Dassault Rafale, Indian Air Force's new Multi-Role Combat Aircraft! EDIT: MMRCA Evaluation on Page 7

Interesting timing. Simultaneously, India is in talks with France for a government-to-government deal to procure Rafales for the Air Force MRFA requirement of 114 jets, with some of the jets being made in India. This is quite the solace and avoids the delays of going with yet another competition and tender. Remains to be seen how this pans out.

IDRW reports that France & India are soon to negotiate a 110 Rafale aircraft deal for the IAF with the aircraft assembled built in India by Dassault {and not HAL}. In return for full autonomy on local production dassault will have a certain percentage of components manufactured in India.


https://idrw.org/india-set-to-pursue...ntrol-of-dral/

Interesting, so Dassault will be compelled to set up a manufacturing or assembly unit in India if they win the MRFA contract? I mean that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, we don't get any big ticket offsets but maybe Indian ancillary firms would benefit and Dassault gets to set up what could be an Asian maintenance and overhaul hub (kind of like how Italy serves as and MRO hub for the F35). Could still be quite the win win for both parties, though a compromised win win for both. Better than no win.

Think it's wise to avoid HAL. Until they can put up and shut up with their existing commitments, best not to burden them with yet another contract they might take a leisurely pace completing.

Looks Dassault is the new MiG for India. Nothing wrong with it, as long as we don't have supply chain issues based on the geopolitical wrecking that's going on and may likely persist in the mid-long term . Although, I would have personally preferred something in the M 2.0+ regime (but that's just my aviation fanboyism playing out).

Thank you @ads11 for that very pertinent point.

Last time around in 2011/2012 there was confusion over a very poorly worded condition on the OEM giving warranty on aircraft assembled/part manufactured by HAL. Dassault took the stand that this was not a part of the tender and that is why they had set up a JV with the Reliance Group named DRAL {Dassault Reliance Aerospace Ltd}. The previous regime in 2012-2013 got stuck on this and clearly Dassault felt strongly enough that this was a fresh ex-tender condition being imposed that they walked away from this largest fighter contract of that era. Based on my professional knowledge my sympathies are with Dassault on this.

The GoI today are adopting what, in my opinion, is the sensible route of a Govt to Govt deal and getting Dassault inside the tent as a local producer. It also addresses the unbelievably complex matter of getting each and every one of the 1000 odd component suppliers on board on any technology transfer matters as Dassault continues to be the prime contractor. The aim of developing our vendor eco-system will still get a leg up. And Dassault are dangling the possibility of building components here for their global supply. DRAL are already doing some of that for Dassault's civilian products. No reason why a product made by DRAL is going to be less than a product made by HAL.

Having dealt with HAL more than once I believe encouraging OEMs from geo-politically reliable nations is a good solid way to go. It is time some of our bureaucrats shed their notions that only stuff done at a PSU is patriotic or in the interests of the nation. That might have been in the 1950s and 60s when indeed the MNCs used to literally kick us in the face but not any more. I mean how patriotic is HAL that they cannot get production up in the last 20 years and are compromising the nation's air defense competence.


My IAF Rafale scale model. Like a 2-year old I could not resist displaying my toys.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Times have changed. There is no USSR left anymore. We should not confuse Russia with USSR. Russia, for all its proclamations is happy to sell but not to pursue transfer of production capability at all. The Su-30 fleet was all CKD assembly and little more. France and Israel are the new reliable suppliers for us even though their ToT is only within strict boundaries.

What is M 2.0+. Pardon my ignorance.

If IAF is really going for 114 Rafale, it is good decision. They should have done it along with 36 purchase that was done few years back. Russian weapons while cheaper are lagging behind in terms of overall quality, performance and availability. With 36 Rafales already flying and 26 for Navy finalised, it is logical to make additional Rafale in India. India has to ensure that it gets engine technology and also transfer of as much technology as possible. Hopefully this will be few last order for imports for fighter planes.

I haven't seen the RFP document myself but as per the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, the requirement of OEM giving warranty on aircraft made by HAL in India was clearly a part of the RFP terms which, Dassault Aviation ("DA") refused to comply with and which constituted one of the two main reasons why the deal with DA couldn't materialise under the RFP for 126 multi role combat aircraft floated in 2007.

From the CAG Report:

The second main reason for the deal with Dassault under the 126 MRCA contest failing to materialise was the calculation of the manpower costs. As it is, the cost quoted by Dassault was higher than what EADS, the manufacturer of Eurofighter Typhoon (the only other shortlisted contestant) had quoted. However, Dassault had failed to quote the manhour cost of the 108 planes that were to be assembled in India. HAL happened to state that it will require 2.7 times the manhours that Dassault took to assemble a Rafale in France! Even after taking into account the much lower salaries in India, this would have made the plane grossly cost-ineffective. (In fact, if I remember correctly, the Indian made Su 30 also costed about Rs. 100 crore more than the Russian made ones.)

From the CAG Report on MRCA tender:

After mentioning the above two reasons (warranty and manpower costs), the CAG Report says:

Actually, the entire MRCA tender was a sham; the IAF only wanted 126 French fighter planes - originally Mirage 2000 (demand for which was raised soon after the 1999 Kargil war) and then Rafale, once the Mirage production stopped. As a matter of fact, the proposal of Dassault was non-compliant with the RFP for several reasons but the firm was given multiple favours as the IAF only wanted Rafale!

A team of Defence Ministry constituted by Manohar Parikar stated the following in its report submitted in 2015:

While cancelling the tender, we could have considered buying all the 126 planes on an off-the-shelf basis. After all, the Indian made planes would essentially have been assembled units only, with minimal genuine transfer of technology. A fleet size of 36 is not at all optimal from the viewpoint of logistics, training, maintenance, etc. Yet, I'm not sure if it makes sense to buy so many Rafales at this stage. It may be our best plane but it's a plane whose first flight took place four decades ago! In my view, it will be far more cost effective to produce Tejas in large numbers; technology wise, it is at par with Rafale! For our future needs we should focus our energy on AMCA and other possible indigenous options like a long range (10,000 KM) stealth bomber using 4 Kaveri engines. Further Rafale purchase for the IAF could be limited to 44 units so that we have 4 squadrons with some planes in reserve.

CAG report is accessible here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGC...XrTRorHeJ/view

Thank you for sharing this - I wasn't aware it came down to these two reasons. That being said, on the issue of Dassault being held responsible for warranty claims for those units built by HAL, I have to say, I can't really blame them on that one. Is there any example where the OEM is on the hook for faults in units built by a license manufacturer? I can't see how that would be agreeable in any circumstance.

Gosh, nearly 3 times as long to build the same thing under license by HAL isn't a strong look. That being said, is that 2.7x an average of the projected time taken across the full 108 units planned to be built in India? I ask because to me it makes sense that for the initial units it could very well take 2.7x to 3x+ duration to build each Rafale as the factory, workers and component supply chain all got up to speed with their new product. But as noted in the phrase "get up to speed", surely eventually by the latter half of that 108 jet build order, the production line would be producing those at far greater frequency, hence speed. Basically, please tell me we don't do these tenders and projections off of middle school level linear regressions?!

Want to unpack this:

• I agree that it makes sense to bulk build the Tejas but lets not kid ourselves when it comes to putting it on a par with the Rafale, they're two different weight classes for starters, with the Tejas (despite our most rose tinted glasses) not quite as capable (it's not meant for the same mission profiles for one).
• I can see where you're going with the idea of a limited order of 44 units for the IAF but given how morbidly hesitant our procurement bosses are on capex reasons, if you cull the total order book that much you're raising unit costs into Defence Death Spiral territory.
• There's merit to the idea that we screwed the pooch with the timeline and costing on the original MRFA tender and are now paying the price with this delayed eventual Rafale order. One could argue we just eat our losses and commit fully to the AMCA but again, through our own lack of forward planning, we've left ourselves no option but to order the Rafale in the interim because there's no guarantee on the AMCA just on a timeline front, let alone capability wise (both still big unknowns). If we're left waiting and HAL take their time a la Tejas, then it's a long old period for the IAF to make do on meagre rations (I'm slightly exaggerating but you get the drift).
• I don't see where this idea for an Indian strategic bomber was planted and why it's taken such a hold. We have absolutely no need for it especially considering how much such a programme would cost! Like I said in another thread about the decision to park a 3 carrier fleet idea for more emphasis on SSN boat builds, one is a want and another is a need. Imagining an IAF strategic bomber is a nice-to-have but consider India's force posture - do any of us seriously consider an IAF mission going the long way around SE Asia to strike Chinese targets in the First Island Chain?! Because we sure as hell don't need something like that for strikes in contested airspace in Pakistan. To me long range stealth bombers are NOT a counter strike asset, they're a punch-you-in-the-mouth-while-you're-sleeping asset. Ergo, a first strike asset (notice how the USAF used their B2s for the early strikes on Tora Bora in the War on Terror for crying out loud). Unless I've massively missed something, our doctrine isn't geared towards that kind of mission.
• But let's humour this need for far reaching strike capability - surely the answer lies in the nuclear boats, a programme that is proceeding (unusually given overall Indian tendencies in the defence domain) in an orderly and logical fashion and is of our own control. We built the SSBNs first, now we're onto SSNs. If India wanted to go out to the Chinese coast to strike back and it wasn't a nuclear strike, so assuming conventional stand off munitions, you're looking at cruise missiles right? Why not build SSGNs then? Take the SSBN hull form and convert it with VLSs designed for arguments sake with Brahmos launchers and you've got your long legged, "stealthy" platform that's designed for a counter punch without raising the nuclear threshold a la SSBN.
• Because we're getting far ahead of ourselves if we think it's within our capability to design a LO long range strategic bomber that's meant to get through the hornets nest of an air defence environment that'll be the Chinese seaboard. And even if we had that capability, it's absolutely not a prudent focus fund wise and effort wise to go down that path imo.
• For reference to what I mean about long range strategic bomber missions just look at this guy who's tried game planning how the B21 Raiders would be used by the USAF. This is a complex mission tying together the full breadth of varied USAF capabilities in terms of LO bombers, LO fighters for escort, tankers, AEW, SEAD assets, etc and even then it's likely to be hugely risky and costly. We have precious little of that supporting strike package infrastructure. Just having the end delivery platform alone isn't a panacea to us being able to pop into Chinese airspace at will to bloody their noses

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Vk...bmtvdiBiMjE%3D

• Let's say that instead of the long way round, the plan is to go up and over the Himalayas. My questions then would be: what would be the target? Why would you need all that range then? And just how many bombs do you want to get to target? Going backwards you can almost see where the purported Chinese tactical stealth bomber comes in (think it doesn't have a numberplate yet due to not being confirmed a la the H20 programme - though I have a suspicion the J36 is very much this platform). At most then you could see the IAF needing something along those lines. Think F111 Aardvark size and operational territory.
• All of this is refuting the very concept of an IAF LO strategic bomber, I've not even gotten to the engine front yet. The IAF isn't satisfied with the Kaveri when it comes to a lightweight fighter like the Tejas. For a 10,000 km ranged bomber with a worthwhile payload capacity (this whole concept is even sillier if it can't lug a truck load of munitions), then you're going to need the Kaveri to hit the gym. You could say we just use a whole bunch of them (the PLAAF seems to be going that route with the curious three engine J36 to make up for what might be insufficient performance with two domestic engines alone), but then you're increasing the design complexity in terms of how many engine inlets you need to obfuscate from radar, how many outlets you need to mitigate the thermal response for, etc etc.

Sorry for the anti bomber tirade, not directed at you directinjection. I just think it's a fanciful idea that's best left to fiction in the Indian context rather than using up the limited oxygen available for practical defence discourse with respect to India's armed forces.

Problem with purchasing off-the-shelf is that you're highly dependant on the OEM for even the smallest of spares, maintenance and training.
Now I understand that a large part of readers view local assembly as mere screwdrivergiri (at least the comments section of IDRW and Reddit does), it's a lot more than that.

Local assembly engages a large workforce that undergoes hands on training and develops allied skills, which in turn creates a well equipped and skilled maintenance ecosystem.

Even with ToT limited to non critical components, it strengthens the domestic industrial capacity by enabling local production of certain airframe parts like panels and mounting brackets, wiring harnesses, landing gear systems, and auxiliary systems like ground support equipment and tooling.

Thus, local assembly even with minimal tech transfer can enhance availability and reduce operational costs in the long term. It also provides some degree of autonomy by reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.

This is also the reason why Indian developed weaponry can be integrated easily on Sukhoi-30MKI's and Jaguars (both of which were assembled in India) while doing the same on Mirage 2000's is prohibitively expensive.

Agreed. One of the main reasons 36 were purchased back then was with the hope that large orders for the type will be placed in the future.
Investments in logistics, training and maintenance will pay dividends only if this deal of 110 additional aircrafts goes through. (Wasn't this supposed to be 114? Every few years this number seems to drop, 126-> 114-> 110 now).
____

Now, I've often seen this statement implying that the aircraft is old, but I haven't really understood the rationale behind it.
Here's my reasoning as to why this should be irrelevant.

The Rafale that flew four decades ago (1986 to be exact) was a technology demonstrator.

flickr | Paul Schaller | Dassault Rafale A @Farnborough 1988

This Rafale A had no combat avionics, radar and rudimentary cockpit and displays since it was used to validate the basic airframe engine layout along with testing the FBW control systems ability to operate the delta wing canard configuration.

Interestingly, this was powered by GE F404 engines since the Snecma M88 wasn't available yet. It's interesting because a variant of the F404 now powers the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A.

Then in 1991, the first true prototype flew.

Rafale C01 (yep it looks menacing in this all black paint scheme)

The Rafale C01 was equipped with a PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) radar, Snecma M88 turbofans, a basic mission computer and electronic warfare suite along with a more advanced glass cockpit so the performance of its radar and air-to-air capabilities could be tested.

A few years after this, a twin seat trainer and strike aircraft was tested as well.

Rafale C01 alongside Rafale B01(twin seat strike aircraft prototype)


Rafale A in formation with C01, M01(carrier capable) and B01 prototypes

Now the French Air Force knows what an iterative development cycle is so in 2004, the Rafale F1 entered service.
The F1 had limited A2A and absolutely no A2G capability. It would hold the line until more capable versions were ready.

In 2006, the F2 standard entered service. Rafales of this standard were multirole as they could now employ A2G munitions like LGB's (Laser Guided Bombs) and cruise missiles. It was also equipped with an IRST (InfraRed Search & Track) and an EW suite known as SPECTRA (yes this is an acronym, not expanding it as it's all in French).

In 2009, the F3 standard entered service. These were full spectrum multirole as they were capable of air superiority, ground strike, maritime strike, reconnaissance and even nuclear deterrence (only in French service).
All F1 and F2's were upgraded to F3 standard later.

Sometime around 2015-18, an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar was integrated with the Rafales which meant they now could use the long range Meteor A2A missile. This standard is known as F3R.
IAF Rafales in service are based on this standard along with some India Specific Enhancements (ISE) such as Israeli HMD's (Helmet Mounted Displays), an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system tailor made for Indian networks, custom data links and more.

There's an F4 variant in development which is said to incorporate AI based systems, Manned UnManned Teaming (MUMT) capability and upgrades to its EW and communication suite.
Future IAF Rafales would be of this standard.


airliners.net | Dassault Rafale in IAF colors

As you can see, this aircrafts capabilities have grown leaps and bounds with each iteration. Granted, it's no F-35 or fifth gen but it's still pretty relevant on a modern battlefield.
Similarly,
The F-15 first flew in 1972, an upgrade of this known as F-15EX flew in 2020.
The F-16 first flew in 1974, the latest upgrade of this is the F-16 Block 70 which took to the skies in 2023.

All of these planes are considered highly capable and lethal.
____

IAF wants Rafales and Tejas'.
It'll certainly be cost effective, only issue is that despite placing orders, HAL had trouble delivering these jets in required numbers.
A deal for 20 Mk1 Tejas signed in 2006 was finally completed in 2024.
HindustanTimes | HAL to deliver last 4 LCA Mk1 trainers in next 6 months

An order for 83 Mk1A's was signed a few years ago, a deal for additional 97 Mk1A's is expected to be signed sometime this year as well.
Engine supplies from GE has resumed after a delay of 2-3 years so hopefully the service gets 180 of these jets on time.

+1 to this.
Not sure on this one, there's unmanned drones in development that'll be using the Kaveri hot core, DRDO's Ghatak and HAL's CATS Warrior. There were talks of turning the SWiFT tech demonstrator into long range kamikaze drones.

I see that ads11 has covered the bomber bit in great detail in his post.

Thank you for linking the CAG report, it'll be an interesting read.
____
References

dassault-aviation.com | Rafale deployment history
flightglobal | Rafale test flight

all images sourced from the below websites, unless mentioned otherwise
omnirole-rafale | Rafale A
omnirole-rafale | Rafale C01
It's a great website with tonnes of info about Dassault Rafales.

Oh it’s Mach 2.0 plus capability. Sorry for being too concise. I do know that in modern BVR and theatre centric missions, individual aircraft performance is not so important beyond a reasonable point. But I have been obsessing over the speed numbers since childhood when I got hold of various aviation magazines and books, and each increment over 2.0 sounded better than the last one. I remember being in awe of planes like the F15 Eagle, F14 Tomcat , Lightning fighters all possessing higher than normal top speeds, not to mention the Mirage 2000, Mig 29, Mig 25/31.
In today’s context , I understand that the Eurofighter is M2.0 plus capable. Doesn’t matter hugely, but still.

Thank you for quoting relevant pieces from the CAG report which helps all readers get better informed. What I recall from my discussions as a vendor to Dassault & potential manufacturing vendor to DRAL is that there was significant confusion on what the RFP stated and the correct interpretation of its wordings. On the few occasions I have responded on a large tender for GoI work in aviation I learnt that on key matters they often leave things vague and incomplete either as a cunning trick or because they have not applied their mind or simply to see what responders fill in and assume. GoI RFPs are infamous for being vague. And it is not just the RFP. There is a whole lot of official Q&A that goes on and we would not know what exactly was clarified. DRAL was set up assuming a Indo-french JV would do the assembly/part manufacture. Readers can draw their own conclusion.
Your numbers are correct. It shows how wonderful HAL is. Having suffered a JV with them once I would not risk giving a warranty on work done by them.
Aircraft, great ones at least get reinvented like a caterpillar several times over their lives. The engines and avionics decide how modern an aircraft is. Why 40 years - a constantly improved 50 year old design is relevant. The C-130 first flew 70 years ago and is still in production. Non-aviation readers get rather enamoured with all the jargon around generation 4 and generation 5 etc. Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability comes with age.
Maybe one day..... we are still waiting 40 years on for HAL to produce enough LCAs per year.
A squadron is typically 16 to 20 aircraft plus some strength in reserves for maintenance cycles and attrition. 4 squadrons would need at least 80 aircraft. The LCA is a wonderful machine and so is they Rafale. They are complementary and not competitors. It is like the Honda City (LCA) and the BMW 5 series (Rafale). Both have a role in the IAF. One cannot replace the other.

The boy in us all love that Mach 2.0 bit.

The designers actually aim for sustained speed and acceleration at low altitudes - say below 500 feet which then leads to a given power to weight ratio being needed. As a consequence the aircraft just happens to achieve Mach 2.0 or a little more at 36,000 feet. Mach 1.1 with air to air stores at below 500 feet is what we desire. That would translate to Mach 0.9 with air to ground stores lo-lo-lo.

Speed again matters above 80,000 feet for reconnaissance machines. But far too many SAMs can best you at 80,000 feet today and satellites are easier to use.

Rafale Surge: IAF Eyes 40 More Jets as Navy Deal Nears Signing

https://bharatshakti.in/rafale-surge...nears-signing/

Don't know if this is confirmed news or speculation.

Bharat Shakti reports…..
Warning: Rant ahead...

Indecision by the MoD + understandably a desire to develop and encourage local designs + RFPs evaluations and contracts taking forever to close till they fall apart + local producers simply not scaling up even to a basic level* has led to this chaos of piecemeal decision making of 2 squadrons ordered 10 years back; now 40 for the Navy and still further 40 maybe for the IAF. So due to lack of a coherent long term plan, maybe budgets we could end up buying piecemeal 116 Rafale’s while still toying around with a license/local production of 110. Bits and pieces destroy our ability to negotiate, ability to push for at least some transfer of technology and does nothing to develop the local supply chain.

Can’t blame the IAF – they are down to 75% of the capacity deemed necessary in circa 1970! God alone knows they need the fighters. Meantime no heads will roll at MoD or HAL or DRDO.

Sorry for the rant.

*HAL used to produce 50 to 60 aircraft in the 1970s between the MiG-21, Ajeet, Marut and HS748 and today we struggle to turn out 12 a year.

Trying to wrap my head around this, so we ordered 36 Rafales back in 2015 + about to order 26 Rafales now for the Navy and now negotiating 40 more for the air force. So, effectively, we would have 102 Rafales in the end, close to the numbers to be procured under the original MMRCA but with not a single jet being made in India while we are paying massively inflated prices because of the piecemeal orders. This means, like with the Mirage 2000s, we'd be left with no capability of maintaining these aircraft on our own in the long term (despite the MRO) or integrating our indigenous systems or weapons, like with the Su-30 MKIs or Jaguars, all because we believe in stop-gaps. Its pretty ironic that we are spending 50-60% of Pakistan's entire defense budget on these so-called 'stop-gaps'!

Even if we want to buy just 40 Rafales, I bet signing the contract would take atleast 3-4 years if not longer by the time of which the Tejas MK-2 should fly. So, unless we are buying the full hog of 114 jets with most of them assembled locally, I don't see the utility of these stop-gaps because of the insane time it takes for us to wrap negotiations. But then again, there is no guarantee that the Tejas MK-2 will fly by 2028, so I get the IAF's dilemma.

There is more speculation then anything concrete about additional Rafales for IAF. One thing is clear that IAF has significant shortage of fighters and Government need to buckle up and take urgent actions. Tejas mark2 is minimum 6-7 years away and while it may be a good 4.5 gen fighter, It will not have capabilities like F4 variant of Rafales.

In my opinion best course of action will be to sign deal with France to locally produce the aircraft with quick timeline and as much tech transfer as possible. If we can get 20+ Rafales per year 5 years from now, even that will be a great boost to airpower. Cost of deal could be $30B but it will be spread over 10 years