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?
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.
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.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.
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..
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.
So we will end up with current, about get obsolete version of SH. Anway its still better than Mig29K.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.
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 .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.
Are we going to lease brand new block 3 that's meant for USN or upgraded F18 s?
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.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.
I recall a comment made on another site when Dassault submitted its response to the Indian Navy's RFI.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.
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..
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.(France leaving the integrated military command was effectively a withdrawal from NATO, but that's a topic for another day)
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.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.
It’s an aerodynamic mess of epic proportions. Just read few of its problems recently in a reputed aviation magazine.Why the BUTT HURT???
Lease is good for quick gain in squadron strength. But wouldn’t that be costlier in long term ?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.
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.