Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jul 2014 03:17

None of it matters. Its cost to acquire the MRCA and get technology transfered that will be the ultimate bill to the taxpayer.

member_28476 · Post by **member_28476** » 26 Jul 2014 03:19

malushahi wrote:
Pagot wrote:hello, yes vacations were nice

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpm6xyucwlsxg ... .27.41.jpg

There is nothing i thought as an issue, i just tried to give some info

dhauladhars?

Nope Alps. And low altitude part (submits are around 3000 m). But quite cute and steep.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2014 05:56

Our DM-cum-FM Arun "Jet Li" has thus far shown himself to be eminently capable of getting to the crux of the matter."Guns vs butter","cutting one's coat according to your cloth",etc.,etc. One is sure that he will find the right balance when taking a considered decision,between keeping indigenous interests high and the capability of the IAF maintained.

The hard inescapable truth is that even though we wish hundreds of LCAs to replace legacy aircraft,from all available information,HAL is not yet in a position to deliver the goods,especially Mk-2 which is the aircraft that the IAF want.MK-1 has been accepted very reluctantly. Unless MK-2 is developed asap,the LCAs future in the IAF will be few and far between. The aircraft is at least a decade late.

Production facilities were also forgotten by HAL which suddenly woke up one day,and in the words of an HAL official,realised that "production was a technology in itself" as important as the aircraft's tech.
Production rate according to HAL,8 per year.Hopefully after some years ramped up to a max of 16.At this rate by 2030 we will only have 120-180 aircraft.Now this is simply absolutely too low a figure to replace 300 MIG-21s and Bisons which will all disappear by 2025,the M and Bis variants much earlier by 2017,so how does the IAF fill the gap? It's chosen the Rafale,many years in service,but comes in at sports car prices. However,it is in production and available.If we're really desperate,one is sure that the French can loan us a sqd. which will be later replaced with new birds,just as was done with the Jags,early ones which had lower powered engines..

As for alternatives,the IAF certainly knows that there are more suitable cost-effective options,but does not want any further delay by opening pandora's box of another round of evaluation,tendering,etc. which may be insisted upon. hence the hint that it is acceptable to a lesser number of Rafales while hopefully the balance is made up by LCAs once HAL gets its act together.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2014 06:57

It is very unfortunate that over time "things" change. The deep thinking that may have gone into decisions for the MiG-21s (eons ago), their replacement (a decade or so ago) or the "MMRCA" effort, the fact remains what the IAF faces today it what the IAF faces today. Which is very different than what it faced a few years ago - both in terms of finances and threat perception.

Rafale: IF the French thought it to be a *great* plane and really wanted it into the 40/50, they would keep pumping them out into the next decade, upgrade each and every of them - very merrily.

Fact is they have promised funding for 4.5 Rafales per year, for the next six years. And promised funding for an upgrade. Then they have funded alternatives.

Vote of confidence it is not.

The best I can think of is have France supply 60, @ 12 per year. That should place Dassault at 12+4.5 = 17 per year. Every one will be happy.

But, no MLU. Flog them, show them of at parades, fly them to Lhasa(and back), .............................. But retire them in 2035 or so.

Find an alternative to up the IAF numbers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2014 06:58

On IAFs confidence in the LCA, really do not what to say other than tough luck, need to suck it up and make it work? ?????

Time for IAF - in particular - to look inwards. No excuse. IMHO.

Deny visas to the Russians, waste a French Minister's trip to India, restrict British Minister's visa to Mumbai, ...................................... that is *all* OK.

But no complaining about Indian products. *All* make it work.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 26 Jul 2014 12:08

What might be the cost of modern production facilities to produce an aircraft of 6-12 ton category (LCA-MMRCA-AMCA) at the rate of 40 birds per year. Can 3 billions is enough for both consultancy and production/assembly equipment.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jul 2014 13:05

kmkraoind wrote:What might be the cost of modern production facilities to produce an aircraft of 6-12 ton category (LCA-MMRCA-AMCA) at the rate of 40 birds per year. Can 3 billions is enough for both consultancy and production/assembly equipment.

The Tejas production facility costed about $250 million and will produce about 12 aircraft per year to start with. That figure can probably be scaled up further.

For a capital investment of $3 billion in production, you could probably manufacture 200 Tejas' annually, which is unfortunately more than we can afford. A rate of 40 units/yr target is quite achievable with just another $250-300 million invested.

As small a figure as that might appear, its still not easy for HAL to get that sum sanctioned, especially in the absence of bulk orders to justify it.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 27 Jul 2014 01:59

@ Viv S - you are missing the scale factor and experience curve.

After one year of making @ 12 aircraft, we should be able to quadruple with much lower investment. Beyond that, it's another experience curve.

Best reference is F-16 production - http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2014 05:36

The problem is that we can't wave Harry Potter's magic wand at HAL and get it working in a jiffy.The hard truth is that HAL lacks both capability and infrastructure to deliver the goods on Tejas,and even if it delivers the "goods" there are
huge Qs about sustaining quality from the MIG-21 manufacturing experience.On may ask why the MKI production appears to be in far better shape.That's probably because the entire bird,barring the avionics,are Russian,from tip to tail,unlike the LCA which has a firang engine,firang radar,etc.,all being packed into a very small airframe with very little room for manouevre.There was an earlier debate about the time taken to replace an engine on the LCA when compared with the Gripen.,critical in a crisis when high sortie rates expected. It is why perhaps it was so shy on its share of the FGFA and its dismal track record on the BT and IJT shows its failings,why its only client,the IAF has been so pissed off with it for decades and has little trust in its ability to deliver,especially on such a sophisticated and important ,nay vital aircraft for its inventory.
The IAF is also extending miraculously the life of the MIG-21s,antique museum pieces out of neccessity,not out of sentiment!
Even the Bisons are being nursed to live for another 5 years.Therefore the time has come for HAL/ADA to deliver or get shafted.As VAYU says,it loves to be "hand held" by OEMs,and the same will happen with the MMRCA.

In the end,if HAL doesn't step up to the plate,the IAF will be forced to ask for an import/s. It has already done so for extra PC-7s and the IJT.There was a large amount of sweeping dirt under the carpet with the earlier regime.This regime will not be fooled with mere talk .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2014 06:02

Get a good/great PM and such things should be resolved - over time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2014 07:12

Reality check?

Jan, 2014 :: HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

LCA: "That translates into a dollar price of approximately $26 million a fighter." ............ for first 20 fighters
Mirage 2000, Upgrade: "$45 million" per plane.
And, of course: "Since the upgrade will only be completed by 2021, that cost would rise further if the rupee falls."
Mig-29, upgrade: "$14.5 million" per plane
Su-30 MKI: "$65 million" per plane
Rafale: "$120-140 million" per plane

And, if there was no inflation or foreign components, the LCA would have come in at $19 million per plane:

The MoD is bargaining with HAL over the Tejas' Rs 162 crore price tag, pointing that HAL had, in 2006, quoted a unit price of Rs 116.49 crore per fighter. HAL argues the rupee's decline (some 45 per cent of the Tejas comes from abroad) and inflation over the past 8 years warrants a 40 per cent rise.

BUT, Indian MoD is "bargaining" about the price of the LCA. !!!!!!

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 27 Jul 2014 07:57

The new Scorpion fighter from USA designed by Textron and Cessna is expected to cost ~ 20 $ Million and with an operating cost of $3000 per hour. And it is classified as a Light Attack and Intelligence, Surveillance and Recce aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

Compared to that the Tejas unit cost seems reasonable. Do we know its operating cost?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 27 Jul 2014 08:57

^Yes it is sad, but at least that bargaining is gonna bury the old hag some people are salivating at. What would we do without such penny pinchers?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2014 17:46

Some hard truths.AM Brijesh Dayal writing in Vayu about HAL's only customer,the IAF being responsible for the major part of its budget! Despite this,not too long ago,"the MOD in its wisdom removed the DCAS from its Board instead of adding the AOM head of engineering and support to it". How does either the MOD or HAL expect the IAF therefore to have any confidence in its tall talk when its own members are shunted out of the Board? One may remember the huge resistance last year from babudom and HAL when the name of a former CoAS proposed to head HAL was proposed .Those who have been advocating "forcefeeding" the IAF to accept whatever HAL produces can answer this dismissal of the IAF DCAS best.No wonder relations between the two are the pitss.

As for the LCA MK-2 which requires much redesign, it is for the moment a "paper plane". No tech-demonstrator has flown,there is silence on news on this front. Even a mock-up has not been rolled out.Given the excruciatingly long "confinement" of the LCA series production to stabilise,FOC yet to arrive even for Mk-1,and recent media reports about fast tracking the Rafale deal,it is inevitable that it will be signed in some form of the other,lower numbers for the moment.Options later.The new dispensation has probably realised by now after due scrutiny that there is a crisis with the IAF's fleet strength and the only way to redress that in the interim is for a foreign import.

Is HAL instead actually rooting for the Rafale deal to go through (as an easier option) where there will be lots of foreign involvement,trips to gay Paris,etc., as it is much more comfortable at being "hand held" as another AM has put it,instead of putting its nose to the grindstone and developing the MK-2 asap? With $20-30B in this deal to be spent at current costs,it will guarantee at least 2 decades of "French lessons" for HAL to build the Rafale to the highest quality standards expected of it .This will ensure much Indo-French confabulations across the seas for a long time to come for the MOD mandarins,HAL's admins and boffins et al.Who would blame them. Paris in the springtime is absolutely ravishing.Vive La France!

Yes,there will still be song and dance about the LCA,much talk,little delivery.A sop will be made to the holy grail of indigenisation.More promises and promises,while all stakeholders concerned know that another charade is being played upon the Indian taxpayer. A decade + ago when we at a BR Aero-India meet with some senior IAF officers including a CO of a command,gung-ho with the LCA in the sky,Rakesh Shjarma (then a test pilot) was quite right when he asked us to be very,very, patient with the LCA as there was a long way to go. I don't think that even he realised how extra long it would take. Members please excuse us oldie sceptics as we've been patiently waiting for 3 decades now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2014 19:00

Philip wrote:The problem is that we can't wave Harry Potter's magic wand at HAL and get it working in a jiffy.The hard truth is that HAL lacks both capability and infrastructure to deliver the goods on Tejas,

Who said anything about magic? Either HAL can mass produce Tejas or it can't. Its a binary set. And if can build them, scaling up production is only a matter of duplicating the effort.

and even if it delivers the "goods" there are huge Qs about sustaining quality from the MIG-21 manufacturing experience.On may ask why the MKI production appears to be in far better shape.That's probably because the entire bird,barring the avionics,are Russian,from tip to tail,

Huge questions raised because of the MiG-21 experience but the Su-30 experience does not apply to the situation because the latter is Russian?

unlike the LCA which has a firang engine,firang radar,etc.,all being packed into a very small airframe with very little room for manouevre.

So the MiG-21, Su-30, Rafale etc are all kosher but the LCA has downside of a 'firang' engine, radar which can't be 'maneuvered' within the airframe.

There was an earlier debate about the time taken to replace an engine on the LCA when compared with the Gripen.,critical in a crisis when high sortie rates expected.

Does engine change on the Tejas take more or less time than the same exercise on the Su-30MKI (reportedly four days in peacetime)? Or are you now of the opinion that the India should start buying Gripens.

Even the Bisons are being nursed to live for another 5 years.Therefore the time has come for HAL/ADA to deliver or get shafted.As VAYU says,it loves to be "hand held" by OEMs,and the same will happen with the MMRCA.

The Tejas is arguably the most cost effective 4th gen aircraft in the world. More so any new build European, US or Russian alternative. You shaft HAL, you shaft the Indian taxpayer.

It is curious though that you present the N-Tejas as a cheap and credible alternative when the possibility arises of operating F-35Bs from the IN's future LHDs. Apprehensions about its 'firang' radar and engine don't seem to apply there.

In the end,if HAL doesn't step up to the plate,the IAF will be forced to ask for an import/s. It has already done so for extra PC-7s and the IJT.There was a large amount of sweeping dirt under the carpet with the earlier regime.This regime will not be fooled with mere talk .

If 'this regime' knuckles down to pressure from the import lobby, it'll sacrifice the a massive opportunity for breaking out of the import dependence cycle and finally achieving an acceptable degree of self reliance.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2014 19:06

Philip wrote:Those who have been advocating "forcefeeding" the IAF to accept whatever HAL produces can answer this dismissal of the IAF DCAS best.No wonder relations between the two are the pitss.

Tejas, Rafale or 'FGFA' (PAK FA to be more accurate)... will all be license-built by HAL. If the IAF wants to forgo HAL-products, it has no option but to persist with its current fleet, whatever its current state may be.

I don't think that even he realised how extra long it would take. Members please excuse us oldie sceptics as we've been patiently waiting for 3 decades now.

'Us' ?

GeorgeM · Post by **GeorgeM** » 27 Jul 2014 19:16

NPI is a money pit. So if you are the head of HAL, and presented with 2 option..
1: spend millions into investing on a high through-put production line for an aircraft that does not have equally justifiable orders. Develop new process, supply chain, develop end of line testing etc all the while keep a lid on cost pressures
OR
2: go after screw driver tech. Solid orders, OEM supplied machinery and process. Not much to sweat. You have good margins as well.

It doesn't take much brains to go with option 2. That too for a PSU that might never be known for aggressive marketing. Example Dhruv copters. You need a strong push to get HAL to ramp up LCA production. It's a big cultural change for HAL. Else we will never see ramped up production rates.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2014 19:32

Those who have been advocating "forcefeeding" the IAF to accept whatever HAL produces can answer this dismissal of the IAF DCAS best.No wonder relations between the two are the pitss.

What "forcefeeding" if one is part of the process?

Participate with the locals.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Jul 2014 19:54

That cost questioning part is a procedure. There was a mention that it happened just before Prithvi induction too.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 27 Jul 2014 21:31

This is OT, but why do people continue to answer Phillip, who even though he is quite senior, posts long winded needling monologues, much like Rahul Mehta? He is needlessly contrarian and loves trollish soliloquies.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2014 07:47

I think that some have misunderstood my points made.Let me clarify.

In the case of firang birds like the MKIs,Rafale,Typhoon,F-18SHs,etc.,the aircraft has already been developed,flaws ironed out,in series production and in service with the country of origin.Thus producing it in India under licence is much easier. Evereything from drawings,tooling,production facilities have been established abroad and transferred to us.We tinkered with the MKI only with some avionics and systems using Indian,Israeli and French wares to improve performance.We have achieved 70% indigenisation and by 2019 100% indigenisation where material used will be only of Indian origin.No mean feat .

As far as the LCA is concerned,the issue is not the foreign content but the manner in which we've struggled to put the various components together.The primary reason why the project is delayed is the engine.We never learnt our lesson of the HF-24,relying upon a new engine under development by the GTRE which had never produced anything like it earlier.APJAK was repeatedly warned about the tall talk from the GTRE about Kaveri and told that the entire programme would be held hostage to it. Thus when it failed to deliver after decades of R&D we had to use the GE 404 which is underpowered for the LCA's weight. Had we chosen a tried and proven foreign engine from the start and designed the aircraft around its performance we may have saved a decade in time.We are now hostage to the success of LCA MK-2 for large scale series production ,again relying upon the 414 which may or may not be adequate with much redesign and increased weight factor. Induction into the IAF, hopefully will start from 2020 onwards,but the Mk-2 has yet to fly.

Reg. the NLCA,it too awaits the success of Mk-2 upgraded performance for carrier ops. I've shown how it could be used for our amphibs for close support,s it lacks the legs and payload for longer range missions which are better performed by the 29Ks. If that isn't being positive and finding a relevant use for the NLCA I don't know what? Remember that when the LCA/NLCA was first conceived way back 3 decades ago,the IAC-1 was then called the ADS,a much smaller design,with the LCA being only a better replacement for the Sea Harrier with limited performance. Times have changed,the threat vastly increased with the advent of the PLAN's own carrier ambitions,and our "Look East" policy.

The Tejas is not yet in service and until FOC is declared with production costs firmed up,cannot be declared the "most cost-effective fighter" anywhere.Secondly,we must also export some aircraft to see how it performs abroad,not only with the IAF which will always have to compromise by the MOD.It is a debatable point.Right now that place is occupied with the Gripen.
Complex issues cannot be just dealt with by one-liners,so if some find my posts too long, and want only "quickies",please forgive this oldie.Oldie habits die hard!

PS:I'm moving this LCA debate to the appropriate td.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 28 Jul 2014 13:39

Various falsehoods needs pointing out (but will not provide any details, quite deliberately, as it's tiresome to repeat the same points over and over and over and over again endlessly), so here are they:

Philip wrote: <snip>
APJAK was repeatedly warned about the tall talk from the GTRE about Kaveri and told that the entire programme would be held hostage to it. Thus when it failed to deliver after decades of R&D we had to use the GE 404 which is underpowered for the LCA's weight

Note two different false stmts.

Philip wrote: <snip>We have achieved 70% indigenisation and by 2019 100% indigenisation where material used will be only of Indian origin.No mean feat .

Not in the league of the 1st falsehood, but still false nonetheless - when critical components (e.g. turbine and compressor discs and blades, radar antenna, TWT tubes etc) are to be imported and then screw-drivered together, 100% (or even 70% etc) or 0% indigenisation is one and all the same thing from technological scaling-up of the indigenous MIC viewpoint.

Philip wrote: <snip>We never learnt our lesson of the HF-24, relying upon a new engine under development by the GTRE which had never produced anything like it earlier.APJAK was repeatedly warned about the tall talk from the GTRE about Kaveri and told that the entire programme would be held hostage to it.

False again ... there's no point in trying to develop an cutting-edge flying platform, that too ab intio, without trying to develop the various critical systems/subsystems of it. So no, LCA programme couldn't have been envisaged without a parallel effort towards Flight Dynamics/Mechanics (Flight Control Systems), Powerplant, Aero-Structures, Radar, Avionics and various other critical systems.
Of course LCA program, at no instance of time, was neither "held hostage" nor "delayed" due to failures in the Kaveri subprogram.

Philip wrote: <snip>Thus when it failed to deliver after decades of R&D we had to use the GE 404 which is underpowered for the LCA's weight. Had we chosen a tried and proven foreign engine from the start and designed the aircraft around its performance we may have saved a decade in time.

False again ... a proven engine (called F404) was chosen right from the start and it ended it exactly as it was intended. The underweight (it actually isn't if MK1 is what being desired) part of F404 wrt LCA is only because of IAF's sudden waking up and asking for a far higher config (R73 vs R60) on the outboard pylon (amongst other things), that too way after prototype roll out and test flight commencement stages.

Plus of course, as I've pointed out in the last point, the LCA program at no instance of time, was neither "held hostage" nor "delayed" due to failures in the Kaveri subprogram.

Philip wrote: <snip>We are now hostage to the success of LCA MK-2 for large scale series production ,again relying upon the 414 which may or may not be adequate with much redesign and increased weight factor.

Mis-information again ... we are as big a hostage to Russia for MKI (for Al-31FP) as we'd be for F414.
And is there any analysis (and not some mere random "utterings" of some high-priest-from-IAF) which proves F414 will be inadequate for LCA Mk2?

Philip wrote: <snip>Reg. the NLCA,it too awaits the success of Mk-2 upgraded performance for carrier ops.

Nah, wrong. MK2 is the NLCA ... and the IAF Mk2 will be the derived bird from this Mk2 NLCA.

I suspect (and thus don't have any direct proof etc) that this delay in getting the Mk2 design firm up etc is due to trying to get the NLCA aspects incorporated ... for example, they may want to have structural re-enforcement "planks" created so that the heavy landing-gear and tail-hook "harness points" can be implemented in a more straight-forward way.
etc etc.

Philip wrote: <snip>please forgive this oldie.Oldie habits die hard!

This I agree-with though, and it's quite apparent here that old habits do die hard.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 28 Jul 2014 17:22

The new dispensation in New Delhi will not cancel the Rafale deal entirely, they will choose to halve the deal for IAF while purchasing the Rafale-M for the IN in numbers.

The IAF/IN's air-arm will continue to remain a menagerie for the short term.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Jul 2014 17:54

Klaus wrote:The new dispensation in New Delhi will not cancel the Rafale deal entirely, they will choose to halve the deal for IAF while purchasing the Rafale-M for the IN in numbers.

The IAF/IN's air-arm will continue to remain a menagerie for the short term.

Are you guessing or is this something you've heard? I wouldn't think the IN would take too kindly to be arm-twisted into a decision which forces it to permanently shelf any hopes of operating a 5th gen fighter.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 29 Jul 2014 11:54

^^^ Learnt this during a conversation with DGCA staff last week in New Delhi. The person is apparently well connected with staff at MoD. Dont know anymore specifics.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 29 Jul 2014 12:04

And the Rafale M will be slated for which boat? Will the current admiral require mods to accomodate the Rafale?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 29 Jul 2014 12:08

^^^ It was not specified whether the M would be a carrier version or operating off a land/island base. Dont know the exact numbers for IAF/IN either.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Jul 2014 05:04

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1695140

ramana wrote:HT report of UK study

India to be a golbal military power by 2045

The study seems to be linear projection of current state. If anyone can access it please post the link here

India a global military power by 2045: UK study
Prasun Sonwalkar Prasun Sonwalkar,

Hindustan Times London, July 02, 2014

A global scenario projected by Britain’s ministry of defence says that by 2045 India is likely to have the ability to project conventional military power globally with the third largest defence expenditure pegged at 654 billion US dollars.

Titled ‘Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045’, the publication by the ministry’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre sets out what the world might look like 30 years from now. It looks at a range variables, including energy, mineral resources, conflict and migration.

“Although China’s military-industrial complex is unlikely to surpass the technological sophistication of the US by 2045, it may rival it in terms of size, as could India’s. Both India and China will probably seek to develop sizeable and technically advanced armed forces, including ocean-going navies, capable of delivering an enduring and capable maritime presence both regionally and further afield”, the paper says.

The analysis on South & East Asia and Oceania says: “The military capabilities of other countries in the region are also likely to increase but only China, India, Australia, Japan (which is actively increasing its military capability) and South Korea are likely to have the ability to project conventional military power globally”.

However, the analysis notes that although India is likely to spend more on defence than the UK, it will “almost certainly have to overcome domestic political issues and improve the way it invests to attain the capabilities needed to project conventional military power globally”.

According to the projection, the US and China are likely to have similarly sized defence budgets, potentially out-spending the rest of the world by 2045. India could have a defence budget equivalent to the EU’s total spending on defence, it says.

“Additionally, China, India and the US are likely to lead in defence-related research and development – further enhancing their military capabilities”, the paper says.

In terms of Technology, the paper says that China and India are likely to attain global leadership in select technical disciplines, achieving parity with the West in a number of niche areas as soon as 2015 and more widely by 2045.

Stating that China and India will “almost certainly continue to be the dominant powers” in the region, the paper says that the ways the two countries manage their societies’ demands and their internal methods of governance will be important to the region’s development.

In terms of conflict, it is projected that Kashmir would continue to one of the areas of tension, including the border between China and India. “The risk of a major state-on-state conflict in the region cannot be ruled out”, it says.

The paper is based on inputs from a range of individuals and global institutions, including India’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, United Services Institute and the Vivekananda International Foundation.

40 billion $ for MMRCA would look like 'chillar' in 2045.

Good american platforms failed mmrca, US/UK will be looking at Bharatvarsh full of hatred and enemity by then; any platform from these would be in danger of sabotage.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2014 05:56

40 billion $ for MMRCA would look like 'chillar' in 2045.

So would the Rafale.

Something like the F-35, in this context, looks a better buy.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Jul 2014 06:30

NRao wrote:
40 billion $ for MMRCA would look like 'chillar' in 2045.
So would the Rafale.

Something like the F-35, in this context, looks a better buy.

Rafale would be what M2k is today at the time, AMCA with FBL will be the F-35 + F-22 rolled into one at the time.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jul 2014 06:39

Pardon my ignorance but whats FBL?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 31 Jul 2014 06:52

brar_w wrote:Pardon my ignorance but whats FBL?

Fly By Light

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2014 07:02

Strategic Trends Programme Global Strategic Trends - Out to 2045

100 pages of it!!

Rafale would be what M2k is today at the time, AMCA with FBL will be the F-35 + F-22 rolled into one at the time.

Rafale would be the MiG-21, the F-35 would be the earliest M2Ks.

Remember that the next gen is expected to be deployed in 2030. And, with techs advancing faster than we are used to, even that could be old stuff by 2045. 2045 should be seeing 7th/8th Gen planes.

Added l8r:

IF the US fields a 6th Gen in 2030, the Rafale is out dated (relatively).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2014 07:11

From that 2045 paper:

The military capabilities of other countries in
the region are also likely to increase but only
China, India, Australia, Japan (which is actively
increasing its military capability) and South
Korea are likely to have the ability to project
conventional military power globally

With that many from the region, it is not a big deal for India.

It is not all dandy for China/India. Population could be a problem, especially with an imbalance in male-female ratio. Climate is another.

Defence and security implications

■ In large part because of its economy (likely to be the largest in the world by 2045),
South & East Asia will probably be of increasing strategic significance.
■ A growing population, increasing demand and the effects of climate change are
likely to lead to food and water shortages. While cooperation over water has often
overcome national differences, the potential for confrontation over shared water
resources may increase.
■ Rising sea levels are likely to lead to humanitarian disasters which may require
international assistance.
■ China’s military is becoming more capable and has increasing global reach. By
2045, China’s military capability may be close to matching that of the US, perhaps
exceeding it in some areas. India’s military capability is also likely to increase – but
probably not to the point where it rivals China or the US by 2045.
■ The East and South China Seas may be flashpoints for confrontation between China
and the US and allied countries. Similarly Kashmir, the Korean Peninsula and the
border between China and India are likely to be areas of tension. The risk of a major
state-on-state conflict in the region cannot be ruled out.
■ Terrorism will almost certainly continue to pose a threat in South & East Asia, less
so in Oceania. High levels of inequality based upon class, ethnicity and religion
are likely to endure as sources of tension across the region and may impact on the
overall governance and stability of some countries

Of that $645 billion, some $550 billion will probably will be for salaries itself.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2014 07:41

Btw, China just recently hacked secrets of Iron Dome from Israel.

World power for you.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2014 08:27

Sorry Maitya,one must disagree.Kaveri was meant to power the LCA from inception and the programme was delayed due to its non-arrival.I've been told from many sources ,those associated with the programme apart from enough info available.The GE-404 was initially meant for the prototypes,not to power the series production until it was realised that Kaveri wasn't arriving.After the 404 has been shown to be underpowered the 414 is being touted for MK-2.All this has happened over 3 decades!

In the case of the MKI engines,they were the designated engines for the MKI.The SU-27/30 hasn't had the engine trauma that the LCA has had.By 2019 we will be building the aircraft completely 100% ,using locally sourced materials.We will always be held hostage to a foreign entity if we cannot develop and build our own engines and one of the greatest derelictions in duty has been to ignore this vital requirement for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

The GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri (Sanskrit: कावेरी) is an afterburning turbofan being developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a lab under the DRDO in Bangalore, India. An Indian design, the Kaveri was originally intended to power production models of the HAL Tejas fighter, also known as the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) being built by the Aeronautical Development Agency. However, the Kaveri programme failed to satisfy the necessary technical requirements or keep up with its envisaged timelines and was officially delinked from the Tejas programme in September 2008. GTRE is now running two separate successor engine programmes, the K9+ programme and the K10 programme.[2]

Engine and propulsion

Initially, it was decided to equip the prototype aircraft with the General Electric F404-GE-F2J3 afterburning turbofan engine. Simultaneously, in 1986, a parallel programme to develop an indigenous powerplant was also launched.[48] In 1998, following India's nuclear tests, US placed sanctions on the sale of General Electric F404 turbofans. It was decided to invest in a domestic jet engine as a replacement of the F404. Cost overruns and Delays were encountered while developing the new Kaveri engine. After the lift of sanctions, decision was made to buy additional F404 engines for use on the initial Tejas production aircraft.[33] Led by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment, the GTRE GTX-35VS, named "Kaveri", was expected to replace the F404 on all production aircraft.[49]

However, progress in the Kaveri development programme was slowed by technical difficulties. Development snags with the Kaveri resulted in the 2003 decision to procure the uprated F404-GE-IN20 engine for the eight pre-production LSP aircraft and two naval prototypes. General Electric was awarded a US$105 million contract in 2004 for development engineering and production of 17 -IN20 engines,[50] delivery of which began in 2006.[51] The F404-GE-IN20 was trial-installed on the Tejas and the engine generated more than 19,000 pounds (85 kN) uninstalled thrust and completed 330 hours of Accelerated Mission testing, equivalent of 1,000 hours of flight operation.[51] In 2007, an additional 24 F404-IN20 afterburning engines were ordered to power the first operational squadron of Tejas fighters.[50]

In mid-2004, the Kaveri failed its high-altitude tests in Russia, ending the last hopes of introducing it with the first production Tejas aircraft.[51][N 4] In February 2006, the ADA awarded a contract to the French aircraft engine company Snecma for technical assistance in working out the Kaveri's problems.[10] The Kaveri engine based on Snecma's new core, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter, providing 83–85 kilonewtons (kN) of maximum thrust was being considered a third option by DRDO. This led the IAF to object that since Snecma had already developed the core of the engine, the DRDO will not be participating in any joint development but merely providing Snecma with an indigenous stamp.[52]

In 2008, it was announced that the Kaveri would not be ready in time for the Tejas, and that an in-production powerplant would have to be selected in the 95 to 100 kilonewton (kN) (21,000–23,000 lbf) range to allow the aircraft to perform combat manoeuvres with optimal weapons load. The contenders were the Eurojet EJ200 and the General Electric F414.[53][54] IAF sources said that the airframe will have to be redesigned to accommodate the heavier engine, which is to take up to three-four years.[55]

After evaluation and acceptance of the technical offer provided by both Eurojet and GE Aviation, the commercial quotes were compared in detail and GE Aviation was declared as the lowest bidder. The deal will cover purchase of 99 GE F414 engines. The initial batch will be supplied by GE and the remainder will be manufactured in India under a transfer of technology arrangement.[56][57]

Until the MK-2 is flying and tested to the limit,one will not be able to determine whether the 414 too will deliver the required thrust for the modified heavier MK-2.

srin · Post by **srin** » 31 Jul 2014 21:18

x-posting from the multimedia thread. Must watch - rationale of MMRCA & life-cycle cost - from the mouth of Air chiefs and air marshals.

srin wrote:Vayu-Stratpost discussion on MMRCA & IAF strength

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 31 Jul 2014 22:34

NRao wrote: Remember that the next gen is expected to be deployed in 2030. And, with techs advancing faster than we are used to, even that could be old stuff by 2045. 2045 should be seeing 7th/8th Gen planes.

Added l8r:

IF the US fields a 6th Gen in 2030, the Rafale is out dated (relatively).

I don't understand (I admit it quite usual for me).

If the Umrikhans are going to make 7th or 8th gen in ~2045 then why are they planning for a 55 year lifecycle for the JSF.

Are they flying 2/3/4/5 gen together that they should fly 5/6/7/8 ek saath.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 31 Jul 2014 22:51

ravi_g: Still interested in quantum computing? I found one expository paper/article which I am yet to read but the title sounds promising. I will post the link in algs. dhaga if you want to pursue.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 31 Jul 2014 22:54

Please do matrimc ji. Thanks for remembering for so long.

Hope it is dummies level

.

Don't take the last comment seriously. Even if it is not I will try better.