Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 13 Apr 2013 04:16

I believe, Rafale deal is gone. Anglo German lobby of eurofighter will eventually seal the deal. There will be eu-India FTA signed, UK will serve as entry point for Indian companies, Germans will sell more engineering items and France will eventually leave without deal. I suspect Cameron, merkel, Singh all at one place with fighter negotiation on agenda feels something is cooking back door.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 13 Apr 2013 04:31

ashish raval wrote:I believe, Rafale deal is gone. Anglo German lobby of eurofighter will eventually seal the deal. There will be eu-India FTA signed, UK will serve as entry point for Indian companies, Germans will sell more engineering items and France will eventually leave without deal. I suspect Cameron, merkel, Singh all at one place with fighter negotiation on agenda feels something is cooking back door.

Says the gentleman from England.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 04:39

hello firangs and their lovers, pay attention to LCA a little bit. It requires strong support. LCA future versions can kick Eu butts. For this joy, none other than Indians can do it!.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 13 Apr 2013 12:04

^^ I am all for LCA. The only part I am disappointed is engine. If private companies in the west are able to develop engines, I am not sure why GTRE with the best brains at its disposal could not eventually deliver what AirForce wanted. With 1.2 billion brains. I am hopeful that Tejas team is already working on stealth version.

I distinctly remember time when top 1/5 university toppers would go for ISRO before IT boom set in. By the time I was out of engineering most of these guys would have gone out of country for higher studies by September, soon after final year results arrived in July.

I dont remember if anyone ever chose to join HAL or GTRE. But it can be said these companies never came to my college for hiring, but ISRO did because of its long standing association.

What I believe will eventually happen is by year 2025 Indian private sector would have enough expertise to build fighters from scratch, till then LCA/HAL needs all the support it can.

I don't know why it is not privatised in this day and age.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Apr 2013 12:15

Victor wrote:We should drop the term "LCA" and adopt a more businesslike one like HF-xx which will leave more room for outside speculation on its intended capabilities and also expand our thinking. The days of aspiring to a khadi nano fighter good only for Republic Day fly pasts are over.

+10^9

I always recommend a stint in mongolian camp for those who come up with the "cheapest, smallest, lightest" poverty stricken turd world branding.
such branding killed the Nano's chances for a long time of being seen as a middle class vehicle.

and that virus continues - everything now is "medium" as in medium heli proj, AMCA etc...as if "heavy" is some gora category all turd worlders need not aspire to. and "light" is still gleefully attached to projects like LOH, LCH and LUH. what is light? for Arnie a dumbell of 25KG is light, for me it is heavy..its all relative.

get rid of such names

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 13 Apr 2013 13:39

SaiK wrote:Without LCA mk-3, there would be nothing called AMCA!!

I don't understand what you mean by this statement but there is nothing like LCA Mk.3 right now but work on AMCA is afoot. Moreover when we are making a twin engine medium category stealth fighter why shall we put premium resources behind LCA Mk.3 ???

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 13 Apr 2013 13:57

NRao wrote:@ 8 a year: 125 years
@16: 63 years
@ 40: 25 years

Need to produce at 60-80 a year.

Just saying.

Current fighter with that no. of planned production rate is F-35 (correct me if I am wrong) and the total order for it runs into thousands. I fail to understand this fetish with 32/yr, 20/yr, 18/yr when the total no. of order runs into puny hundreds. If IAF is ready to order a thousand aircraft then the no's can be scaled up. But the IAF does all kinds of rhona dhona to order even those puny hundreds and posters make merry by making below the belt comments about production capacity.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 21:20

Sagar G wrote:
SaiK wrote:Without LCA mk-3, there would be nothing called AMCA!!
I don't understand what you mean by this statement but there is nothing like LCA Mk.3 right now but work on AMCA is afoot. Moreover when we are making a twin engine medium category stealth fighter why shall we put premium resources behind LCA Mk.3 ???

There are so many characteristics and design attributes that needs to be verified. LCA Mk.3 is an ideal and could be me operational while stealth takes shape. Please remember, this staged approach is to minimize the profile for each story line. We don't want to pack everything in AMCA, and the wait like this happens (like happened for LCA, right from Marut). Don't pack all things into one story.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Apr 2013 21:57

When procedures of induction are well established then all various programs could begin independently as well - fully knowing that these programs will aid each one too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 23:22

If the equipment can easily be built in India, or must be because it is so sensitive that no overseas vendor will part with it (e.g. electronic warfare equipment), the procurement is classified “Make (Indian)”. Alternatively, if an Indian company can partner a foreign vendor to build an existing system in India with at least 50% indigenous content, it is classified “Buy & Make (Indian)”. Next, if in-service equipment is to be bought overseas and then license-built in India with transfer of technology (ToT), the procurement is categorized “Buy & Make”. Finally, if neither indigenous design nor manufacture is feasible, and the equipment must be bought over-the-shelf, the procurement is categorized as “Buy (Global)”.
http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=20047

“If the military wants to buy weaponry abroad, it will be required to explain at the categorization stage why it cannot be made in India. It will have to demonstrate that the equipment was conceived of well in time, and that industry was given enough time to develop the equipment. Only if that was done, and industry still failed to develop the equipment, will a category other than ‘Make’ be considered, says the MoD official.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 14 Apr 2013 00:23

SaiK wrote:There are so many characteristics and design attributes that needs to be verified. LCA Mk.3 is an ideal and could be me operational while stealth takes shape. Please remember, this staged approach is to minimize the profile for each story line. We don't want to pack everything in AMCA, and the wait like this happens (like happened for LCA, right from Marut). Don't pack all things into one story.

That is going to happen with AMCA as well and frankly we don't have the leisure to go tranche after tranche improving a bit each time cause right now we are playing catch up with west. Had the damn stars hadn't been aimed for LCA we wouldn't have caught up in tech (mostly). Also you haven't provided any answers as to how the scarce resources are going to be managed if we go for an entirely new stealth LCA mk.3 as well as working on AMCA in parallel. If LCA Mk.3 is thought of as a future upgrade of the Mk.1 and Mk.2 so as to better their stealth capabilities then that's doable but if LCA Mk.3 is thought of as a totally new programme then I don't see the same coming online before AMCA or it having to do anything with LCA cause then it will be a totally new project.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2013 03:15

When you say totally new.. there is a little thinking we need, actually there is nothing in the world that is totally new. Every project has a baseline where it starts, unless it is like in LCA's case or Marut's case. Even here, it is not all from scratch, there were 50% import content, and nearing 70% now. Just think about the case, that IAF says, without Kaveri, they would not accept LCA at all. That would sink it totally.

Resources are utilized better on staged processes, and phased delivery. All phases require all the talents equally distributed in the project. Tranche or phased development methods actually helps in better resource utilization, including brain and materials, and jigs, technology and production line. Phasing also tests out production engineering advancement. For example, it would not put into a problem like HAL facing now, that Dr. Saraswat and Raffale guys says, HAL is not geared for higher tech. Phased and gradual graduation of tech setup, ensures proper utilization of production setup as well., to completion.
The learning from the earlier production line, will definitely transferred to the next in line advancements. We will also learn, what can be reused, and what needs to be bumped up, and what all can be concurrently executed.

It is a much better setup, than a sudden change of all new things. overall, it is a better business model that sustains.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 14 Apr 2013 03:55

SaiK wrote:hello firangs and their lovers, pay attention to LCA a little bit. It requires strong support. LCA future versions can kick Eu butts. For this joy, none other than Indians can do it!.

Yes, "future" versions will also have phasers, anti-matter torpedoes, a cloaking device and Warp drive.

Like the saying goes; if wishes were horses, beggars would ride !

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2013 04:26

fiction has sure gotten into firang lovers, indeed. all things firang are warp driven. btw, you are right in the direction that a $15b tot begging nation would never get to choose.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 14 Apr 2013 05:54

"Firang" and other such xenophobic labels are just another sad way to deflect from India's own inadequacies.

At this point in time it is difficult to decide what is more fictitious - Warp Drive or a "future" LCA/public sector government run fighter program that can "kick" anybody's butt.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2013 07:14

even the sole super power of the world has xenophobic fear right up in their constitution to call all people not born in their nation, as aliens. it is the fear out of national pride and allegiance. there are inadequacies with every nation on the planet, and every nation attends to those in a way relative to what they understand and how they interpret their security issues.

LCA turning into AMCA is not fictitious decision. LCA Mk2 is practical and real, from Mk1 which is getting its FoC soon.. and the firangs will burn their night oil more after that. After that, the kicking will not be restricted only to butts.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Apr 2013 21:35

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:@ 8 a year: 125 years
@16: 63 years
@ 40: 25 years

Need to produce at 60-80 a year.

Just saying.
Current fighter with that no. of planned production rate is F-35 (correct me if I am wrong) and the total order for it runs into thousands. I fail to understand this fetish with 32/yr, 20/yr, 18/yr when the total no. of order runs into puny hundreds. If IAF is ready to order a thousand aircraft then the no's can be scaled up. But the IAF does all kinds of rhona dhona to order even those puny hundreds and posters make merry by making below the belt comments about production capacity.

Actually the F-35's production rate is expected to be well in excess of that - at its peak it'll be comfortably over 200 aircraft/year. As a matter of fact even the venerable F-16 was produced at a staggering rate that peaked in 1987, when 287 aircraft were delivered to various customers (production is projected to carry on until 2016).

A more fitting comparison might be with the Eurofighter - with a confirmed order book totaling 570 IIRC its production rate crossed 45 units/year in 2011.

Don · Post by **Don** » 14 Apr 2013 22:22

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:@ 8 a year: 125 years
@16: 63 years
@ 40: 25 years

Need to produce at 60-80 a year.

Just saying.
Current fighter with that no. of planned production rate is F-35 (correct me if I am wrong) and the total order for it runs into thousands. I fail to understand this fetish with 32/yr, 20/yr, 18/yr when the total no. of order runs into puny hundreds. If IAF is ready to order a thousand aircraft then the no's can be scaled up. But the IAF does all kinds of rhona dhona to order even those puny hundreds and posters make merry by making below the belt comments about production capacity.

India does not have the same Industrial manufacturing capability as Uncle Sam. Just saying....

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 14 Apr 2013 22:53

For all we know reliance itself might have instigated Dassult to put conditions!
After all nation needs self Reliance

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2013 01:12

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:@ 8 a year: 125 years
@16: 63 years
@ 40: 25 years

Need to produce at 60-80 a year.

Just saying.
Current fighter with that no. of planned production rate is F-35 (correct me if I am wrong) and the total order for it runs into thousands. I fail to understand this fetish with 32/yr, 20/yr, 18/yr when the total no. of order runs into puny hundreds. If IAF is ready to order a thousand aircraft then the no's can be scaled up. But the IAF does all kinds of rhona dhona to order even those puny hundreds and posters make merry by making below the belt comments about production capacity.

You would have understood my post IF you had read my post in context of Vic's post.

Now unnecessarily we are going on a tangent.

(Just by the way, if you were to multiply each of those numbers (8*125, 16*63, 40*25) you would come up with around a 1000. Which was what Vic posted - his total came to a 1000 LCAs. Simple. ................... I also added a last line out there, just to protect my post against the like of your's. ....... but you chose to highlight the least meaningful part of my post and call it a fetish !!!)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2013 01:15

Don wrote:
Sagar G wrote: Current fighter with that no. of planned production rate is F-35 (correct me if I am wrong) and the total order for it runs into thousands. I fail to understand this fetish with 32/yr, 20/yr, 18/yr when the total no. of order runs into puny hundreds. If IAF is ready to order a thousand aircraft then the no's can be scaled up. But the IAF does all kinds of rhona dhona to order even those puny hundreds and posters make merry by making below the belt comments about production capacity.
India does not have the same Industrial manufacturing capability as Uncle Sam. Just saying....

IF India can make 8 LCAs per year, she can make 40 per year. Adding lines, which is what we are talking of, is not that much of a big deal.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Apr 2013 18:17

Victor wrote:We should drop the term "LCA" and adopt a more businesslike one like HF-xx which will leave more room for outside speculation on its intended capabilities and also expand our thinking. The days of aspiring to a khadi nano fighter good only for Republic Day fly pasts are over.

High time

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Apr 2013 19:22

If its all relative why rename?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2013 21:59

Looks like more Su-30MKIs is Raffy doesn't make it!!!

This akkal should have been displayed even earlier!!!

IAF to opt for Su-30 if Rafale deal falls flat

IAF to opt for Sukhoi-30 if Rafale deal falls flat

Monday, 08 April 2013 | Rahul Datta | New Delhi

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is coming up with a contingency plan to procure fighter jets to maintain its operational preparedness in case the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal worth over $15 billion to procure 126 Rafale jets does not go through.

The backup plan will see the IAF opting for 50 more Sukhoi-30 MKI jets to be bought off the shelf from Russia. The IAF has already inducted 100 SU-30s and will have 200 more jets in the next three to four years excluding the ones forming part of contingency project.

This development has come about as the MMRCA deal often termed as “mother of all deals” is stuttering due to various reasons, and officials are not able to give any timeline for its completion.

The Defence Ministry and French aviation giant Dassault, manufacturer of Rafale jets, are engaged in contract negotiations after Rafale was selected as the lowest bidder early last year.

However, Dassault recently raised doubts about the capability and role of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to manufacture 108 jets in India. As per the request for proposal (RFP) conditions, India will buy 18 jets off the shelf from the vendor and HAL will manufacture the remaining planes.

Dassault reportedly said it will supply the kits to the Indian public sector aircraft manufacturer and will not be responsible for the final product. Given these reservations, the French company wants to sign a separate contract with HAL for planes to be integrated in India.

India has rejected Dassault’s conditions and maintained that the RFP clearly stipulates that the vendor will be responsible for all the 126 jets and the HAL is the lead integrator.

The Defence Ministry and Dassault are now engaged in talks to sort out this irritant. Besides this issue, the recent AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scandal has jolted the Government and any allegation of bribes or wrongdoing in the MMRCA contract may prove costly for the Congress in the run up to the general elections, sources said.

In this backdrop, the Defence Ministry is taking all precautions to avoid any slip-ups even as the deal is marred by delays as the RFP was issued way back in 2008. Defence Ministry maintains that given the magnitude of the contract, negotiations are “protracted” and claimed that there are no slippages and the process is on track.

Defence Minister A K Antony recently said even after the contract negotiations are over, the deal will have to go through six to seven stages of vetting before the Cabinet Committee on Security(CCS) headed by the Prime Minister and the Union Cabinet gives its approval.

Sources also said if the deal does not go through, the Government will not negotiate with the second lowest bidder Eurofighter (consortium of Germany, France, Italy and UK). Incidentally, reports indicated that Germany will ask the Indian political leadership to reconsider Eurofighter’s bid when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh holds talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week in Berlin.

As regards the IAF preferring SU-30s to meet any contingency, sources said HAL is already manufacturing these jets under transfer of technology pact with Russia and has requisite expertise and facilities for maintenance of the sophisticated planes.

In 1996, India signed a $-1.46 billion contract with Russia to buy 40 SU-30s and a technology transfer agreement for licensed production of 140 fighters at HAL facility in Nasik. Later, the first generation SU-30s were upgraded to SU-30 MKIs with more advanced avionics and weapons systems.

Good pressure tactics.

I wouldn't out it past Reliance insights/scare tactics to make Dassault intransigent.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Apr 2013 22:04

ramana wrote:Looks like more Su-30MKIs is Raffy doesn't make it!!!

This akkal should have been displayed even earlier!!!

IAF to opt for Su-30 if Rafale deal falls flat

Good pressure tactics.

I wouldn't out it past Reliance insights/scare tactics to make Dassault intransigent.

This specific report has been categorically denied by IAF.

Apropos a report in a certain section of the media indicating IAF will opt for Sukhoi-30 if Rafale deal falls flat as on 08 Apr 2013. The IAF strongly denies such report. The CNC (Contract negotiations committee) process for acquisition of 126 MMRCA is underway and there is no thought process for any procurement as a ‘back up’ as reported.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2013 23:54

Do not know what to make out of this:

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/323 ... 85/photo/1

First Key Executives’ Meet 2013: Day-2 Proceedings

MMRCA Project (BC), Shri Kaveri Ranganathan, GM

MMRCA program has added new dimension to aircraft production at HAL. While HAL is nominated as the lead production agency for airframe, aero-engine, assembly of aircraft & system integration, production of accessories & avionics has been left to the choice of principal OEM i.e. Dassault Aviation. Under the program, new Aircraft and Engine Divisions shall be set up whereas the infrastructure of Accessories & Avionics Divisions at Lucknow, Hyderabad and Korwa shall be augmented to handle MMRCA requirements.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2013 01:09

I am fully with the MoD and AKA in saying DRDO should look at speeding up of FoC for LCA.. and this is where the oppty for IAF to say and feel confident about home grown system, especially when denial of strategic goods attack begin in a clever way to chew all we have got.

But that jingoistic feel (sukhois will cater the needs) for backup plan aspect should be aided by a well ordained self-reliance setup, where the real backup is always self reliance. IAF as the user, must participate more in the LCA program.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 01:28

SaiK wrote:When you say totally new.........

You talk about everything but what I ask, anyways I don't see a chance of stealth LCA Mk.3 other than a future planned upgrade of mk.1 and 2 when the resources are better used in building AMCA.

SaiK wrote:that Dr. Saraswat and Raffale guys says, HAL is not geared for higher tech.

Dr. Saraswat never said that HAL isn't geared for higher tech. that's caucasian bullshit excuse for refusing to share technology and keep the dark guy "in his place".

Dr. Saraswat said,

“Today, HAL has 3rd generation production lines and we need modern ones to replace it. Tejas is a 4th generation aircraft and if we have the vision of exporting this aircraft one day, then rolling out quality aircraft is the key. The problems faced by Tejas are all related to auxiliary systems, be it the fuels lines or lightening arrester. Tejas Mk-II will be the future mainstay and we need to address quality concerns at the earliest,” Saraswat said.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 01:40

Viv S wrote:Actually the F-35's production rate is expected to be well in excess of that - at its peak it'll be comfortably over 200 aircraft/year. As a matter of fact even the venerable F-16 was produced at a staggering rate that peaked in 1987, when 287 aircraft were delivered to various customers (production is projected to carry on until 2016).

That's what they thought/hoped for but reality seems to be different,

Air Force F-35 Production Rate In Doubt

Last para,

On the other hand, both this and any further slips and delays in partner buys are bad news for companies that invested heavily in breaking into JSF, in hopes of deliveries topping the 200 mark in 2017 – as Lockheed Martin was promising in Canada less than two years ago. And if production is not going to be underpinned by 80 USAF jets per year, the process of adapting to that reality needs to start now.

Read the article and the pdf's given in it, what I understand is that if USAF isn't able to induct the projected numbers (USAF say's they won't be able to afford more than 48/yr.) then the hope's of touching 200 or more per yr. will remain a pipe dream. So let's first see what no.s they are able to induct/yr and instead of talking in terms of projections.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 01:42

Don wrote:India does not have the same Industrial manufacturing capability as Uncle Sam. Just saying....

And I don't give a fck about your one line chipanda trolling. Just Saying.......

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 01:55

NRao wrote:Simple. ................... I also added a last line out there, just to protect my post against the like of your's. ....... but you chose to highlight the least meaningful part of my post and call it a fetish !!!)

Well no part of your post made sense to me or the person quoting whom you posted and your "last line strategy" has also been picked up by chipanda trolls who will use it to try and derail the thread so maybe you need to take a relook at your strategy about that line.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 01:58

indranilroy wrote:This specific report has been categorically denied by IAF.

Apropos a report in a certain section of the media indicating IAF will opt for Sukhoi-30 if Rafale deal falls flat as on 08 Apr 2013. The IAF strongly denies such report. The CNC (Contract negotiations committee) process for acquisition of 126 MMRCA is underway and there is no thought process for any procurement as a ‘back up’ as reported.

So IAF gave out an "official" statement saying that it doesn't have a plan B !!!! kya baat kya baat kya baat

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2013 02:00

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:Simple. ................... I also added a last line out there, just to protect my post against the like of your's. ....... but you chose to highlight the least meaningful part of my post and call it a fetish !!!)
Well no part of your post made sense to me or the person quoting whom you posted and your "last line strategy" has also been picked up by chipanda trolls who will use it to try and derail the thread so maybe you need to take a relook at your strategy about that line.

OK, let it slide.

thx.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Apr 2013 03:07

Sagar G wrote:So IAF gave out an "official" statement saying that it doesn't have a plan B !!!! kya baat kya baat kya baat

We have no idea what affects the negotiations. What if outsiders are providing lifafa to derail the negotiations? What if giving out Plan B is decrementing MoDs negotiation powers? So, we are in no position to judge, what is the right move for IAF to do.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Apr 2013 03:23

SaiK wrote: There are so many characteristics and design attributes that needs to be verified. LCA Mk.3 is an ideal and could be me operational while stealth takes shape. Please remember, this staged approach is to minimize the profile for each story line. We don't want to pack everything in AMCA, and the wait like this happens (like happened for LCA, right from Marut). Don't pack all things into one story.

Saik sahab,

According to Dr. Saraswat, there are plans for a LCA MkIII. But the direction of flow of tech is from AMCA to LCA MkIII rather than the other way round as suggested by you.

Many of these technologies could also find their way into the Light Combat Aircraft Mk. 3 that is to be more stealthy than the current Mk. 2 version, which is due to fly in the next two years with the General Electric F414 engine and be ready for operational trials in 2016. The Mk. 3 is to have up to 70% composite content, almost double the current version's level, and could be powered by India's Kaveri turbofan, if that troubled program gets back on track.

Actually, if you look at it. It is a matter of developing "5th-gen" sub-components. Like AESA radar, conformal antennas, RAM coatings, weapon ejections and you know the list. This components are being developed and will be incorporated as and when they become available. For example, I had not heard of it earlier, but now I am starting to see posters in which LCA MkII will be having conformal antennas. AESA as you know is very modular in nature. If you have the tech to make it and give it enough power, you can make a smaller or larger array. Also, the stealth shaping of LCA would only require reworking the diffuser area, air intakes and chin. Not that big of a problem, if you ask me

.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 16 Apr 2013 15:42

indranilroy wrote:We have no idea what affects the negotiations. What if outsiders are providing lifafa to derail the negotiations? What if giving out Plan B is decrementing MoDs negotiation powers? So, we are in no position to judge, what is the right move for IAF to do.

I think it's a no brainer that everybody who has been rejected in MMRCA is trying/praying for sure that the deal falls through but how come giving out a plan B would see India in a weakened position on the negotiating table ??? I don't want IAF/MoD to go public about our plan B but what is the necessity to provide an official statement saying that we don't have a plan B ??? I think IAF should have simply kept it's mouth shut and if asked about it should have refused any comment.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 24 Apr 2013 16:08

The Russians haven't given up yet

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ru ... 44197.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Apr 2013 16:33

I still think, from a program management point of view, that doing an AMCA, and focusing on LCA MK-III format is la following Raptor/JSF -> SH versions. That model can be expensive for desh. So, it would be more natural progression the other way.

Again, we could have an umbrella charter on AMCA, and begin the sub component process., from a program starting perspective, akins to doing a pooja for the Gods., but it would make a bigger story line for media bashing later on. It depends on how we want bash ourselves.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Apr 2013 10:31

SIAé: Delivery of the First Rafale M Fuselage Upgraded to F3 Standard

Having arrived on 28 November 2011, the center fuselage of Rafale M n° 10 was handed over to the air force industrial workshop (AIA) at Clermont-Ferrand for structural modifications allowing it to be upgraded to the latest F3 standard (multi-role capability).

The fuselage barrel, from an F1 standard (air-only capacity) naval Rafale M aircraft, was first completely "stripped" of its pipes and its wiring, and underwent some 2,200 structural modifications that allow it to receive the wiring "octopus" for electrical and equipment of the F3 standard.

The definition of the modifications was carried out by comparing the digital models of the F1 and F3 standards, using a digital tool that was developed by the AIA. This led to the drafting of about 500 statements of work.

On April 16, 2013, the fuselage left AIA to be delivered to Dassault Aviation’s Argenteuil plant, near Paris. There, it will be integrated into the production line for new aircraft, and thus begin a new life. It is the first in a series of 10 fuselages which will be refurbished and modified in the same way. Two of them are currently underway.

The AIAs are placed under the authority of the industrial department of aeronautics (SIAé), which has been attached to the air force since 1 January 2008. The SIAé was created from industrial assets that were scattered among the Directorate General of Armaments (DGA), the air force, the navy and the army.

The Ministry of Defence decided to combine these assets into a single service so as to clarify the organization of aviation support, and thus maintain control of part of the industrial support process within the defense organisation.

dipys · Post by **dipys** » 26 Apr 2013 14:55

Are we on Rafale-MMRCA-Thread or LCA..... I am confused