India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 3

kelesis · Post by **kelesis** » 16 Jan 2012 00:52

Good news could be announced soon for the Rafale (Serge Dassault) :

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... first.html

Last week, despite rumors in favor of the Typhoon, the french MoD said there is no obstacle to win the deal.

The french side is not so silent, and they show a lot of confidence.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 Jan 2012 01:09

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jan 2012 02:11

Decision on Multi Role Combat Aircraft in 10 days
Economic Times

The winner of the multi billion dollar deal to procure 126 combat planes for the Indian Air Force is expected to be announced in the next ten days..

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jan 2012 02:17

Mega-defence deal decision by Jan-end
The Pioneer

Sources said here on Sunday the Government will announce the lowest bidder amongst the two in another ten days or so and then the price negotiations will commence followed by the final approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security chaired by the Prime Minister.

Officials said the Government was keen to wrap up the deal before the end of this financial year.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jan 2012 02:19

M.Dassault is one of the shrewdest aerospace individuals alive and does he have an inkling of the decision?

Winner announced and "then price negotiations" ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2012 02:50

Badar wrote:
NRao wrote:Since the IAF still will need fillers...
We can't talk of "fillers" and then talk of inducting Rafales and Eurofighters or PAF-FA or F-35 or F-15s. These are premier top of the line and top dollar fighters. If we want fillers we should be talking about LCA, JF-17 or as the upper limit JAS.39.

Top-of-the-line? What is then a PAK-FA? The induction of both is expected to overlap - if I believe Babudom.

AT $8 billion, OK even at $11 billion IMHO we can consider these two. AT $15+ billion and counting? Top-of-which-line?

At some point in cost the ROI has to go -ve. I say $11 billion. After that the Europeans are fleecing. It is a deliberate act IMHO.

IAF started out in the middle ages saying our Fishbeds lifetimes are done, we need something fast and cheap to fill up the alarmingly falling squadron numbers. And they escalated the requirements until none other than the ultra expensive and ultra sophisticated aircraft were good enough, that too projected future variants, not existing ready-to-go designs. Now when the time comes to pay the piper the hill is too steep to climb. IAF has no one to blame but themselves. They will most likely get the MMRCA, but they will have to pay by giving up something else. Tankers? Follow on AWACS? Elint? Jammers? Satellite fleet?Fleet Readiness? Who knows?

No problem with all that. 1+ if need be. (Good starting material to write a book I would say.)

However, such talk does not help.

The question - to me - is, are these pups (great as they are) worth $15-20 Billion in life cycle costs? And, THAT does not seem to include ammo to play around with. With the MICA costs, I assume these 126 planes + ammo will be in the 'hood of $30 billion.

Now, IF IAF can get $15 billion worth of planes/ammo - as offsets, then MAY BE we can talk.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2012 03:04

There should be offsets and agreements such that all upgrades /modifications can be performed by India.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Jan 2012 03:22

Some reports suggesing that the winner could be announced as early as this thursday this week, during the CCS meet (scheduled for thursday to finalise the deal for basic thrainers).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2012 04:51

so what? chai-biskoot-wala is not showing any happy faces yet.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jan 2012 06:56

Shalav wrote:...

Abhik,

See above. AFAIR the A330 deal was cancelled based on objections due to insufficient competition since the IL 78 was never evaluated. The approval for new tankers is still valid, the exact airframes are yet to be finalised.

As per news reports, it had more to do with the costs exceeding the original budget set for the 6 MRTT. The original budget was set at $1.1 billion but A330 winner came out to be around $1.8 billion. That is more than 60% over the original budget. Naturally, finance ministry asked the IAF to justify the extra costs; however, the IAF did not have the necessary "proof", such as life cycle costs, etc., as these were not in the original tender requirements. The new tender asks for such information and the MRTT budget has been increased to $2 billion.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Jan 2012 07:36

Why can't we buy used a-330's and then refurb them for tanker operations. Those things are good for cargo and duties like much longer than what they can be used for passenger work. Why do we need new ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2012 07:42

The same will be asked now.. Justify $12-30b for the chosen MRCA.. the cheaper options are available from unkill land for the same technology at b@lls chewing strategy. Get MoF-ed now!.. well one respects strategy and freedom values in terms of moolahs, there goes the value system.. just like asking how much money is a fauj worth?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2012 07:46

atleast for tankers, modding old A330 should be feasible I think. the DHL/UPS/Fedex are full of ex-civilian planes like B747 and 767 that run long haul ops with high duty cycle.
the israelis as usual always think along such lines:
and here the 707s in question must be re-engined ones with airframe thats atleast 30 years old!
in our case, we would not even need to re-engine a330 or a310. looks like they do NOT install any addl pallet fuel tanks in A330/707 but just rip out all seating, toilets, etc into a more minimal arrangement for the crew to reduce weight. install the boom and operator station and just use the aircrafts integral fuel tanks.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-329976/
The Israeli air force will soon receive another Boeing 707 modified to a tanker configuration, as part of a strategic effort to enhance its aerial refuelling capability.

Israel had planned to purchase the same tanker selected for the US Air Force's KC-X requirement, but has decided to convert more 707s to the role due to selection delays. "The 707 tanker fleet is the right solution for the coming years," says one Israeli defence source.

The additional aircraft will be rolled out soon, with its conversion being performed by Israel Aerospace Industries.

At one point the air force evaluated the conversion of Boeing 767s for the tanker role, but concluded that a two-fleet solution would be too expensive.

The service last year began to equip its 707 "Reem" fleet with new glass cockpits as part of a life-extension programme for the type. The Honywell cockpit includes six multi-function displays, new communications equipment and a global air traffic management system. It also replaces an Israeli-made refuelling boom with the same design used by the USAF's KC-135 tankers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2012 07:54

interior shot of a KC-10 extender shows its really a combi ac with a functional cargo hold for pallets
http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/KC ... r_view.jpg

and for KC-135 - just a empty hold, with no pallet moving rail system but holes to tie down equipment
http://image66.webshots.com/666/0/16/65 ... Pij_ph.jpg

thats why IAI is able to do the tanker conversions we hear about - it just involves the operator stn, refueling booms or hoses and the interface to the planes fuel system which is likely standard on all Khan refuelers and can be imported and fixed under OEM supervision.

I believe even HAL should be able to do it under supervision of Airbus or Boeing.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jan 2012 08:02

Philip wrote:M.Dassault is one of the shrewdest aerospace individuals alive and does he have an inkling of the decision?

Winner announced and "then price negotiations" ?

It is an oxymoron. L1 decided and then "price negotiations"?

Either it is serious DDMitis, or rules have changed so much, leaving a lot of holes for others to help themselves to the honey of money.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 16 Jan 2012 09:53

Price negotiations means "Bargaining ", kya bhai kuch discount karo yaar , 126 plane le rahe hai , aur tumhare be tange chal rahe hai

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jan 2012 10:08

karan_mc wrote:Price negotiations means "Bargaining ", kya bhai kuch discount karo yaar , 126 plane le rahe hai , aur tumhare be tange chal rahe hai

Bargaining is done from a position of strength, where the vendor's desperation to win the order is skillfully leveraged to reduce his price.

After awarding him the deal, to ask for a reduction in price is like

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 16 Jan 2012 10:17

^^^ probably why there is an L2.

It is a buyers market when you are talking about 126-200 fighters. Hope they leverage that strength

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 16 Jan 2012 10:44

NRao wrote:Top-of-the-line? What is then a PAK-FA? The induction of both is expected to overlap - if I believe Babudom.

My point was not that PAK-FA and Rafale and Eurofighter are not top of the line, but that they are. You want large numbers for fillers, then you buy cheaper less capable machines - LCA to Gripen range perhaps.

The question - to me - is, are these pups (great as they are) worth $15-20 Billion in life cycle costs? And, THAT does not seem to include ammo to play around with. With the MICA costs, I assume these 126 planes + ammo will be in the 'hood of $30 billion.

I have been trying glean that for the last couple of pages. What do the euromachines offer that the IAF don't have? Other than avoiding a mono-culture I have not found any answers. And one can avoid the mono-culture risk without going all F-22 on the budget.

Now, IF IAF can get $15 billion worth of planes/ammo - as offsets, then MAY BE we can talk.

Absolutely. And if we can actually talk of the actual offsets multipliers as well then that talk could also make some sense.

If a "defense quality bolt" is worth 5 times a "industrial quality bolt" which is worth 2 times an "agricultural bolt" then the offset agreements can simply be met with an one billion dollar reinvestment on a ten billion dollar purchase. A factory to make the landing gears (with all the associated markups) plus some miscellaneous oddments here and there and "offsets" are satisfied! So what did we get in the end?

People on BR (not you NRao) use the word offsets like a magic clause along with ToT and design data etc. The devil remains in the details. And the devil doesn't like us.

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Jan 2012 11:49

-Self Delete-

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Jan 2012 11:50

Badar wrote: If a "defense quality bolt" is worth 5 times a "industrial quality bolt" which is worth 2 times an "agricultural bolt" then the offset agreements can simply be met with an one billion dollar reinvestment on a ten billion dollar purchase. A factory to make the landing gears (with all the associated markups) plus some miscellaneous oddments here and there and "offsets" are satisfied! So what did we get in the end?

People on BR (not you NRao) use the word offsets like a magic clause along with ToT and design data etc. The devil remains in the details. And the devil doesn't like us.

Offsets in whatever form are a welcome. They are primarily intended to contain cash outflow and they adding to the ToT is not mandatory however it is welcome. ToT OTOH is a different issue.

I have been trying glean that for the last couple of pages. What do the euromachines offer that the IAF don't have? Other than avoiding a mono-culture I have not found any answers. And one can avoid the mono-culture risk without going all F-22 on the budget.

My exact thoughts sometime back. I got reluctantly convinced that Eggs in one basket is a bit more political safety. However the decision to go with EF if at all might again compromise this.

One point I would like to put against LCA/Gripen as gap fillers is that: IAF faces serious numeric disadvantage against PAF+PLAAF. Though Gripen and LCA can hold their own against most of the enemy AC it is only the AC like EF, Rafa that can ensure more odds in favor of IAF.

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Jan 2012 11:57

rajanb wrote: It is an oxymoron. L1 decided and then "price negotiations"?

Either it is serious DDMitis, or rules have changed so much, leaving a lot of holes for others to help themselves to the honey of money.

I think the L1 might be on a per aircraft life-cycle cost basis.
Once the L1 is decided the negotiations may be to decide the discounts we may get on follow on orders for additional engines, avionics and other fall back equipment or more planes, weapons etc.
In this case the selection may not necessarily be on L1.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 16 Jan 2012 12:06

koti, indeed offsets are welcome, in whatever form. I just want to point out that 30% offset doesn't mean that 3billion of the 10 billion contract are invested back into India. To encourage investment in the desired segments of the economy India will offer "multipliers". 1 dollar invested in agriculture is counted as a dollar, a dollar in chemical industry is counted as a 4 dollars to meet the offset obligation. High priority areas live defense high technology will be given a 7 or 10 fold multiplier to encourage investment in that area. The net result is that actual dollars that are reinvested back could well be a 10th of the actual nominal offset value. This defeats the very economic basis of the offset argument.

What about the technology gained through investment in defense areas thus encouraged? Well we will see gun port covers for F-18s, Wheel deck cover for the airbus landing gears etc. Neat, but not quite earth shaking. No latest design and fabrication of AESA T/R radar elements or sexy items like that.

In summary, offsets make a economic argument, then dilute it with multipliers. We end up getting neither substantial economic nor technological dividend out of the whole deal. We more or less get mumble number of aircraft for mumble billion euro. Rest is the sugar coating on the pill to make it easy to swallow. So when talking about the real cost/benefits of an expensive acquisition, the offsets/ToT etc which while desirable in themselves, do not even begin to justify a tenth of the program cost.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Jan 2012 12:10

Badar wrote: IAF started out in the middle ages saying our Fishbeds lifetimes are done, we need something fast and cheap to fill up the alarmingly falling squadron numbers. And they escalated the requirements until none other than the ultra expensive and ultra sophisticated aircraft were good enough, that too projected future variants, not existing ready-to-go designs. Now when the time comes to pay the piper the hill is too steep to climb. IAF has no one to blame but themselves. They will most likely get the MMRCA, but they will have to pay by giving up something else. Tankers? Follow on AWACS? Elint? Jammers? Satellite fleet?Fleet Readiness? Who knows?

Badar, I think that gross misrepresentation of the situation. The MMRCA saga is not of the IAF making. IIRC, IAF had projected replacement of Mig-21 in 1978 and they wanted a simple bird - but, then LCA was born to serve the twin objective of replacing the Mig-21 in IAF service as well as kick start the aviation sector in India. LCA was/is as much an attempt to make a top-class plane as it is to make India self-reliant in most critical tech in aviation segment. But then - IMO, the programme had a fundamental flaw;it did not derisk the development of all high-tech stuff from delivering the actual combat a/c to the IAF. And we know where we are. Part II of the saga was IAF requesting 126 M2K...which again never came. If the LCA (or a more simpler derivative thereof) had come online on time and M2K materialized, then between them, IAF could have inducted ~200 birds. The whole MMRCA saga simply would not have come up. The next level of transition would have been to Pak-Fa and AMCA.

Coming to MMRCA today, well, you cannot fault the IAF to go for a top of the line a/c which is going to serve 30years into future. Not only it should be able to absorb the technology evolving as we speak but also keep toe-to-toe with a/c from PLAAF and PAF.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jan 2012 12:11

koti wrote:
rajanb wrote: It is an oxymoron. L1 decided and then "price negotiations"?

Either it is serious DDMitis, or rules have changed so much, leaving a lot of holes for others to help themselves to the honey of money.
I think the L1 might be on a per aircraft life-cycle cost basis.
Once the L1 is decided the negotiations may be to decide the discounts we may get on follow on orders for additional engines, avionics and other fall back equipment or more planes, weapons etc.
In this case the selection may not necessarily be on L1.

In a way I agree. Even after the L1 is decided, wouldn't it be better to ask both vendors to come back with a total price for the follow on orders etc.? If the vendors are hungry, as they should be, L2 could actually become L1,overall.

After all, 5% of US$20B is a cool $1B which can easily be used elsewhere. One more round of competitive bidding would be valuable to us!

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jan 2012 12:15

Agreed Rohit.

Our armed forces may and in certain cases do have plans extending for years ahead. But babudom and political will and risk mitigation, the lack of management of these three factors not only scuttle valid plans but we end up spending more!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 16 Jan 2012 12:23

In real terms, the sky has fallen on the MMRCA so its no surprise that the babus are struggling with the nth decimal point. Who would have thought that Europe would come close to bankruptcy and the Rupee would decline by 25%, all within 6 months?

koti wrote:One point I would like to put against LCA/Gripen as gap fillers is that: IAF faces serious numeric disadvantage against PAF+PLAAF. Though Gripen and LCA can hold their own against most of the enemy AC it is only the AC like EF, Rafa that can ensure more odds in favor of IAF.

Agreed except that the Super Hornet is also a similar force multiplier and now, a much more attractive option.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 16 Jan 2012 12:49

koti wrote:One point I would like to put against LCA/Gripen as gap fillers is that: IAF faces serious numeric disadvantage against PAF+PLAAF. Though Gripen and LCA can hold their own against most of the enemy AC it is only the AC like EF, Rafa that can ensure more odds in favor of IAF.

rohitvats wrote:Not only it should be able to absorb the technology evolving as we speak but also keep toe-to-toe with a/c from PLAAF and PAF.

Should the IAF objective be to have parity with PLAAF+PAF? Or just parity with PLAAF? Or just enough moxie not to get outclassed by PLAAF? Or should IAF accept it can't compete with PLAAF and have sufficient minimal force to deter PLAAF adventurism (PAF doctrine).

How does one deal with the basic reality of 114 billion vs 34 billion?

Rohit, I will accept your admonishment that IAF is not the sole culprit in the MMRCA saga.

Coming to MMRCA today, well, you cannot fault the IAF to go for a top of the line a/c which is going to serve 30years into future.

Sure we can, with the current fiscal realities you get the numbers or you get the quality. Can't afford both. Some are going so far as to suggest neither! Which is the more pressing issue today - numbers shortfall? Then get Gripen in numbers. Declining qualitative advantage? Then get fewer euromachines.

IAF wants numbers (reasonable) and quality (reasonable again) as well as source diversity (very prudent). All three at the same time? Plus the hidden and not so hidden expenses of ToT and offsets etc - its a bridge too far I suspect. I do think we will get MMRCA in some fashion, but whats uncertain is what else has to be given up.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 16 Jan 2012 12:56

Rumor-e-French

Final word on IAF contract in 10 days

India is set to announce the winner of the multi-billion dollar deal to procure next generation fighters by the end of this month with complex calculations to find the cheapest option set to conclude over the next few days.

The proposals of the two contenders — French Dassault Rafale and EADS Eurofighter — have been scrutinised and final calculations related to life cycle costs and transfer of technology details are being finalised. While IAF sources have said the winner would be announced in the next 10 days, Defence Ministry officials said the decision would be announced by the end of this month.

With both contenders clearing the technical trials, the decision will be based on which of the two is cheaper, not just in immediate capital costs but in long-term operating and maintenance costs. Though both the ministry and IAF have been tight-lipped on the probable winner, the French proposal is believed to be slightly cheaper.

The final signing of the contract, however could take up to six months, the sources said. The original plan was to sign the contract this financial year, but it could be shifted beyond March.

While the fighter project is the biggest acquisition being handled by the Air Force, another project to procure a new basic trainer fleet will also be discussed by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) this week, the sources said. The IAF has already selected Pilatus PC 7 aircraft from Switzerland for the deal to purchase 75 basic trainers.

However, the deal has got delayed after South Korea, which was also participating in the competition, sent a formal note of protest to the Indian government on the selection process.

The CCS had earlier this month asked the Defence Ministry and Air Force for clarifications on the deal, particularly related to technology transfer, issues which had been raised by Seoul.

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Jan 2012 12:57

An important point to note however is that though the Deal may seem unsavory now due to the economic clout it makes no difference in our threat perception which only increased.

12 Billion a year ago is different from a 12 Billion now. However the threat perception a year ago is same if not more as that now.
It can be very rationally argued that 260 LCA plus some additional Tankers and Awacs for the AF will be much better against 126 EF, but the time we may spend in analyzing and finalizing these(realistically, not ideally) will negate these advantages and we simple increase the number of points of failure.

member_22516 · Post by **member_22516** » 16 Jan 2012 13:19

So things seem to hurry now.
I think that the most important is to know if India is willing to get high technology and to be able to master it for our own LCA to improve and upgrade ourseleves these various aircraft and missiles.
If it's the main goal, then i would go for Rafale :
-already multirole a2a, a2g, nuclear, recce.
-but also already AESA which technology could be derived in few years for LCA next radar (we would have to wait until 2016 with EF) (RBE2 antenna's size is compatible with LCA nose).
-and missiles technology could be in the bargain with france although Typhoon has got US missiles which are unlikely to share any technology (when they agreee to give the codes to training, see amraam for F18 in Finland and for F16 in Chile -missiles are bought but remain in USA for "security purpose").
So my heart is clearly in favour of Raffy. We pay the high price, but we get knowhow and can have longterm technology for all IAF.

If it's a political choice, then our PM knows better than me who's the best partner.

If the choice is politics, then the PM knows better than me.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 13:22

There is no time for anything. But if the deal is cancelled, due to price issue by the cabinet, then there must be an immediate order for 126 Tejas Mark-1. Also invest some amount in Astra and Miniature LGB's being developed by DRDO and speed up the process. That will help. This to be followed by order for trainers and six tankers.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jan 2012 13:28

^^Are we ready for Tejas-I without FOC which is reportedly at least two years away?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 13:42

Even the MMRCA will arrive during that period only. It will take further 6 months to complete the negotiations. It can even be one year time. Then for the first batch of MMRCA to arrive may take the same time along with many issues like training, spares......
Now it's the IAF that's saying the FOC is going to be in 2014 but DRDO still maintains that it will be by 2012 end. Atleast we can expect it in 2013.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 16 Jan 2012 14:07

Just putting it here to highlight that FM is not cancelling all modernization to pay for their Food Security Bill.

FM assures army funds to create new strike corps

Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has assured army chief General VK Singh that fiscal go-ahead for creation of a new strike corps based at Pannagarh and bolstering up of defence along the 4,057 kilometre Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China will soon be accorded so that the vital matter is
taken up for approval by the Cabinet Committee for Security (CCS).

Mukherjee gave this verbal commitment when General Singh called on the finance minister after his return from Myanmar on January 9, and requested him for speedy expedition of the force and weapon accretion process so that orders could be issued for recruitment and raising two more divisions for proposed Pannagarh Corps.

Singh has met Mukherjee thrice on this issue and has written at least once to the Finance Ministry after the latter raised sundry questions on the Indian Army's threat assessment on China owing to significant financial implications involved.
.
.
.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jan 2012 16:00

How are the SoKos suddenly spiking a done decision,basic trainers ,where Pilatus' bird which universally has been acknowledged as perhaps being the best,whose flying configuration can be modified to suit charcteristics of various aircraft from east and west,even leapfrogging the need for an AJT,where the trainee pilots can go straight onto a combat jet?

I agree with the sentiments of many above on the cost factor.The MMRCA requirement,where we are now wanting the best from Europe,with both aircraft designed to deal with Cold War scenarios,now comes in at phenomenal prices,is in complete opposition to the original need to replace the hundreds of cheap and affordable and easy to build MIG-21s.OK,the LCA has failed to arrive in time and we now need a stop-gap filler,but sufficiently advanced to last 2-3 decades in service.US aircraft being given the thumbs down,mainly I feel because of the threat of sanctions,that Pak operates F-16s,and that both were 3 decades-old designs with much "makeup".The obvious choice then ,especially when the IAF were originally wanting more M-2000s a single-engined fighter,would've been either the Gripen or MIG-35.Both around $40-50m per piece.The MIG,because the earlier avatar MIG-29 was already in service and being upgraded, and the Gripen if we wanted Euro TOT.Buying the Raffy or Tiffy is the equiv. of buying another top-of-the-line aircraft like the SU-30MKI,which we know from exercises with the west,can better or at least hold its own with either of these two birds at a lesser cost.

There would've been no conflict had we bought both Gripen and developed the LCA MK-2 with plans to acquire at least 200 of each (epecially as the IAF needs to have a large strong inventory to be able to dela withthe joint Sino-Pak threat),as in the past we have had such an assortment of MIGs, (21s,21-Bisons,23,s,25s,27s,and 29s) in service,not to mention Jags and Mirages and SU-30s simultaneously! That is an extraordinary total of "9" combat types in service at the same time.Replacing the several hundreds of MIG-21s,21-Bisons,23s,27s, with just two types,LCAs and Gripens,would've been extremely cost effective.Several nations have sensibly chosen the Gripen as their premier fighter,let alone the "medium" role prescribed for by the IAF,where the Flanker MKIs and in the future FGFAs will continue to remain as top dogs.Had either the Gripen or MIG-29 been chosen,it would've most likely remained within the budget estimated ($10B) and available "two for the price of one (Eurobird)"!

If we stay with either of the two Eurobirds,and want to buy the original number specified,then the extra money is going to come from OUR pockets.Taxes will be raised everywhere to accomodate the GOI's profligacy and bungling.With our geriatric leaders more interested in the "security of their seats",rather than the "security of the nation",especially after earlier ordering 12 (?) VVIP EH-101s of the type offered to the US pres. ("Marine Corps-1") ,costs are relative to the comfort of the leadership!

member_22516 · Post by **member_22516** » 16 Jan 2012 17:21

Concerning Gripen, its price is lower, but the gripenNG is only paper aircraft, half technology is US made (so no transfer to be awaited), they do not have AESA yet, and SAAB industry may not last many years (they won't produce cars in few months).

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 17:44

Philip, no more imports. It's time to build our own. The two contenders being the Typhoon and the Rafale are the best amount these. Now if the deal is cancelled. Not saying it must. But if the cost is so high and the deal is cancelled, then there must be only one option and that's 126 Tejas Mk.1. And if the govt didn't find it difficult to fund the MMRCA, so let them choose the one best from the two available.

nits · Post by **nits** » 16 Jan 2012 17:52

if fund is the issue; reduce the #'s... why to cancel the whole deal..?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jan 2012 17:58

Yes one option is to cut it to 60 aircrafts and have around 66 Tejas added to the current order of 40. But some say that if the number is reduced then the chances of technological transfer etc gets reduced and the benefits are going to be lesser and the cost of each system will go up substantially. If that's the case completely cancel the deal and go for Tejas Mk.1.