MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Mar 2011 17:39

MarcH wrote:Well, since I read several times the MiG shouldn't be picked because the Russians are notorious for jacking up prices, I guess this newspiece may be from interest in putting that into perspective:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bigge ... ce/767847/

Is that indian express a reliable source ?

The Americans aren't unilaterally reneging on a signed contract. A parallel could only be made if contract was signed today for say $4 billion with the Americans telling the MoD in 2012 that they goofed up and the new price would be $6 billion - take it or leave it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Mar 2011 18:06

I am not too sure, but I would think India would have recourse in US courts. ????????? (I think foreign vendors have similar options within India.) (An option that does not seem to exist elsewhere.)

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 28 Mar 2011 09:09

Honestly, I don't think it's even possible to cancel the MMRCA right now - your reputation as a buyer tanks if you do something like this at such a late stage. Someone had mentioned test-driving a luxury car, and that analogy doesn't work here at all. If you as a customer decide not to buy a luxury car after test-driving it, it doesn't make a massive difference to the company; here, firms might have to shut down, thousands of jobs could be lost, if we decide to scrap the deal. When the stakes are this high, no one shrugs and moves on with their life.
And why would it make sense to do so anyway? To get the F-35 instead? Happy dreaming, chum - and smoke less of the green stuff while you're at it. To save money for other projects? Fair enough, but it's not like any project right now is being starved of funds (at least not the LCA Mk 2 and AMCA projects that people keep speaking of). And it'd still be keeping money aside for a rainy day when you need an umbrella right now. We NEED numbers. It would've been great if far larger numbers of LCA had been available, but they aren't. Simple. And simply ordering more MKIs doesn't help now either: if this decision had been made 3-4 years ago, when we were still at RFI/RFP stage, it would've still been all right, now it isn't.
And then there's the obsolescence question. Right. REALLY pull the other one. Do you think the PLAAF is going to turn, at the stroke of midnight for the year 2020, into an all J-20 air force? Should we then forget the Su-30? For sure it'll be obsolete by that standard. Let's not even bother with the LCA. Our 4/4.5-gen planes will still have a role for a long time to come, and the more we beef up that force to a level that keeps us safe for the present, the better. The future's being handled, and we shouldn't give up our short-term security for some grand 'War in 2030' plan.
Yes, it was daft planning by the MoD, but that's how things stand. Two wrongs (bad planning and cancelling the MMRCA contract this late) don't make a right (a solid future IAF).

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Mar 2011 09:43

If cancelling is in India's interest, it should be done.
It's time to stop thinking about others interests. Our interest comes first, always and everytime.
If we cannot create jobs in other countries, no one can blame us, it's none of our business.
if the same money can help to build good numbers of LCA mark-1 and Mark-II, then invest in MCA, it's a wise decision to do.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 28 Mar 2011 10:01

No, it has nothing to do with others' interests. Any country that faces the loss of a premier armaments manufacturer or the loss of some 10-20,000 jobs, is likely to get desperate and give you lots of trouble, is what I'm saying. Sanctions, denial/delay of other material or technology, against-votes in the UN or other bodies... there are endless ways of creating trouble. Disappointing five manufacturers by awarding the contract to one winner is one thing - everybody accepts that. (Or perhaps not even this - I expect huge amounts of trouble from the losers.) But this, cancelling the whole thing after such a drawn-out circus, would invite even more trouble.
Yes, some say that we shouldn't care about denial/sanctions/etc etc, and that it will only spur us on to be self-reliant, but we shouldn't become self-reliant only because we're forced to. Much better that we wean ourselves off foreign maal at a time of our choosing, not theirs. At this time, I believe we do need the foreign maal (there's simply no way we can pump up LCA numbers to this level), so I'd prefer not to do anything this drastic.
And somehow, the Su-30 doesn't seem to come under the label of foreign maal. Yes, we're making it here, but the lion's share of the tech comes from outside India, remember? So I don't understand how "more Su-30s" equals "self-reliance."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 10:16

Do we know what exactly the IAF trials for these MRCA contenders were? I dont need to know how they fared? What were they evaluated for?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 28 Mar 2011 10:34

I think we are being naive if we think purchase of Unkil's goods are cheap via the Gov to Gov route. All it does for us is to get the goods faster.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 28 Mar 2011 11:04

There have been a lot of posts about the rafale swing role capability and I am having a hard time imagining why this is a difficult thing to implement in any aircraft. The Radar remains the same, the pylons depend upon the stores selected, the aircraft targeting software is not changed for each flight, so why is this difficult and such a big feature of the rafale?
The SH also caries bombs and AMRAAM's for self protection, so is it not capable of A2A while configured for A2G?

Apart from that, i know for a fact that the Sea Harriers are capable of carrying bombs and A2A missiles in the same mission. In fact during the Falklands conflict, the sea harriers used to make a high altitude bombing run on the port Stanley airfield during the transit to their CAP positions. This was a regular feature by them to harass the Argentinians. The SHAR has three pylons, the two on the wings for sidewinders and the centerline for the bomb and the fuselage points for the canon pods.
So I am trying to understand how the swing role in the Rafale is different from the SH or SHAR?
Can someone answer this or point to some website that can explain this?

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 28 Mar 2011 11:47

Vardhank wrote:

If you as a customer decide not to buy a luxury car after test-driving it, it doesn't make a massive difference to the company; here, firms might have to shut down, thousands of jobs could be lost, if we decide to scrap the deal. When the stakes are this high, no one shrugs and moves on with their life.

So how is that India's problem? Or do you think that Indians owe them employment and a constant stream of revenue?

We NEED numbers. It would've been great if far larger numbers of LCA had been available, but they aren't. Simple.

The Tejas isn't available in numbers because the IAF didn't order them in numbers. HAL's production capacity for the LCA is not determined by a natural law but rather by decisions taken by IAF/MoD.

If HAL is presented with clear roadmap and commitment from the IAF/MoD then I am sure HAL will invest in a new production line for the Tejas.

For example:

From 2011 to 2017: 120 Tejas mk1's are to be produced.
From 2017 to 2015: 160 Tejas mk2's are to be produced.
From 2015 to 2022: 200 Tejas mk3's are to be produced (after half of the mk3's are operational, HAL begins to refit the mk1's so they can be used as advanced trainer aircraft/lead in fighter trainers (LIFT). Also could possibly gift 12 to say, Sri Lanka.

From 2022 to 2029: production of 200 Tejas mk4's, by now the Tejas has evolved into a 5+ generation combat aircraft.

Consider also export to friendly coubtries to further cement ties.

Al this is possible, but we lack people with vision and leadership qualities in the GoI/MoD/IAF.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 28 Mar 2011 13:41

Multatuli wrote:
So how is that India's problem? Or do you think that Indians owe them employment and a constant stream of revenue?

Read my answer above.

The Tejas isn't available in numbers because the IAF didn't order them in numbers. HAL's production capacity for the LCA is not determined by a natural law but rather by decisions taken by IAF/MoD.

If HAL is presented with clear roadmap and commitment from the IAF/MoD then I am sure HAL will invest in a new production line for the Tejas.

For example:

From 2011 to 2017: 120 Tejas mk1's are to be produced.
From 2017 to 2015: 160 Tejas mk2's are to be produced.
From 2015 to 2022: 200 Tejas mk3's are to be produced (after half of the mk3's are operational, HAL begins to refit the mk1's so they can be used as advanced trainer aircraft/lead in fighter trainers (LIFT). Also could possibly gift 12 to say, Sri Lanka.

From 2022 to 2029: production of 200 Tejas mk4's, by now the Tejas has evolved into a 5+ generation combat aircraft.

Consider also export to friendly coubtries to further cement ties.

Al this is possible, but we lack people with vision and leadership qualities in the GoI/MoD/IAF.

How easy do you think it is to set up another production line? It's not only a matter of HAL setting up an extra shed - vendors, manpower, quality control, all have to be looked at. IIRC, DRDO's already looking BEYOND HAL to ensure smooth production of aircraft, since HAL is overburdened with the number of projects underway. Do you think it's going to be that easy to simply ramp that up?
Yes, I agree with you that we should export the Tejas - how many orders do we have at the moment? It's going to take some marketing, some cajoling, some acceptance of a jet that isn't even completely ready yet. That isn't going to happen tomorrow - we could waste a few years doing that.
If you have another source feeding you aircraft that you desperately need to keep your numbers up, why is that a bad thing? If that gives you diplomatic clout (as opposed to LOSING it by cancelling the contract now), does that really hurt you? I don't actually understand what the case is AGAINST the MMRCA now, when there wasn't one before Shukla's article came out.
A lot of things are possible with vision and leadership. We'd have an order for 250+ LCA for India, maybe 40-60 more for export, an order for 1500 Arjuns, better roads, no problems with ordering Bofors guns and on and on and on. Bad decisions were made earlier, fact. Making a knee-jerk one now isn't going to cancel that out. yes, I wish we didn't have to worry about this circus and that we already had 200 M2Ks or whatever operating, having ordered them in the 80s, but we don't. You have to make the best of a bad lot.
And the fact that the LCA has turned out so well doesn't negate the need for a heavier, longer-ranged fighter. The Su-30 has high operating costs, the LCA simply doesn't have the carrying capacity or range of a Rafale, for example. Swing role yes, but there are also horse for courses, correct?

Edit: Sorry, i hadn't looked at your answer too closely. By 2029, the Tejas will have evolved into a 5+ gen aircraft? So it'll have sprouted stealth and internal weapons bays? Don't hurl terms around, please. Yes, it'll have evolved, and I hope it does, into a jet with supercruise, all-Indian weapons, an AESA radar, IRST, all that. But that's not fifth-gen.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Mar 2011 16:43

shukla's article is LM lifafa. since LM knows that F16IN is not going to win, they are queering the pitch for MMRCA in order to clear space (or create doubt in mind) for the JSF
not to be taken seriously

samverma · Post by **samverma** » 28 Mar 2011 18:19

To the gurus out there..this is a question slightly off topic but incorporates the issue of MRCA..what should the ideal strength of the IAF be around 2020-2025 both in terms of squadrons and roles keeping in mind the potential strengths of PLAAF and Pakistan AF around that time and incorporating the various plans like AMCA, MRCA, LCA etc. Have asked this question is the the newbie forum also along with the requirements of the army and navy vs their chinese and pakistani counterparts..Again SORRY if this query has been already been raised...if yes,can someone direct me to the links.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 28 Mar 2011 22:27

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dSJvH6tIzek/T ... 754717.jpg

C 17 deal stuck for some price issue...

Via Key pub

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Mar 2011 22:49

IAF refuses last minute offers from MMRCA contenders

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Mar 2011 23:13

^

last minute proposals like upgrade with more powerfull engines etc is unacceptable.

gripen or rafale?

good signs here.. things are getting to final stages.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 28 Mar 2011 23:34

SaiK wrote:^
last minute proposals like upgrade with more powerfull engines etc is unacceptable.
gripen or rafale?

good signs here.. things are getting to final stages.

I don't think its Gripen. It is already flying with GE414. It is most probably referring to F-18 with GE-414EPE upgrade. Maybe it is even referring to SCEMA's M88-X program.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Mar 2011 00:24

Gaur wrote:
SaiK wrote:gripen or rafale?

good signs here.. things are getting to final stages.
I don't think its Gripen. It is already flying with GE414. It is most probably referring to F-18 with GE-414EPE upgrade. Maybe it is even referring to SCEMA's M88-X program.

We have an uncanny ability to shoot ourselves in the foot. Nobody wants this to get delayed, but to make a hard & fast rule without at least examining the offer is sheer stupidity!!!!

nrshah wrote:C 17 deal stuck for some price issue...

This is only the beginning...

Another hard lesson for us. When will we learn?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Mar 2011 00:38

Dassault's greediness will lead to their failure.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/03/re ... grade.html

Check the heading below the article (at bottom right)

Like a bad omen!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 00:54

I didn't understand the heading though? greed may be, but why failure? is it because RakhiS?

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Mar 2011 00:56

Rakesh wrote:Dassault's greediness will lead to their failure.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/03/re ... grade.html

Check the heading below the article (at bottom right) Like a bad omen!!

We should get Mirage's upgraded by Israel and screw these french...We are getting Mirage's upgrade by expensive French only to keep things on line...but if they resort to dirty tricks, why not we get our options laid to them.

given if we are not already buying Rafale's...

why not we go for LCA and get Mirage upgraded by Israel...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Mar 2011 00:58

SaiK: Cause they *think* they may have won the contest and are now trying to milk us for every little thing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 01:34

a-greed! but everyone out there milks in some form or the other. So our objectives is to reverse milk in terms of contract, agreements and get the max out of the deal.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Mar 2011 08:35

Mix N Match - the Ideal MMRCA

Each bird in the contest has some major flaws, none is perfect. Which makes the choice more difficult for the IAF and MOD.

The ideal MMRCA would be one with the EF typhoon's power, the FA-18's Radar and weapons, the Rafale's Cockpit, the Grippen's price and data links, the F-16s history of service, and with as less preconditions, sanctions proofed and with operational freedom as the Mig-35s.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 08:38

Gagan ji, you just described MCA Mk1 (staged to be AMCA test bed).

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Mar 2011 08:46

But I have one gripe with the AMCA design. I may be wrong but it appears that the weapons loadout in the weapons bay is limited.

Hopefully external stealthy pods will be available which will give reasonable stealth or the designers will do some magical juggling with the design to try and squeeze in as many weapons as possible in the limited space.

But wrt the MMRCA, I wish one had the time and could MKI-ise.

PS would the Americans be willing to offer their AESAs for another aircraft should it win?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 08:54

I am still a supporter of re-inventing the wheel when it comes to such niche well protected systems. I have no reasons to believe that they will give away everything even after sucking huge mother diary products.

The real AMCA design would be only known after 18 months.. So, whatever comes before that, we should take it as long as IAF believes in DRDO for delivery in the longer term.

My fingers are crossed at Kaveri on-lee! That puppy is the only thing that we need to put in lot of $$$$.

LRDE is well chartered now to deliver the LCA AESA. So, that would be some thing we can expect in 2 years.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 29 Mar 2011 10:39

@manum and @rakesh

First @manum

We should get Mirage's upgraded by Israel and screw these french...We are getting Mirage's upgrade by expensive French only to keep things on line...but if they resort to dirty tricks, why not we get our options laid to them.

I do not think it is greed. Business can also work on net margins to a seller an not on % margins

So for sake of argument, If the Rafale costs us X and the Mirage costs us Y.

And the percentage margin is 25% for sake of simplistic argument, then the french would get 25% of X+Y

But if we entered into a deal for both, the french may settle for 20% of X+Y

It is a win win for both.

Now for @rakesh's post

We have an uncanny ability to shoot ourselves in the foot. Nobody wants this to get delayed, but to make a hard & fast rule without at least examining the offer is sheer stupidity!!!!

I tend to agree with you, if this indeed is the case. I have done deals (not in the defence space) where we offered the latest as a repacement for the product ordered with the provisos that:

a) The initial price would remain the same.
b) That we would, at our own cost, demonstrate and let the customer test the latest to be satisfied that it over exceeded the original equipment to be replaced
c) The customer had the right to reject acquiring the latest
c) that it would not delay the project!
d) the customer would agree to a price to make up for the saving on the increased lifespan of the product. (which we never got but was just a bargaining chip)
The advantage to us that we got a customer for a new product at launch, w/o having to spend the money and time in a sales cycle.

I need to help St. Antony

Cheers.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 29 Mar 2011 10:57

I would rather not combine the two(upgrade and mrca). God forbid if anything investigation or whatever halts/delays the mmrca, the M2K upgrade too will get delayed ! We have built ourselves such a bureacratic-procedural-judicial maze that our own possible subsequent actions are biggest threat to us now.

venku_Raj · Post by **venku_Raj** » 29 Mar 2011 15:14

I think F-18 E/F

IAF Rejects last minute offer for powerful engine from one of MMRCA contenders

http://indyatimes.in/?p=34#more-34

The Indian Air Force has decided against accepting any last minute offers from the contenders of the multi-billion dollar deal for purchase of 126 fighter aircraft even as it rejected a bidder”s proposal to equip its warplanes with a more powerful jet engine.“No offers for upgrades or changes in the original bid submitted by the six aircraft companies would be allowed as their aircraft have been judged on the basis of capabilities offered in the original bid and their performance in the field trials,” IAF sources said here.

Six companies Lockheed Martin (F-16), Boeing (F/A-18 E/F), Dassault Aviation (Rafale), Saab Gripen, Rosoboronexport MiG 35 and EADS Eurofighter Typhoon are contenders in the USD 11 billion dollar contract of the IAF for procuring 126 Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA).

“One defence firm had proposed to equip its aircraft with a more powerful engine along with a host of other capabilities but it was rejected as the aircraft has already undergone trials and we can”t allow firms to make last minute offers,” they added.

Though the IAF has accepted some of the futuristic capabilities offered by the companies but they were proposed in the original bid itself by the respective companies, they said.

The process of evaluation was concluded early last year and a report was submitted to the Defence Ministry.

The Defence Ministry is expected to start the contract negotiations in the deal soon after going through the technical evaluation and field trial reports of the six aircraft carried out by the IAF for over two years.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 29 Mar 2011 21:26

venku_Raj wrote:I think F-18 E/F

I doubt it because they have had the EPE as part of their proposal for some time. That's not really a 'last-minute' change.

My guess would be the Rafale because we know the UAE wasn't impressed with its engine performance and kept pushing for them to be upgraded or maybe the Gripen wanting to get in on the EPE action.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 29 Mar 2011 22:20

The rejection of these last minute "upgrades" probably shows that the choice has already been made and IAF is serious about doing this quickly.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 29 Mar 2011 22:40

No, it just shows that they are in final stage of the selection process and don't want to further delay the decision be re-evaluating the bids. Btw I don't think the French are greedy. Their stuff ist just expensive. Just google what they paid themselves for the upgrade of their Rafale F1's to F3 standard. So far I've seen prices quoted of roughly 30mill/aircraft.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 30 Mar 2011 13:15

This is pretty much what happens when all the development expenditure is amortized over a small number of aircraft. The entire production run of the rafale for the AdlA +Navy is less than 200. This is interesting when you compare the production run of the EF is over 600 and still the cost after amortization is higher than the rafale !!! The EF dev costs were through the roof.

This is the reason why the cost of the F22 jumped after they capped it at 183 and the reason why the B2 costs a billion $ each. This is exactly the reason why the F16/Mig21/M2K were cheaper.
Upgrade cost = little bit of greed + bells and whistles that the IAF wants + small number of A/c that the upgrade package needs to be specially developed .
The rejection of the additional features is pretty fair because if they accept the proposal from one vendor they will have to give a similar opportunity to the others. and of course the additions will have to be flight tested as they were not available during the evaluation tests.
So this is a good decision towards completing the process.

MarcH wrote:No, it just shows that they are in final stage of the selection process and don't want to further delay the decision be re-evaluating the bids. Btw I don't think the French are greedy. Their stuff ist just expensive. Just google what they paid themselves for the upgrade of their Rafale F1's to F3 standard. So far I've seen prices quoted of roughly 30mill/aircraft.

nits · Post by **nits** » 30 Mar 2011 13:26

Gripen to join Firing Practice at Libya - its surely acting as IAF's Evaluation round 2

Click

Sweden is prepared to deploy up to eight fighter jets to help patrol the UN-authorised no-fly zone over Libya, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said Tuesday.

After a cabinet session where a bill was approved, Reinfeldt told parliament it was time to move from "words to action".

Sweden received a request to participate earlier Tuesday.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 30 Mar 2011 20:50

Budget pressures halt Eurofighter Tranche 3B talks
FlightGlobal

Budgetary pressures being encountered by partner nations Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK have halted talks about the proposed Tranche 3B production phase of the Eurofighter programme, according to one of its key industrial participants.

Noting that the decision is closely linked to the future export prospects of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Zoller said: "What we have to avoid is a break in the production line. We are in contact with the customers to see how we manage that."

Asked whether the lack of a firm commitment to Tranche 3B production could hurt the Typhoon's long-term export potential, Zoller noted Cassidian's steadily rising annual spend on self-funded research and development, which totalled €251 million ($354 million) last year. "Now we see more defence customers having the idea to go 'off-the-shelf', with no pre-financing of R&D. We don't want to lose some competitive edge in our programmes, so we already started to finance on our own," he said. One such example is in developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the Typhoon.

"E-scan for Eurofighter, which is a very decisive subject to stay in international competitions, is for the time being completely financed by industry. We have to keep the momentum and the technology developed, otherwise we shoot ourselves out of the market," he said. The availability of an AESA sensor is now mandated in most fighter competitions, such as the Indian air force's 124-unit medium multirole combat aircraft battle. "Our customers have checked whether the capability is there or will be there in time for their aircraft," said Zoller. "We are in a very good position, and will have all the technology and all the features available."

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 30 Mar 2011 21:07

Code: Select all

RAF has Shortage of fighter Pilots for Euro fighters

link

With RAF short of Pilots and other Instructors deputed in Saudi ,will it be a problem of instructors for IAF if Euro Fighter is selected ?? We will require Instructors for first few years to train pilots and instructors in IAF don't we ?

manum · Post by **manum** » 31 Mar 2011 00:11

given arabian skills at flying...they will require highest pilot trainer ratio for longest amount of time, and pay extra for them and also feeling obliged by gifting each trainer an oil well to swim....

Any european nation wont have enough pilot to train another nation...they are'always short on human numbers...all we Indians require is a good bargain and basic feedback, maybe after some times our trainers get employed there to train...I am sure we'll make those aircrafts look good...Its Indian air force which is best ad...than any Libya gimic...

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 31 Mar 2011 02:10

^^^^^^^^

manum wrote:given arabian skills at flying...they will require highest pilot trainer ratio for longest amount of time.....

It is a mistake to underestimate any opponent, particularly if they're flying a warplane.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Mar 2011 06:33

manum wrote:given arabian skills at flying...they will require highest pilot trainer ratio for longest amount of time.

If you choose to make such over arching statements, please qualify them or substantiate them.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 31 Mar 2011 09:46

indranilroy wrote:
manum wrote:given arabian skills at flying...they will require highest pilot trainer ratio for longest amount of time.
If you choose to make such over arching statements, please qualify them or substantiate them.

The popular oppinion is that arabs are Dumb fellas. Their planes are flown by free lancers from ex Paki, Muslim CIS countries and others. These kind of things are supposed to be "taken for face value. "