Infographic from the Hindustan Times
Posted on 04/13/2015 10:04:09 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s big announcement in Paris that New Delhi would purchase 36 Dassault Rafale multi-role fighters off-the-shelf (prêt-à-porter, if you will) in a government-to-government deal, the future of the $20 billion tender for India’s medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) that was being negotiated between France’s Dassault Aviation and the Indian government fell into limbo. That ambiguity was resolved on Monday, three days after Modi’s announcement, when Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar clarified that the $20 billion tender would not move forward. Just like that, the “mother of all defense deals,” as India’s MMRCA project was known, was dead.
Though Parrikar avoided shutting the door on the project entirely, he emphasized that the Indian government would not move forward with those negotiations for the moment, suggesting that if New Delhi does purchase additional Rafales, it will do so in another government-to-government deal. His ministry’s official spokesperson, Sitanshu Kar, tweeted that the “[government-to-government] route [is] better than the [request for proposal] path for acquisition of strategic platforms.” Parrikar additionally said that the government’s decision to go with a direct purchase of 36 Rafale fighters was necessary, likening the deal to a breath of “oxygen” for India’s constrained air force.
Parrikar’s announcement is being read with a degree of trepidation in India’s strategic community. The government’s pragmatic decision to fulfill the Indian Air Force’s short-term need for a multi-role fighter is commendable, but, concurrently, the decision to scrap Dassault’s tender for the broader MMRCA contract is a set back for the Modi government’s bid to indigenize India’s defense production. With the deal announced in Paris, France yields nothing in the way of technology transfer.
As recently as February 2015, reports suggested that a final deal would see India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) build 108 of the envisaged 126 total Rafale jets (with the remaining 18 coming form France). In late 2014, Parrikar met his French counterpart and the two pledged to put negotiations on a “fast track.” France ultimately refused to budge, given Dassault’s concerns about HAL’s ability to construct the Rafale fighters up to spec and liability issues. In the meantime, the IAF needed to see some light at the end of the tunnel and pressure continued to build on the government to deliver some deal. All of this culminated in the recently announced government-to-government agreement in Paris.
Ajai Shukla, a defense commentator for India’s Business Standard wrote after Parrikar’s announcement, that with India’s decision to purchase 36 Rafales in ready-to-fly condition, “the French were rewarded for their obstinacy with exactly what they wanted – an order for fully built aircraft without the need to transfer technology.” For France, the Rafale had turned into somewhat of a marketing nightmare, with prospective buyers bowing out over concerns about the high cost-per-unit and maintenance costs of the Rafale. Thus, concluding a deal with India will be a major breath of relief for the French. Better yet, with no intellectual property transfer, Dassault can expect to cash future Indian checks for the maintenance and upgrades for the Rafale fighters.
If negotiations had persisted, New Delhi would have been able to tout a major win when it came to its ability to indigenously manufacture advanced defense technology, despite the design being of foreign origin. Even if, hypothetically, New Delhi managed to construct a fraction of the 108 Rafale fighters on Indian soil, the deal would have been a major step forward for India’s domestic defense industry. Instead, the procurement process for the Rafale fighters has come to resemble India’s tried-and-tested approach of purchasing ready-built equipment from foreign suppliers.
Finally, Parrikar’s announcement likely means that India’s total Rafale fleet will likely never come close to reaching 126 fighters. Without domestic production, India will be hard pressed to justify future procurement beyond an additional squadron or two. To preemptively stave off critics, Parrikar noted that “all options are being kept open,” including on the issue of building Rafales in India, but with the precedent set in Paris last week, getting to that point will be more of an uphill struggle than ever.
Infographic from the Hindustan Times
Why don’t we still make an export fighter like the Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and the F-5E/F Tiger II? Bueler? Bueler?
The lack of USAF support is always a drawback: the buyer will have to pay for development and upgrades rather than piggybacking on the native operator.
Second, if a “cheap” option was available, it would eat into the more expensive programmes like the F-35 or Super Hornet and both manufacturers and the services won’t want that.
We can’t even afford the F-35, how do we expect India, the Philippines or Israel to?
They were offered the f16. They did not choose it.
Because the Northrop F5 is a fifty five year old design that nobody’s interested in, built for a half century old doctrine based on whirling dogfights?
Bringing back the F5 would be like bringing back the 1965 Mustang GT: looks cool, but would miserably lose a rally race to a 2015 Honda CR/V crossover wagon.
The US can make a very effective and competitive 'cheap' export fighter - one that would be a world beater in its category - but that will never happen.
A lot can be said on the reasons behind that assertion (of never), but the Cliff Notes version can be found by simply looking up the Northrop F-20 Tiger Shark. The F-20 was a significantly upgraded F-5 that was very capable and would have made a very successful export fighter. However, the program was snuffed because it would have been too successful. How and why? Well, it would have been a very viable lower-end competitor to the F-16 program, and would have leached a lot of potential F-16 sales ...which would have led to fewer F-16s built, and thus higher per-unit F-16 costs. There are many non-Soviet aligned countries that purchased F-16s that would have opted for the F-20 were it available. The F-20 had a lot going against it - it was independently financed by Northrop, the Airforce was against it due to it potentially leaching F-16 sales, the Fighter Mafia were against it (even though it fit better into their vision of a light-weight fighter than the F-16), and it was cheaper to buy and maintain. It could not be left alive as it would have not only been competing against other fighters for sale in its class (e.g. Mirages for non-soviet and MiGs for Soviet aligned/affiliated countries), but also competed heavily with the F-16.
Long story short, the F-20 was cancelled. The F-20 story is one that would be good to read the long-version of as it clearly shows how procurement works.
As an aside, this is also why the US will never construct Diesel-Electric submarines, even though there is a strong case for modern AIP-DE submarines like the ones Germany and Japan make that for littoral duties would be better than nuclear submarines. While some have made a case for a small component of DE subs, that will never happen as it would provide an alternative for the Virginia.
Cuz Lockheed lobbied to shut down the F20 which helped the swedes sel their Grippen.
Same thing with the Lockheed anti A10 crowd... Reason why Iraq had to buy SU25s... And one day we will have to buy SU25s too given how money and greed rule instead of patriotism and soldier sense.
We still make the F-16 which fills that role. No other country wanted the follow-on to the F-5E, The F-20 Tigershark, because the USAF didn't buy it.
I wish I could post my Delta Wing variant of the F-5/F-20 I have done with "paint.net". Almost Rafale-ish without the Canard.
Yes your point is valid...
Also were are all the other good ideas, the YF-23 and the F16XL-IN, again the fighter mafia...
Watch this video, and ask did the best plane win? i.e. the F-22...
More thinking from India:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/future-of-manned-combat-aircraft/
The best plane didn’t win. Only one thing killed the F-23. Cost. The F-22 was cheaper and that’s what won.
Frequently, export versions of aircraft do not get the best engines, electronics, weapons packages, or Pilots. This allows the US and France to sell their best airframes while keeping a lid on performance. That is done to ensure when the Shaw of Iran is overthrown the Militants do not have the best.
I would be interested to see the results head-to-head with the best available version and pilot in simulated or real combat conditions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.