can operate only from 1 carrier. And that's the biggest drawback of the Rafale.

I'd much rather have the Rafale than the SH. But reality cannot be questioned.
I recall a comment made on another site when Dassault submitted its response to the Indian Navy's RFI.
Update:
Indian Rafale deal is beginning to hot up with few interesting turn of events

  • IAF Rafale orders for follow on is hotting up.. In discussion are 18/36 crafts and a NEW base proposal. In case the base proposal is through, technically it will imply 3 base and ability to house a total of 108 Rafales or approx 6 sqds.
  • IN Rafale-M Proposal has seen an offering of massive Indian specific customizations and a part of it is towards integration of Rafale M in existing carriers as well
  • IN Rafale M deal in the hindsight is also a bit costly due to customizations as mentioned above, weapon sets and it does not carry any maintenance package
  • The absence of Maintenance package indicates the fact the package will be signed later with a LOCAL entity.
  • The cover note (signed by Trappier) and presentations talks about the commanality with IAF Rafales and Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited (DRAL) in a position to meet all opex and service requirements.
  • This case of DRAL is only possible when they are given the MRO status and possibly MII being a project for them
  • Interestingly, even with a MII order will coincide with the rest of packages either signed or overlapping/taken over from existing assets to enable end to end package handling by DRAL

Things will be delayed for MII but underlying theme to make things common is what Dassault has focussed...

Time to see if IN bites the bait or what is offered by others..
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
1,990
1,109
India
It's tiring the obstinacy of people to say that the Rafale is expensive when it's only an impression that comes from the fact that contracts that include Rafales include much more than the plane itself.

When you buy a car you don't count in its price the driving lessons that are necessary for you to use it, nor the price of the garage that will allow you to do all the repairs imaginable during the lifetime of your car, yet that's how Rafale sales are conceived, whereas for example for American aircraft sales, this is not the case, the latter preferring to make separate contracts away from media enquiries.

In France the price is higher than the cost and the cost is public. Afterwards the price depends on the conditions imposed by the buyer, but as these conditions are the same for all competitors and in general they do not concern the product itself but the associated services, it can be assumed that their impact is the same for all competitors.

Then we can compare the costs

The cost of the Rafale according to a report by the French SENAT is € 68.8 Million for the Rafale C, € 74 Million for the Rafale B and € 79 Million for the Rafale M. You get it at a PRICE around $ 95 Millions for a cost of € 72 M ~($ 87 M)
The cost of the F-18 SH is also public: $ 80 Million, i.e. € 67 Million.
This price can be found in an official document from the Department of Defense. Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates February 2020 :
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf (page volume 1- xiii) where 24 F-18 SH have a cost of
$1 922 275 000.
The costs are not that different and are easy to justify with the differences in performance.

As for the fact that the F-18 SH is cheaper to maintain let me laugh, the Rafale is designed to have a very low LCC, probably even lower than that of the Gripen.

Falcon in his tweet, said it's mainly to tap into US MIC and it's diplomatic clout.

For India who don't even order in required numbers even at last minute, leasing numbers when required is a best fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
733
727
A Place
Yes? Structural modifications usually differentiate variants of an aircraft. All I was saying is the SH has no variants, its production would be more streamline. The Rafale has variants, so its standard versions are much more effective versus the SH which was designed for carrier ops.
The Rafale has effectively two variants, as far as the airframe is concerned: the navy version and the two-seater version. The single-seater land version is essentially a hybrid of two-seater and navy parts.

The Super Hornet has single-seater and two-seater versions. And then there's the Growler, too, though I don't know if it has any structural change compared to its fighter variants.
Turkey isn't an example. It's a weak country pretending to be powerful. A temporary blip in relations does not change the fact that the Turks are still under the American thumb. Right now it's just one angry man lashing out, he will eventually go away and things will go back to normal.
No, this is a misreading of the situation. None of what Erdogan did is contrary to Turkey's longstanding ambitions. There's nothing extraordinary about Erdogan, he is the normal. The only real difference is that he can no longer coast on a successful economy to maintain his popularity, so he pushed all the other buttons at his disposal. But make no mistake: if he's pushing these buttons to buoy his popularity back up, it's because his foreign policy aligns 100% with the will of the Turkish nation. His successors, when he leaves power, will pursue the same agenda. Just perhaps with more subtlety, but not with less insistence.
Findlandization was the Finnish approach of just appeasing the Russians enough to not get conquered. Censoring your own public to suit Russian narratives, purposefully keeping their military weak, giving up on any territorial conflicts... it is 1 step above suzerainty.
There's one point I'd dispute here. Finlandization was a policy based on "don't give them reasons to attack us, but do give them reasons not to attack us". They kept their military as strong as they could support it to be, so as to be too prickly to be worth attacking without putting serious means into it, while the appeasement policy (and giving up on Karelia) was to ensure the Soviet Union would not feel the need to put in serious means.
(France leaving the integrated military command was effectively a withdrawal from NATO, but that's a topic for another day)
Not at all. Leaving the integrated command was mostly a way to signal to the USA that they would not get to control France's nuclear deterrence capability, like they succeeded with Britain's. France was still a functional member of the alliance, taking part in joint exercises, participating in joint tenders, etc. And there was a standing agreement to fold back into the integrated command in case of open conflict with the Warsaw Pact.
SH F-18s do the job flawlessly and except for Rafales which I do agree is superior no other naval carrier fighter can beat F-18s at sea.
Well obviously, given that there's no other modern CATOBAR fighter out there. Except for the legacy Hornets and the not-mature-yet F-35C, I suppose.

Every aircraft design is a compromise between various requirements, trying to optimize the various factors (lift, drag, thrust, weight, size, stability, fuel consumption, etc.) depending on the aircraft's purpose. An airliner, a motorglider, and a fighter aircraft all have very different priorities so they all have very different designs. This is basic knowledge, but I put this reminder because it's the source of the F/A-18E/F's problems. You see, it was designed at a time when the US Navy aviation was seriously suffering. Its glamorous star the F-15 had been retired as too expensive to maintain and doctrinally obsolete, its future attack craft the A-12 had been canceled, so it had to make do with the good ol' "legacy" Hornet. They needed a bigger, newer aircraft and they needed to not get it canceled. So the Super Hornet had an additional requirement, not a technical one, but a political one.

And when you select a political requirement as a requirement above technical requirements, do not be surprised if the technical aspects suffer.

In order not to spook the politicians, the new aircraft had to be presented as just being an evolution of the legacy Hornet. That way, it was sold as a variant of an existing aircraft instead of a brand new one, and that made politicians think the costs would be easy to keep under control since it was all existing, proven technologies. Except it was not. Because just taking an aircraft and enlarging it does not actually work. There are aerodynamic phenomenons that do not scale linearly. The Super Hornet suffered from being built as a scaled-up Hornet, leading to all sorts of troubles with store separation, and requiring workarounds that caused it to be less efficient than if it had been a clean-sheet design.

The Super Hornet, notably, suffers from heavy drag that reduces its operational range.

So yes, it does the job well enough for the USN. But that doesn't mean it's the best aircraft it could have been. It's merely satisfactory and increasingly less so as the USN gets ready to the task of deterring and containing China, which due to China's strategy of investing in long-range missiles, is a task that requires more and more range and reach. In the event of a conflict between the USA and China, the USN would have to be able to attack Chinese forces while the carrier groups stay out of range of DF-21 and other threats. The SHornet and the F-35C do not have sufficient range for this scenario, so the USN needs something new.
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
1,990
1,109
India
I don't think we ll buy Mig 29 or additional Su 30 because of Caatsa and also hellfire tweet.. Unreliable Russian weapons with no major diplomatic clout.

We are going to buy second hand F18 as " Lease of block 3"

Stop gap until Tejas mk1A, Mk2, Tedbf & Amca all comes online.

Rafale going to be the tip of spear for nuclear deterrence / short small war scenario s.

I do hope we take advantage of the next tranche of 36 rafales with no ISE / base / training requirements.

@randomradio
 

AbRaj

Well-Known member
Dec 6, 2017
1,052
861
Republic of Wadiya
I don't think we ll buy Mig 29 or additional Su 30 because of Caatsa and also hellfire tweet.. Unreliable Russian weapons with no major diplomatic clout.

We are going to buy second hand F18 as " Lease of block 3"

Stop gap until Tejas mk1A, Mk2, Tedbf & Amca all comes online.

Rafale going to be the tip of spear for nuclear deterrence / short small war scenario s.

I do hope we take advantage of the next tranche of 36 rafales with no ISE / base / training requirements.

@randomradio
Lease is good for quick gain in squadron strength. But wouldn’t that be costlier in long term ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

raghu1974

Member
Nov 19, 2020
113
83
Phoenix, AZ USA
Given the current churn in the global order and our government's focus on Investing heavily in our Infrastructure as a tool to propel the economy, we are going to be hard pressed for funds to buy anything more than another G2G deal for 36 additional Rafale's for the IAF. In the coming years, if either Tejas Mk2 and / or AMCA were to be delayed, India may fall back to order additional Tejas Mk1A's. As far as the IN goes, if our CDS were to convince a 3-4 year delay in the 3rd Carrier, then we might order additional Mig 29K's (around 2 squadrons). But if we were to order either of the 2 contenders, we have 2 options. Dedicate the existing fleet of 42 Mig 29K's to INS Vikramaditya and use the new jets on INS Vikrant. Else we order 57 of these jets and move the entire Mig 29K's to IAF.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,849
2,301
72
France
transition.wifeo.com

Le Rafale et le F-16V donnés favoris pour la modernisation de la force aérienne croate


Rafale and F-16V donated favourites for the modernisation of the Croatian Air Force

On 21 December, the Croatian Prime Minister, Andrej Plenković, issued a press release stating that he had just received from the "inter-agency commission for the procurement of a multi-role fighter aircraft" an in-depth analysis of the four bids received as part of a call for tenders aimed at modernising the country's air forces.

"On the basis of a comprehensive and multi-criteria expert analysis [...], the Commission also unanimously adopted a conclusion on the best offer. The Commission examined two bids for the new aircraft [F-16 Block 70 and Gripen C/D] and two bids for second-hand aircraft [Israel's F3-R Rafale and F-16 Block 30]. All the offers were thoroughly and accurately evaluated in three areas: strategic, capability and financial," the press release explains.

This analysis is now to be submitted to the Defence Committee of the Croatian Parliament. A decision will then be announced by Zagreb and, in the meantime, negotiations for a government-to-government agreement will be launched with a view to finalising the purchase of 12 fighter aircraft by the end of 2021.

For the time being, the contents of this study are classified. However, according to several Croatian newspapers, two aircraft are considered favourites: the F-16 Block 70 "Viper" and the Rafale F3R.

"Unofficial information indicates that it is very likely that the commission recommended the choice between the American F-16 and the French Rafale," the daily Jutarnji List said.

The delivery dates of the aircraft as well as the amount of the contract will obviously be important criteria. According to the figures quoted by the Croatian press, it is assumed that the French offer offers the best value for money since it is 7 billion kuna [930 million euros] for 12 Rafale F3Rs. And, based on the F-16Vs ordered by Bulgaria, the American proposal is evaluated at more than 11 billion kuna [1.46 billion euros].

The strategic area will also be decisive, as the Croatian Prime Minister indicated in his press release. Here Zagreb has two options: to move closer to the United States with the choice of the F-16V or to play the European defence cooperation card. In either case, NATO would be strengthened. But the second option would also strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance. This was the point made by French Armaments Minister Florence Parly during her last visit to Croatia last November.

"We are working together to strengthen Europe's strategic autonomy with the Permanent Structured Cooperation [PSC] and the European Defence Fund [EDF], which have made significant progress thanks to the Croatian Presidency of the European Union. Tomorrow, this strategic relationship could take another decisive step forward: France has submitted [...] a Rafale offer for the renewal of the Croatian fighter aircraft fleet. A project that would provide a framework for cooperation between our two countries and for a stronger Europe of defence", Mrs Parly said.

In any case, according to the Dnevno news website, Croatian military analyst Jan Ivanjek seems to be leaning in favour of the French offer, all the more so since it is based on the delivery of 12 Rafale F3Rs, i.e. the latest standard of the aircraft proposed by Dassault Aviation.

"There is a lot of talk about the Rafale, because with the F-16 Block 70, it is the most advanced aircraft available" and "it is being offered to Croatia in its most powerful version", Mr. Ivanjek noted. These are "two excellent aircraft, but the Rafale has greater capabilities in terms of tactical and technical characteristics", he continued.

"I will not speculate on what the commission has recommended, nor on what decision the government will take. But given what is proposed, Croatia is likely to face a dilemma between the Rafale F3R and the F-16 Viper," the Croatian military analyst concluded.

That said, on the French side, the equation is likely to become more complicated for the French Air & Space Force, which will have to do without 12 of its Rafale F3Rs when the contract with Greece is signed [which should be the case in January 2021... once the Greek Court of Auditors has given its green light].

"All we want is obviously delivery dates for these aircraft that will allow the French Air Force to sustain this effort," explained General François Lecointre, the French Chief of Staff for the Armed Forces [CEMA], last October. "Therefore, either these two prospects are linked in time, and at that moment, the effort will be sustainable, or we will be unable to do so, at the risk of significant gaps in operational and organic terms," he added.

I translated this article because the final choice will be made between two MRFA competitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randomradio

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,444
7,107
India
No, this is a misreading of the situation. None of what Erdogan did is contrary to Turkey's longstanding ambitions. There's nothing extraordinary about Erdogan, he is the normal. The only real difference is that he can no longer coast on a successful economy to maintain his popularity, so he pushed all the other buttons at his disposal. But make no mistake: if he's pushing these buttons to buoy his popularity back up, it's because his foreign policy aligns 100% with the will of the Turkish nation. His successors, when he leaves power, will pursue the same agenda. Just perhaps with more subtlety, but not with less insistence.

Removing Erdogan and replacing him with a more compliant leadership is the US goal for Turkey though.

Yeah, Turkey is going to remain assertive under a new leadership, but their belligerence will likely stop with a new leadership. Erdogan is working on the fringes of tolerance after all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan