Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

Deathstar

Well-Known member
Jun 1, 2019
1,594
901
India
We did NOT have any other choice
Other than the Rafale

1 . We did not trust the Americans
So F16 and F 18 cancelled

2 . We did not want MiG 35
So Russia Ruled out

3 . WE did Not want to negotiate with 4 countries for.Eurofighter

Because Germany and UK.are always
Lecturing and Interfering in things like Kashmir

Germany especially loves to halt export of weapons as they did with Saudi Arabia

4 Gripen was small and clashed with Tejas Mk 2

So Rafale was our Only.Option

If Su 57 ie PAK FA had become operational , then we might have even gone for it
And biggest problem , we dont want any indigenous program to succeed
 

Sathya

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
1,940
970
India
And biggest problem , we dont want any indigenous program to succeed
We don't invest enough for the speed of developments required.
We don't keep time based actions / decision s
We don't take advantage of the deals that are got.
We don't get deals in the lines which are required for our industry.
We don't standardize equipment s with proper quality control s
We don't build private sectors with sustainable orders.
Our forces want readymade solutions.
Spoiled with import options
Not involving themselves from the design stage itself.

To convert all negative s to positive s
We need someone like Parrikar, who makes all agencies to sit together every month. & hold hands.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
Doesn't a AWACS have a advantage due to altitude ? I would have guessed low flying planes would be more easily detected by a AWACS due to horizon limitations on a ground based radar ? Horizon limitations would also tell on the range of a ground based radar for targets at all altitudes.
Yes. Horizon limit is the reason why we need AWACS. At an altitude of 12Km, an AWACS can see up to 450Km of ground. Similarly, a ground radar can see the AWACS at 450Km when the AWACS is flying at an altitude of 12Km.

The problem for the AWACS is actual military targets that are a threat are very small, for example a cruise missiles is 0.1m2 and below, so even though they can see the ground up to 450Km, the actual detection range of targets is much lower than that. So the AWACS either has to go closer or dedicate more resources towards a target, at the cost of losing surveillance capability elsewhere. In the meantime, while you are busy wondering if you want to go closer or dedicate more resources, if the enemy ground radar is connected to a SAM site equipped with a missile with a range of 600Km, the AWACS is finished.

It's really simple. Every single AWACS in the world today based on a large aircraft is within range of the S-500. Once the S-500 is operational, AWACS and ISTARs are done. Similarly, the Chinese are going to introduce 400-700Km long AAMs. That's why the Americans are now contemplating giving up their AWACS by 2025 and save money that way.

The Chinese have already moved on to developing large drones with large radars. This drone is called the Divine Eagle and carries 7 AESA radars. It basically combined the capabilities of both AWACS and ISTAR into a single unmanned drone capable of flying at double the height of traditional AWACS/ISTAR aircraft. The advantage is with multiple radars, it can dedicate resources for greater range without sacrificing resources for other tasks.




This drone is capable of operating outside the range of the S-500, and modernised models will definitely follow. It's estimated to already be operational.

The future will be to go higher and unmanned, while fighters jets will have to pick up the slack everywhere else. Basically, everything we are currently doing with respect to AWACS and ISTAR is already obsolete, although the numbers we are buying are so small that it's fine, since they are still needed during peacetime.
And biggest problem , we dont want any indigenous program to succeed
You are overestimating indigenous programs.
 

maint1234

Member
Jul 17, 2020
51
60
Delhi
Yes. Horizon limit is the reason why we need AWACS. At an altitude of 12Km, an AWACS can see up to 450Km of ground. Similarly, a ground radar can see the AWACS at 450Km when the AWACS is flying at an altitude of 12Km.

The problem for the AWACS is actual military targets that are a threat are very small, for example a cruise missiles is 0.1m2 and below, so even though they can see the ground up to 450Km, the actual detection range of targets is much lower than that. So the AWACS either has to go closer or dedicate more resources towards a target, at the cost of losing surveillance capability elsewhere. In the meantime, while you are busy wondering if you want to go closer or dedicate more resources, if the enemy ground radar is connected to a SAM site equipped with a missile with a range of 600Km, the AWACS is finished.

It's really simple. Every single AWACS in the world today based on a large aircraft is within range of the S-500. Once the S-500 is operational, AWACS and ISTARs are done. Similarly, the Chinese are going to introduce 400-700Km long AAMs. That's why the Americans are now contemplating giving up their AWACS by 2025 and save money that way.

The Chinese have already moved on to developing large drones with large radars. This drone is called the Divine Eagle and carries 7 AESA radars. It basically combined the capabilities of both AWACS and ISTAR into a single unmanned drone capable of flying at double the height of traditional AWACS/ISTAR aircraft. The advantage is with multiple radars, it can dedicate resources for greater range without sacrificing resources for other tasks.




This drone is capable of operating outside the range of the S-500, and modernised models will definitely follow. It's estimated to already be operational.

The future will be to go higher and unmanned, while fighters jets will have to pick up the slack everywhere else. Basically, everything we are currently doing with respect to AWACS and ISTAR is already obsolete, although the numbers we are buying are so small that it's fine, since they are still needed during peacetime.


You are overestimating indigenous programs.
AWACS are going nowhere.
Ground based radars are fine when in your own territory but a country like usa , operating in some faraway country , would always require AWACS.
 

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
268
144
India
This drone is capable of operating outside the range of the S-500, and modernised models will definitely follow. It's estimated to already be operational.
Even present AWACS could operate outside the range of S500. The reason they don't do so because it would make the useless. Lol.

The future will be to go higher and unmanned, while fighters jets will have to pick up the slack everywhere else. Basically, everything we are currently doing with respect to AWACS and ISTAR is already obsolete, although the numbers we are buying are so small that it's fine, since they are still needed during peacetime.
Going for unmanned system is a general trend nowdays in military aviation. Even 6th gen fighters will come with optional manned/unmanned configuration. So replacing a manned AWACS with an unmanned system doesn't mean replacing AWACS.
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
599
527
A Place
More of Sancho's whining. And it's all based on a very simplistic assumption that technology can be traded easily like in a Civilization game.

"Give me your shield technology in exchange for 250 Billion Credits" (screen from Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars, WG Labs/NGD Studios, 2016)

Technology in the real world is a lot more complex. There are a lot of elements that have to go together, thousands of different specialized jobs which require highly competent workers and extremely stringent quality control. In short, you need an industrial ecosystem that can actually absorb the transferred technology, otherwise it's pointless.

The MMRCA expected HAL alone to do all the work. Which was doomed from the start. In France, Dassault doesn't do everything about the Rafale by itself -- it leans on several hundred subcontractors, most of which are small or medium entreprises that provide a specific type of item (like a fuel pump or some coolant tubing or whatever else). This allows Dassault to get the best quality at the best price. And this is "industrial ecosystem" is what India lacks, because HAL wants to control everything. The result? HAL estimated it needed nearly thrice as many man-hours of work to build a Rafale than what Dassault needs; resulting in aircraft that would be more expensive to make in India than they were to source from France, despite the higher costs of living in France resulting in higher wages.

We can see the effect of previous transfers of technology to HAL in the Su-30MKI: HAL just buys the parts from Russia and then assemble them. They couldn't absorb the technology in a cost-effective way so they're happy importing stuff, doing the assembly, and then claiming they did it themselves. It's like someone assembling an Ikea shelf thinking himself a woodworker.

With the deal for 36 Rafale, Modi's administration negotiated heavy offsets to be invested specifically in India's aeronautical sector. The result is that it's not just the big four companies (Dassault, Safran, Thales, MBDA) but also most of their subcontractors, even the small ones, who had to find partners in India. This helps foster the development of a lot of Indian companies capable of delivering aircraft parts that have the required level of quality ans safety, which will be useful not just to build Rafale aircraft but to build pretty much anything else in the aeronautic sector. They will deliver on price and quality because otherwise they lose the contract and go bankrupt; it's not like HAL that can wallow in shoddiness because they know they're too big to fail so they don't need to bother delivering on time, on budget, and on spec, the Indian taxpayers will fund them anyway so why not skimp on quality and embezzle the money you saved by churning out crap instead of what was demanded?

DRAL has already started assembling Falcons and crafting some of the parts. As the Indian SMEs in the aeronautic sector develop and grow their skills, more and more of the work can be made in India. This is real transfer of technology; whereas giving the blueprints and a license to HAL isn't.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
More of Sancho's whining. And it's all based on a very simplistic assumption that technology can be traded easily like in a Civilization game.

"Give me your shield technology in exchange for 250 Billion Credits" (screen from Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars, WG Labs/NGD Studios, 2016)

Technology in the real world is a lot more complex. There are a lot of elements that have to go together, thousands of different specialized jobs which require highly competent workers and extremely stringent quality control. In short, you need an industrial ecosystem that can actually absorb the transferred technology, otherwise it's pointless.

The MMRCA expected HAL alone to do all the work. Which was doomed from the start. In France, Dassault doesn't do everything about the Rafale by itself -- it leans on several hundred subcontractors, most of which are small or medium entreprises that provide a specific type of item (like a fuel pump or some coolant tubing or whatever else). This allows Dassault to get the best quality at the best price. And this is "industrial ecosystem" is what India lacks, because HAL wants to control everything. The result? HAL estimated it needed nearly thrice as many man-hours of work to build a Rafale than what Dassault needs; resulting in aircraft that would be more expensive to make in India than they were to source from France, despite the higher costs of living in France resulting in higher wages.

We can see the effect of previous transfers of technology to HAL in the Su-30MKI: HAL just buys the parts from Russia and then assemble them. They couldn't absorb the technology in a cost-effective way so they're happy importing stuff, doing the assembly, and then claiming they did it themselves. It's like someone assembling an Ikea shelf thinking himself a woodworker.

With the deal for 36 Rafale, Modi's administration negotiated heavy offsets to be invested specifically in India's aeronautical sector. The result is that it's not just the big four companies (Dassault, Safran, Thales, MBDA) but also most of their subcontractors, even the small ones, who had to find partners in India. This helps foster the development of a lot of Indian companies capable of delivering aircraft parts that have the required level of quality ans safety, which will be useful not just to build Rafale aircraft but to build pretty much anything else in the aeronautic sector. They will deliver on price and quality because otherwise they lose the contract and go bankrupt; it's not like HAL that can wallow in shoddiness because they know they're too big to fail so they don't need to bother delivering on time, on budget, and on spec, the Indian taxpayers will fund them anyway so why not skimp on quality and embezzle the money you saved by churning out crap instead of what was demanded?

DRAL has already started assembling Falcons and crafting some of the parts. As the Indian SMEs in the aeronautic sector develop and grow their skills, more and more of the work can be made in India. This is real transfer of technology; whereas giving the blueprints and a license to HAL isn't.
Yeah, Sancho is whining as usual, but you have overestimated HAL. Even HAL outsources work and they make a killing with the outsourced work in terms of profits. Their own production is not as profitable.

70% of LCA Mk1A has been outsourced to other companies. So the Rafale would have followed suit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JustCurious

maint1234

Member
Jul 17, 2020
51
60
Delhi
More of Sancho's whining. And it's all based on a very simplistic assumption that technology can be traded easily like in a Civilization game.

"Give me your shield technology in exchange for 250 Billion Credits" (screen from Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars, WG Labs/NGD Studios, 2016)

Technology in the real world is a lot more complex. There are a lot of elements that have to go together, thousands of different specialized jobs which require highly competent workers and extremely stringent quality control. In short, you need an industrial ecosystem that can actually absorb the transferred technology, otherwise it's pointless.

The MMRCA expected HAL alone to do all the work. Which was doomed from the start. In France, Dassault doesn't do everything about the Rafale by itself -- it leans on several hundred subcontractors, most of which are small or medium entreprises that provide a specific type of item (like a fuel pump or some coolant tubing or whatever else). This allows Dassault to get the best quality at the best price. And this is "industrial ecosystem" is what India lacks, because HAL wants to control everything. The result? HAL estimated it needed nearly thrice as many man-hours of work to build a Rafale than what Dassault needs; resulting in aircraft that would be more expensive to make in India than they were to source from France, despite the higher costs of living in France resulting in higher wages.

We can see the effect of previous transfers of technology to HAL in the Su-30MKI: HAL just buys the parts from Russia and then assemble them. They couldn't absorb the technology in a cost-effective way so they're happy importing stuff, doing the assembly, and then claiming they did it themselves. It's like someone assembling an Ikea shelf thinking himself a woodworker.

With the deal for 36 Rafale, Modi's administration negotiated heavy offsets to be invested specifically in India's aeronautical sector. The result is that it's not just the big four companies (Dassault, Safran, Thales, MBDA) but also most of their subcontractors, even the small ones, who had to find partners in India. This helps foster the development of a lot of Indian companies capable of delivering aircraft parts that have the required level of quality ans safety, which will be useful not just to build Rafale aircraft but to build pretty much anything else in the aeronautic sector. They will deliver on price and quality because otherwise they lose the contract and go bankrupt; it's not like HAL that can wallow in shoddiness because they know they're too big to fail so they don't need to bother delivering on time, on budget, and on spec, the Indian taxpayers will fund them anyway so why not skimp on quality and embezzle the money you saved by churning out crap instead of what was demanded?

DRAL has already started assembling Falcons and crafting some of the parts. As the Indian SMEs in the aeronautic sector develop and grow their skills, more and more of the work can be made in India. This is real transfer of technology; whereas giving the blueprints and a license to HAL isn't.
Very interesting.
My understanding was that any sector would do for offsets , but now on googling it seems the 30000 cr offsets have to be in 4 manufacturing or software sectors.

Wonder how dassault makes profit if it has to plow back 50 % back as investment ?
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,485
1,813
France
transition.wifeo.com
Very interesting.
My understanding was that any sector would do for offsets , but now on googling it seems the 30000 cr offsets have to be in 4 manufacturing or software sectors.

Wonder how dassault makes profit if it has to plow back 50 % back as investment ?
Just an example: Dassault invest in DRAL ==> DRAL Makes Falcon ==> Dassault makes 49 % of the margin , same approach if DRAL Makes the next batch of Rafale.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,485
1,813
France
transition.wifeo.com
Very good interview.

  • India specific enhancement (ISE) is not an enhancement but basic requirements MMRCA asked for but french rafale lacked.
  • He believes Rafale is stealthier than J-20 all around.
  • AMCA operational squadron will only happen post 2040
Which do you prefer: that the Rafale has a "cold start" system as of 2008 when the MMRCA call for tenders was issued, or that it is more stealthy than the J-20?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
3,704
5,895
Bangalore
Which do you prefer: that the Rafale has a "cold start" system as of 2008 when the MMRCA call for tenders was issued, or that it is more stealthy than the J-20?
Not having to pay $1.7 billion just to make the fighter contemporary. That too basic thing like IRST and HMD which was asked part of MMRCA.

Making more 'stealthy' part of India Specific Upgrade? 2008 build Rafale is less stealthy compared to J-20?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
3,704
5,895
Bangalore
If you are not satisfied, why do you buy it? After all, we only offered our plane and you chose it. I would be really surprised if we have more leverage over India than the US or Russia or even the UK.
Because Dassault derailed the MMRCA and govt has to make some 'fast track purchase'. Rafale somehow won the L1 probably because this upgrade was not part of the tender amount.

Rafale and Eurofighter were both shortlisted that means both satisfied the minimum technical requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,485
1,813
France
transition.wifeo.com
Because Dassault derailed the MMRCA and govt has to make some 'fast track purchase'. Rafale somehow won the L1 probably because this upgrade was not part of the tender amount.

Rafale and Eurofighter were both shortlisted that means both satisfied the minimum technical requirement.
A private company tries to win by all means, it is up to the states to promote regulations and enforce them so that the worst do not win. If Dassault didn't lose, it's probably because its offer wasn't the worst.
The truth is, you never want to pay the true price for what you buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra and jk007

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
Because Dassault derailed the MMRCA and govt has to make some 'fast track purchase'. Rafale somehow won the L1 probably because this upgrade was not part of the tender amount.

Rafale and Eurofighter were both shortlisted that means both satisfied the minimum technical requirement.
Can we use some common sense here? Rafale's bid was $85M per jet as flyaway cost. Typhoon's was $124M. Even after upgrades and modifications, Rafale was sold at $105M per jet for a new version, still less than the insanely high $124M for the Typhoon, likely become even more expensive now.

Also you can't simply claim the 1.7B was spent entirely only to make Rafale MMRCA compliant. The only things the Rafale really lacked were the HMDS and IRST, which are actually not expensive, and none of them affect aerodynamics, so integration costs are actually very less. Everything else was required for all other jets, including the Typhoon. In some cases, the competitors were not even capable of getting these upgrades. For example, Rafale's VDR was extended to 16 hours because Rafale can sustain a 16-hour sortie. Others obviously can't.

Most of the money would have gone into integrating Indian/Israeli weapons mainly, including the Litening G4 with SPICE and HSLD. There's also the less spoken about EMP weapon integration along with the SAAW, which probably uses the same ejector, and the towed decoy. The Typhoon also needed to get all this stuff, and doesn't come free. This is where most of the ISE money would have gone into, since these modifications require extensive flight and RCS testing. Weapons integration is very expensive.

So using the ISE as a way to critic the Rafale is quite dumb. All the jets needed similar expenses to bring it up to Indian standards.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
@vstol Jockey @Falcon

Came across this article a few hours ago. He's an ex-pilot of the IAF. He used to be a test pilot. He was a wing commander, which is the equivalent rank as Lt Col, the same rank as Mr. Ajai Shukla, so he is not as constrained by OSA as those who are Col and above. He retired back in 2007, so he no longer has any up-to-date information from the IAF.


It's an interesting article because literally nothing in it specifically referring to Rafale is correct. Like, literally nothing is correct. So I'm wondering if retd WC Goyal is firing from a Chinese-supplied gun, the same as Mr. Ajai Shukla?

If it's true, then I'm disappointed that so many are coming out of the woodwork from within our forces. I just hope he's misinformed more than anything else. But gotta be careful.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
4,792
2,580
@vstol Jockey @Falcon

Came across this article a few hours ago. He's an ex-pilot of the IAF. He used to be a test pilot. He was a wing commander, which is the equivalent rank as Lt Col, the same rank as Mr. Ajai Shukla, so he is not as constrained by OSA as those who are Col and above. He retired back in 2007, so he no longer has any up-to-date information from the IAF.


It's an interesting article because literally nothing in it specifically referring to Rafale is correct. Like, literally nothing is correct. So I'm wondering if retd WC Goyal is firing from a Chinese-supplied gun, the same as Mr. Ajai Shukla?

If it's true, then I'm disappointed that so many are coming out of the woodwork from within our forces. I just hope he's misinformed more than anything else. But gotta be careful.
I read it yesterday

It is worse than written by a Layman
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
4,792
2,580
Can we use some common sense here? Rafale's bid was $85M per jet as flyaway cost. Typhoon's was $124M. Even after upgrades and modifications, Rafale was sold at $105M per jet for a new version, still less than the insanely high $124M for the Typhoon, likely become even more expensive now.

Also you can't simply claim the 1.7B was spent entirely only to make Rafale MMRCA compliant. The only things the Rafale really lacked were the HMDS and IRST, which are actually not expensive, and none of them affect aerodynamics, so integration costs are actually very less. Everything else was required for all other jets, including the Typhoon. In some cases, the competitors were not even capable of getting these upgrades. For example, Rafale's VDR was extended to 16 hours because Rafale can sustain a 16-hour sortie. Others obviously can't.

Most of the money would have gone into integrating Indian/Israeli weapons mainly, including the Litening G4 with SPICE and HSLD. There's also the less spoken about EMP weapon integration along with the SAAW, which probably uses the same ejector, and the towed decoy. The Typhoon also needed to get all this stuff, and doesn't come free. This is where most of the ISE money would have gone into, since these modifications require extensive flight and RCS testing. Weapons integration is very expensive.

So using the ISE as a way to critic the Rafale is quite dumb. All the jets needed similar expenses to bring it up to Indian standards.
Add to it the political problems we would have faced while Negotiating with Germany and Italy

Germany is very good at stopping sales of weapons contracts due to political reasons

With Italy , the Eurofighter would have forced a non Congress govt to drop investigation into Augusta Scam

That is why Congress wanted Eurofighter