Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Oct 2014 02:41

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 133  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2012 20:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31
Posts: 2213
Both Dassault and Boeing have scoped out HAL and decided it is not a partner they want to rely on for major projects. MoD and GoI have been made aware of this, along with the reasons why and all indications are that they are seeing the light (bona fide miracle). There is no way that Dassault will air its reservations in public without the tacit blessing of the real buyer--the IAF, not HAL or even the MoD. Let's see the response from IAF, MoD and GoI to this public vote of non-confidence in HAL.

Foreign firms know that the Rafale is probably the last major Indian fully imported warplane but they also know that India will remain a major civil and military market for them. The world is moving towards integrated manufacturing blocs and no single country, not even the US, can handle the complexity and cost of future systems. For India, Boeing has chosen Tata and Dassault has chosen Reliance and that's how it will be.

India will emerge from this as a significant player in aerospace within a decade and will get its ToT. I don't see HAL as we know it anywhere in the picture.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2012 20:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32958
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the first blow was likely to be a C130J production line under Tatas.

HAL has dragged out the rotting carcass of the MTA , put a cloth over it, logged it into the ICU and entered a inpatient into the record to try and head that off.

my feel is IAF wont have any interest in this dead dog and instead push strongly for more C17 and C130J with local assembly , base repair and parts making of C130J....

Russia could be well advised to hedge its bets and seek new 'friends' in India :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2012 20:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 507
Victor wrote:
There is no way that Dassault will air its reservations in public without the tacit blessing of the real buyer--the IAF


You may have a point in this and there is no doubt that Reliance and Dassault have deep pocket to setup the facilities for Rafale manufacture in India. My only concern is related to what happens after Rafale manufacture . Probably the tech received as part of the deal ( A or B grade tech ) may be part of India , but how much this setup built within the country be ready to contribute for future aviation tech.
For example as part of next step , will we see Tata's with the experience gained with Boeing and Reliance with the experience gained from Dassault (or for that matter any Indian company ) contribute for the development/production of AMCA / Mk.2 and later on compete with each other for future combat systems for India like a LM and Boeing in US

Really wish such a setup in India at the earliest 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 00:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10906
Location: Illini Nation
1) The GoI and other agencies within India would like the MMRCA effort to make India self sufficient

2) The MMRCA vendors (Rafale, etc) would like to do just enough to fulfill their obligations towards the MMRCA contracts and nothing more

3) Any other Indian entity (Tata/Reliant) would/should have their own need/goal to get involved with such projects, which I suspect is to make them self sufficient and dominant in these fields

None of them, none, have very similar goals (and perhaps rightfully so). To the extent they have some overlaps they will cooperate, else they will compete. It is natural.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 00:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1865
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
dhiraj wrote:
You may have a point in this and there is no doubt that Reliance and Dassault have deep pocket to setup the facilities for Rafale manufacture in India. My only concern is related to what happens after Rafale manufacture . Probably the tech received as part of the deal ( A or B grade tech ) may be part of India , but how much this setup built within the country be ready to contribute for future aviation tech.
For example as part of next step , will we see Tata's with the experience gained with Boeing and Reliance with the experience gained from Dassault (or for that matter any Indian company ) contribute for the development/production of AMCA / Mk.2 and later on compete with each other for future combat systems for India like a LM and Boeing in US


Now you are asking the right questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 00:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27
Posts: 348
One thing that can be said is that if there is one private Indian company that can break the monopoly of HAL and other defence PSU's then it is Reliance. They have the muscle to barge into the domains of the defence PSU's. I am not a great fan of reliance but if they can open up the defence sector to private industry then all the power to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 00:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10906
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
For example as part of next step , will we see Tata's with the experience gained with Boeing and Reliance with the experience gained from Dassault (or for that matter any Indian company ) contribute for the development/production of AMCA / Mk.2 and later on compete with each other for future combat systems for India like a LM and Boeing in US

Really wish such a setup in India at the earliest


No matter what

1) We need to understand that when we talk about India being self sufficient it means only in critical areas and NOT in every area (for that will not happen)
2) Even with the assistance of Boeing and Dassault (and Sukhoi for PMF) it will mean just what they give India and nothing more. So, if the AMCA requires something different we are back to the drawing board.
3) Secondly, since India is being given things she has not really done work ground-up. So, there will still be a learning curve there too

It is a very long and a slippery road. Do not expect anything in the next 10 years or so. The MKI experience which was supposed to add to the knowledge base did nothing so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 02:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56
Posts: 220
Location: Vancouver Canada
Let Relaince manafacture the rafael the tot fm dassualt/thales etc,should not be handed over to one entity but will be shared by a pool of pvt and public companies. Stiff financial penalties for missing deadlines. be it in tot or manafacturing. I do not see any thing wrong with above it is widening the scope of IAF down the line, maybe after 10 years HAL will be given a run for the money and we will see the product manafactured on time under budget


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 07:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
I think Reliance or Tatas or whoever it is, needs heckuva lot of consultants and contractors or people from DRDO and HAL on assignments with private bonus. That is the only way to head start, else they have no immediate resource. It is going to be a slow painful process for reliance or tatas. Tatas imho, is more capable than reliance in defense equipments especially on the niche market and complex engineering.

I am sure, Dassault saw reliance face, and was very clear on their approach.. the fact they are asking about controls, really says a lot about our setups.

sad


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2012 02:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
[quote], one cannot help recalling that not a single country with which India has military-technical cooperation has ever sold a licence for the production of military hardware supplied to India. Even AEDS who won the tender to supply 126 Rafale fighters, and in accordance with the tender terms was obliged to offer a licence for the production of the plane at Indian plants is trying to sidestep or alter that provision. This has delayed the signing of a contract between Paris and Delhi, bringing into question the French victory in this tender.

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/12/24/di ... 21241.html[quote]

!!!???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2012 04:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27
Posts: 348
Is Dassault shooting itself in the foot like it has in other places in the recent past?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2012 06:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
India has been smitten earlier.. shouldn't be afraid to shy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2013 22:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
Quote:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19846
The French company had told the ministry that if it is given the overall responsibility for the project, it should be given the freedom to decide on the proportion of work to be done by HAL and private companies in the programme

If the government had given a major role to the French firm in producing the aircraft in the country, it would have assigned a major share of work to an Indian defence company.

I think EADS was right in their assumptions. I think GoI did well here.. and saved their votes.

HAL needs to better look at how to engage private industries real quick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2013 23:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3822
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
MMRCA project: Govt firm on HAL as lead integrator

Quote:
NEW DELHI: The defence ministry has decided to remain firm on having Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) as the lead integrator for producing 108 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) in the country, virtually turning down French firm Dassault Aviation's plea to play a bigger role in the multi-billion dollar project.
...
...
As per the tender, first 18 of the 126 aircraft are to be supplied by Rafale from its facilities and the rest 108 are to be license produced and integrated by the HAL at its facilities here.

If any company other than HAL is designated as the integrator, it would be deviation from the tender issued for the project and as per the defence procurement procedure, it will have to be approved by the defence acquisition council, defence ministry sources said.

In view of this, the ministry has decided that it will stick to the clauses of the tender issued in 2007, they said.
...
...
The ministry is expected to convey its decision on the issue to the company during the negotiations on the deal beginning next week.

The French company had told the ministry that if it is given the overall responsibility for the project, it should be given the freedom to decide on the proportion of work to be done by HAL and private companies in the programme

If the government had given a major role to the French firm in producing the aircraft in the country, it would have assigned a major share of work to an Indian defence company.
...
...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 22:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2896
MMRCA deal: Negotiations between defence ministry, Dassault run into fresh hurdle.

Negotiations between France’s Dassault Aviation and the Defence Ministry for the $ 10.4 bn (Rs 45,000 crore) Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender to acquire 126 fighter aircrafts for the IAF have hit another roadblock.

Highly placed sources told FE, the ministry of defence has turned down Dassault’s assertion that if it is given the overall responsibility of the project, it should be given the freedom to decide on the quantum of work to be shared between Hindustan Aeronatics Limited (HAL) and private companies in the programme. Dassault had made this point in a letter to the Defence Ministry late last year along with a demand that the ministry define HAL’s role in MMRCA.

While rebuffing Dassault’s contention, the ministry has also highlighted that the RfP for the tender issued in 2007 clearly outlines role of HAL as the project’s ‘lead-integrator’ and changes at this stage cannot be permitted.

Soon after Dassault emerged the lowest bidder (L-1) beating its rival Eurofighter on life cycle costs, the French company signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Reliance Industries to work together in Indian defence and security sectors. Industry sources indicated that, “The French company are anxious to start work with Reliance Industries Ltd under the MoU that was inked in 2012 June.”

The latest development adds to a long list of hurdles negotiations have faced since Dassault’s selection as L-1 in January last year.

According to official sources, the negotiations have dragged on for so long also due to issues related to MMRCA’s 50% offsets requirement and transfer of technology. The French, it appears, are unwilling to transfer cutting edge technology such as that of the electronically scanned AESA radar while citing lack of maturity of the Indian defence industry to absorb such critical technologies as an excuse.

There is a strong lobby of small and medium French enterprises which is against industrial offsets and sees it as a threat to the competiveness of the French defence industry. Early last year, Patrick Colas des Francs, chief executive of Coges, the trade show organizer for the Eurosatory land systems exhibition reportedly said, “Offsets are a threat to small and medium-sized companies. This is a real problem.” "Offset deals not only take production work away from French subcontractors and suppliers, but also provide accelerated access to knowledge and skills that allows companies in the client country to compete in world markets," he said.

Acknowledging that negotiations between the two sides are far from over former chief executive of Dassault Charles Edelstenne had told a French parliamentary hearing last month: “We are in deep talks at the moment. It’s a complicated country, the negotiations are tough, but there is a desire to wrap up on both sides.” “I’m relatively optimistic,” he added.

However, the biggest threat to an early conclusion of negotiations comes from the financial squeeze the defence ministry is currently facing. As reported by FE earlier, the MoD has been unable to secure extra budget for this year. Moreover, the armed forces’ capital acquisitions budget has been cut by Rs. 10,000 crore. This is certainly going to derail any hopes of the IAF to lay its hands on MMRCA anytime in the near future. According to officials, contract signing before second half of 2013 looks highly unlikely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 23:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Posts: 604
Location: still settling...
^^ this news is concoction of relative news of various timelines....

can not be taken as current news item...rather a guess out of memory...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 00:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1154
Vipul wrote:
According to officials, contract signing before second half of 2013 looks highly unlikely.


That would be . . . interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 01:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 1665
I don't see any benefits in insisting on HAL as the chief integrator. If a 'Dassault-Reliance Aircraft Company' sets up a factory in India to assemble the Rafale for the IAF, I think it will be good for the Indian aerospace industry.

HAL already has a lot of fighter aircraft work on its plate, with the MKI, the FGFA, and the LCA. A second fighter aircraft assembler will be good for India.

If all it requires is the approval of the Defence Acquisition Committee, it is no big deal. The Govt can get it anytime, if it wants to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 23:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1154
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130106/main5.htm

Quote:
the deal will not be signed before the current financial year comes to an end in March this year

. . .

the government will be left with a narrow window to sign the deal before preparations for the 2014 General Election set-in


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 00:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1865
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Quote:
The French, it appears, are unwilling to transfer cutting edge technology such as that of the electronically scanned AESA radar while citing lack of maturity of the Indian defence industry to absorb such critical technologies as an excuse. :(( :((


The actual reason for this whine is given in the very next para itself, no country will part away with tech which ultimately is going to hurt it's interest in the long run. Personally I have zero hope of getting any cutting edge tech with this Rafale deal instead what we do to deal with our problems coming up in LCA is going to establish the technical base and knowledge required for an aerospace industry. MMRCA is moh maya only nothing good is going to come from this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 05:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10988
Location: India
The PSUs,run by baudom do not want any competition from pvt. Indian industry whatsoever.Their dog-in-the-manger attitude has resulted in massive delays,cost overruns and shoddy quality for decades.It was easier in the past when we had tough and reliable ,relatively simple tech in Soviet era weapon systems which could take a lot of punishment,but today,systems are so complex and sophisticated that the screwdriver art of putting them together is now obsolete.

What the GOI/MOD must do is to involve pvt. Indian industry in a phased manner and also bold enough to bar any PSU that has had a record of non-performance.ideally,a new JV for the Rafale deal as has been done with the very successful Brahmos programme should be initiated.A separate entity under HAL but run by the IAF.It is only when the IAF got into the act that some progress has been made on the LCA,still waiting to be perfected for IAF service.

As for the AESA and other eqpt.,some of the PSUs have had success even reported in AWST from time to time.Why can't the radar be handled by BEL which make a wide variety of systems and surely can handle the same? If the French are using this as an excuse not to give us the tech,then we must firmly tell them that without AESA TOT in full the deal is OFF.We do have alternatives in the future with the FGFA and if we need to keep numbers in the IAF happy at low cost,all we need to do is to buy more Flanker variants,including the SU-34, and/or the MIG-35s,both cheaper options too! I am sure that other losers like the Gripen will be on the first flight into Delhi should we say to Dassault,"au revoir" froggie!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 05:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2012 22:34
Posts: 402
Time to scrap the MMRCA and focus on LCA-MkII. Order 400-500 Ge-414's and focus on getting the LCA-MKII to IOC. MKI at top end with PAK-FA and LCA-MKII at lower end will do till Kaveri and MCA come online.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 05:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10988
Location: India
Yes thanks Bheesh for adding what I forgot to post.With the money saved,an accelerated programme to perfect LCA Mk-2 will hopefully give us numbers at lower cost,if only we can build at least 36-40 aircraft per year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 07:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
Please don't forget EADS as we have no idea on what price range they missed the deal.., it could be that they will offer us the technologies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 07:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
Assumption here is that throwing more money will solve the problem or bring the solution substantially faster. It's wrong! Often repeated mistake, money is but one of the many resources needed for success. Experience, design data, supplier base, infra and baseline needs time and good management more than they need money. DRDO has never been short of money, it has almost never been denied additional time and money by GOI. Anyhow the DRDO budgets and western budgets are not comparable because they follow completely different accounting. If DRDO budgets were to be calculated using proper GAAP methods they’ll be several times more than what they are on the paper.
Without immediate induction of MMRCA, IAF will be crippled for decades. LCA can't fill the shoes of MRCA regardless of how many Mk versions you churn out. It is a small, short distance fighter which has its own role in IAF plans.
Forget about any war worthy Pak-FA coming in to IAF service anytime before 2025. Moreover they may not become main war fighting asset of IAF until 2030 or later if you go by Russian and DRDO past performances. Generally it takes minimum of 10 years from the first flight to service entry, for a new generation aircraft, in mature markets of EU and USA. For Russian/Indian combined, with their current state of technological and commercial realities, it could take lot longer than 10 years, especially if the claims of "better than F-22" are actually written in to an IAF ASQR.
Anyhow it feels good to be absurdly pro-LCA super jingo, until armed forces are deployed and generals, marshals and admirals tell good 'ol babus and nata's that they can't hardly fight because......xyz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 08:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
well said, and well shown by France et al.. this lesson must be learned by DRDO (especially GTRE) and GoI. One can't just pay money and get IPR-ed products with technology transfer. It would be every other person in the country of seller of technology's dead body sometimes.. These rights are basis for capitalism. It is a joke that GoI and GTRE charter on seeking technology. shame in many sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 09:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22953
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
SaiK wrote:
well said, and well shown by France et al.. this lesson must be learned by DRDO (especially GTRE) and GoI. One can't just pay money and get IPR-ed products with technology transfer. It would be every other person in the country of seller of technology's dead body sometimes.. These rights are basis for capitalism. It is a joke that GoI and GTRE charter on seeking technology. shame in many sense.

Saw part of a Discovery program about Eurofighter 2 days ago.

The Canards have to withstand enormous stresses and are constructed out of a honeycomb like internal structure that is made up of many layers (maybe 7?) of titanium and composites which are pressed together and baked for five hours.

No one will ever tell you anything more than that. How much tiitanium. How was it shaped? What alloys? What was the composites used? What pressures applied? For how long? What temp is the baking?

One can expect that the French will have similar tech and they are not going to "transfer" it. Same think holds true for single crystal blades and blisk. You have to work on it and develop it yourself no matter how long it takes unless you find something better along the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 18:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Posts: 2298
Location: Mansarovar
Let us buy 126 mki' more and be done with this mmrca circus. If France can't share cutting edge tech , so let us leave it with France. With EU economy in deep pakistan , France can not afford to lose this deal. Just it needs to be told so clearly. No cutting edge tech , no deal. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 18:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Nov 2011 18:59
Posts: 453
Boeing and the others were ok with HAL being the Lead integretor but Dassault camp has always been very diffult while dealing with India. It took ages for them to agree on the Mirage upgrade deal. As days go on and Dassault's attitude in rafale deals worldwide will finally cost them dearly. I hope this deal is scrapped and we should buy the EF or SH International right away, both will come with more transfer of tech and less hassles. They also have ridiculous high production rates we could have more than a squadron a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 20:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1199
Katare wrote:
...
Without immediate induction of MMRCA, IAF will be crippled for decades. LCA can't fill the shoes of MRCA regardless of how many Mk versions you churn out. It is a small, short distance fighter which has its own role in IAF plans...

I don't get how the IAF will be "crippled for decades" if it goes for the LCA instead of the MRCA. You are ignoring the fact that the heavy MKI will make up the largest part of the numbers of the IAF for the foreseeable future. What exactly is so special about the MRCA that a force of MKIs+ LCAs cant match?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
Correct.. the selling nations have invested heavy on their R&D, and why would they sell you those tech for you to either re-sell later on or ignore their industries for sure. This is a fear we would have too, if we are a seller of technologies.

GoI and DRDO should raise up their bar, and understand their capabilities first. Sub component level participation with heavy weights like LM, Boeing, GE, RR,Saturn etc gets a level playing experience. Now, transfer those expertise to documents, and start our own design units deliver the needs. Need a lot investment from our own end to make a Rafale or EF2K. It is not a joke here GoI, thinks advanced engineering setup can be established just by throwing some money like they do in land & mining mafia networks.

France clearly knows the weaknesses here.. and thanks to unkill for saying it clear about agreements. At least they were straight forward to call spade a spade, and we were boasting Indo-France relationship to provide anything.

We lack process and production engineering maturity [leaving r&d culture alone]. Only investments in these and a lot of effort (which needs self-less heroes and patriots) to establish like the western heavy weights in advanced tech. Even a Tata or Mahindra maturity levels are not enough to cross boundaries here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9913
Location: In between wars in our time
the ToT model is actually out dated - it worked with aircraft/weapons were just metal turned into shapes. you can copy that, perhaps even learn it. now the brains have gone into materials, electronics and software - and that is really difficult to copy unless you have the full mil-ind complex

we need a new/different model that doesn't tie it self up in ToT legal red herrings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 23:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1154
Septimus P. wrote:
Boeing and the others were ok with HAL being the Lead integretor


I don't think we actually know that . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 23:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 510
yes... this whole ToT halla.. is very confusing... if it had been so successful ..from previous experiences like Mig-29, Mirage 2K and Su-30 MKI .. HAL would have been churning out huge numbers of LCA by now... there is no short cut ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 00:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10988
Location: India
Why can't we acquire (if the Rafale deal collapses) single-seat Flankers which can be configured to matching the role that was intended for the Rafale? The entire lot of Jaguars are to be upgraded with new engines,etc.,which will maintain the current strike capability of these aircraft until the LCAs arrive.MIG-29s are also being upgraded as well as the M-2000s.Extra Flankers makes more sense if we are going to get bogged down with another flying "Scorpene"!

Alternatively,just forget about the TOT for AESA,or even for the rest of the aircraft.Just buy them off the shelf like we did earlier with the Mirages,but lesser in number-about 80+ at a huge price reduction and make up the required numbers with more single-seat Flankers.It will be a lot cheaper and for the long term,we will have just three programmes which we can afford,the FGFA,LCA MK-2 and the AMCA-which could use the funds saved on the Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 00:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
What is the advantage of flankers? Most likely they'll cost more and have inferior performance to MRCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 00:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
abhik wrote:
Katare wrote:
...
Without immediate induction of MMRCA, IAF will be crippled for decades. LCA can't fill the shoes of MRCA regardless of how many Mk versions you churn out. It is a small, short distance fighter which has its own role in IAF plans...

I don't get how the IAF will be "crippled for decades" if it goes for the LCA instead of the MRCA. You are ignoring the fact that the heavy MKI will make up the largest part of the numbers of the IAF for the foreseeable future. What exactly is so special about the MRCA that a force of MKIs+ LCAs cant match?


How would you create 40 Squads with non existent (IOC-1) LCA? HAL can't set-up a line to make 8 aircrafts a year, it's starting now with 1500Corer budget. LCA mk2 have not been even integrated with it's new engine. Love and support for domestic MIC is great but national security should not be held hostage for it's sucess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 01:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
The only way to bump the squad numbers is to go for used plane purchases.. that would also mean, that many nations that is offering would have indirect third party license issues etc. For example say: Israel sells off F16s and opts for JSF (hypothetical).

Or, straightaway purchase EF2K/Rafale for couple of squadrons. Then keep options open on them since they are very expensive. Every time IAF feels to add a squadron or two, they can go the expensive route (perhaps a 10 year fixed price agreement - min of 10 A/cs per year or some such..) to just keep bumping up the squadrons, and tech synch ups.

While this happens, MKI gets its upgrade and updates. We have already shown new agreements to buy 40 more, and the super sukhois.

PAKFA, LCA are more realistic than AMCA., so forget about AMCA for now.

Of these two, LCA is more near than PAKFA in terms of bang for the buck. So, the faster we get to LCA Mk2, and converting the 3 legged mk.1 cheetah to a 4 legged mk.2, is the ideal route to real plan.
While we do that, AMCA can take shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 01:14 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08
Posts: 31
Why not buy 40-60 F-16IN from US...F-16, till today, is one of the most capable and battle hardened fighter...and Lockheed Martin will be eager to sell it to India...and preferably should come through the FMS route.

TOT is just a red herring. Had TOT been successful, we would not be struggling with LCA achieving IOC so late...experience with Su-30, MiG-29 would have given us our own fourth generation fighter plane...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2013 01:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25187
Location: NowHere
One has to understand that the last in the game of saying ToT in public was France, but hello,! I don't think they never committed in the DDM circles about ToT, where every other contending seller said, they will. EADS especially was very disappointed, and said, they will return to tables discussing about MRCA pretty soon. They knew very well about the deceiving French.

Also, there was a huge industrial problem in France, and they would hesitate to sell off rather engage their employees get paid. I think their plan might not succeed (earlier they wanted to sell 40 Rafale to IAF - some years back, and now they would go - We told you so!). France has economic crisis, and not as much as Germany.

EADS with the right price would have been better. I still think EADS has a chance to sit with our babooze, and make them realize what they have done here is pathetic. The deal to go with Snecma is also scrapped by MoD/GoI, just for this reason.. GoI is upset with France. period.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 133  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KrishnaK and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group