MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

sharmaG · Post by **sharmaG** » 07 Dec 2010 23:23

$3.1B for upgrade of 51 M2K's? That's about $60M/AC. Wouldn't that buy us at least three squaderns of brand new F18/EF/MiG35...? What's the deal? There is some misinfo in this deal.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 07 Dec 2010 23:58

nike wrote:Apart from mig, every aircraft consist of US contents. Then why not choose Gripen NG, a cheaper option(compare to Rafale & EF). Gripen+Metor would be a deadly combination(we have US engines too).Sweden can assist in faster development of LCA( AESA & other components). Not only this, collaboration with sweden can open a lot of JV in (Tank, artillery) between India and Sweden. Sweden is a small country, but it has expertise in lot of areas, why are we not milking those opportunities to achieve the goal of self dependency. India would be having western tech and then there would be no (or minimal)compalins from Army or AF. We can take this collaboration further in AMCA

By the same argument ... lets just keep doing what we have been good at..co-develop with russians... I think you know on what scale russia can aid in joint development if its needed ... then why buy the gripen lets just get the super fulcrum and be done with it....

the truth remains we need our own indigenous technologies to sustain the economic growth that we have been seeing. That cannot be accomplished by relying of other countries...

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 08 Dec 2010 01:22

nike wrote:another US propoganda

How is that?

nike · Post by **nike** » 08 Dec 2010 09:51

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
nike wrote:Apart from mig, every aircraft consist of US contents. Then why not choose Gripen NG, a cheaper option(compare to Rafale & EF). Gripen+Metor would be a deadly combination(we have US engines too).Sweden can assist in faster development of LCA( AESA & other components). Not only this, collaboration with sweden can open a lot of JV in (Tank, artillery) between India and Sweden. Sweden is a small country, but it has expertise in lot of areas, why are we not milking those opportunities to achieve the goal of self dependency. India would be having western tech and then there would be no (or minimal)compalins from Army or AF. We can take this collaboration further in AMCA
By the same argument ... lets just keep doing what we have been good at..co-develop with russians... I think you know on what scale russia can aid in joint development if its needed ... then why buy the gripen lets just get the super fulcrum and be done with it....

the truth remains we need our own indigenous technologies to sustain the economic growth that we have been seeing. That cannot be accomplished by relying of other countries...

IAF needs western tech, and in western tech gripen is the cheapest option + SAAB is offering us 100% TOT. AS far as JV goes, Russia has never given us any crucial technology or we have never been any serious design partners with Russia on (FGFA, 25% design part)+crucial tech like engine and AESA won't be given to us. With collaboration with Sweden on AMCA we will gain a lot of experience and design strategies(+developement would be a lot faster). I agree with the part that DRDO can develop these things(longer time), but how much can they impress IAF with their indigeneous products, but with SAAB as a partner trust me, things would be lot easier for DRDO. DRDO needs to gain the trust of IAF,Army with these collaborations and later DRDO can go on it's own.Sweden is a small country that can be easily influenced(for 100% TOT in JV) , which is not the case with Russia or France.

nike · Post by **nike** » 08 Dec 2010 10:09

sharmaG wrote:$3.1B for upgrade of 51 M2K's? That's about $60M/AC. Wouldn't that buy us at least three squaderns of brand new F18/EF/MiG35...? What's the deal? There is some misinfo in this deal.

Deal is for $2.1 Billion
http://sify.com/finance/india-france-fi ... bjhgh.html

koti · Post by **koti** » 08 Dec 2010 10:33

nike wrote: IAF needs western tech, and in western tech gripen is the cheapest option + SAAB is offering us 100% TOT. AS far as JV goes, Russia has never given us any crucial technology or we have never been any serious design partners with Russia on (FGFA, 25% design part)+crucial tech like engine and AESA won't be given to us. With collaboration with Sweden on AMCA we will gain a lot of experience and design strategies(+developement would be a lot faster). I agree with the part that DRDO can develop these things(longer time), but how much can they impress IAF with their indigeneous products, but with SAAB as a partner trust me, things would be lot easier for DRDO. Sweden is a small country that can be easily influenced(for 100% TOT in JV) , which is not the case with Russia or France.

IAF doesn't need Westren tech Nike. It needs advanced tech. It is secondary as to where it comes from, if it is reliable.

Coming to SAAB, SAAB itself doesn't have the complete technology know how of the GE-414(and a lot of other components). How can it offer 100% ToT when itself doesn't have the necessary tech Know how.

Coming to Russia, it is the only country that has in the past(USSR) given us critical and crucial technologies. Be it the help for our Nuclear research, Prithvi(rumor), Arihant, Brahmos, FGFA, Cryogenic research to name a few.

Coming to AMCA with Saab: It will be redundant I believe. We are already partnering with Sukhoi for FGFA and should be able to pull of most of the relevant from it in parallel.

And yes, Sweden is a small country. We can influence it. But since it is a small country again, USA or the like can influence it better. Isn't it?

Added later: In case of a crisis situation, countries like US, Russia, France can stand by us, if it is the case and provide with a lot of help. Sweden on the other hand, though would like to help us out completely(very unlikely), can be mearly able to help.

nike · Post by **nike** » 08 Dec 2010 11:14

I agree with all your points koti(apart from this that, the crucial techs are given to us by Russia, it was always USSR).
Sorry mod, to be OT
The simple point which i want to make is this that, if we are going for JV, which I think is necessary as our first step to gain trust of IAF(LCA, is IAF serious about it?) or Army(Arjun is better than T-90) we should have 100% access to all the techs and for this MRCA can open new doors, so Gripen looks a feasible choice

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2010 17:16

In lusting after western tech/TOT ,let's not forget that all the tech in the world does not make a fully capable fighter! It is the art of putting the tech in hand innovatively together that gives results and what the IAF wants first is a fighter that delivers the goods at an affordable price.If it also comes with TOT that is worth theeffort and cost,great.With the LCA programme,we are already acquiring western tech. to a decent extent in the form of,engines,radars,avionics,weaponry,etc.So let's not let our eye waver in making the right choice.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 17:22

pilot proficiency and tactical training plus C4I infrastructure and usage can turn supposedly inferior equipment into advantageous situations against supposedly superior technology, e.g. state of the art sabres and starfighters that the PAF had were shot down by SDRE aircraft without the slightest dhoti quivering

PAF used to be heavily trained/mentored by the USAF
might be OT for this thread, but how much of that do they get from USAF these days?

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 08 Dec 2010 23:34

nike wrote: IAF needs western tech, and in western tech gripen is the cheapest option + SAAB is offering us 100% TOT. AS far as JV goes, Russia has never given us any crucial technology or we have never been any serious design partners with Russia on (FGFA, 25% design part)+crucial tech like engine and AESA won't be given to us. With collaboration with Sweden on AMCA we will gain a lot of experience and design strategies(+developement would be a lot faster). I agree with the part that DRDO can develop these things(longer time), but how much can they impress IAF with their indigeneous products, but with SAAB as a partner trust me, things would be lot easier for DRDO. DRDO needs to gain the trust of IAF,Army with these collaborations and later DRDO can go on it's own.Sweden is a small country that can be easily influenced(for 100% TOT in JV) , which is not the case with Russia or France.

1) FGFA, SU 30MKI, Nuclear Subs, Reactors, cyro engines, are the big stuff that comes to the mind once we talk about russian.

2) Russia has provided us vital technologies like manufacturing Alloys, micro welding optimization, prepreg carbon fibre manufacturing techs,

3) Not to forget the amount of end user freedom on MKI, 21bisons 27's, application of cryo engines etc.

4) Russian has never offered india downgraded exports as it did to rest of the world. Technologies from Su37 and Su35 were incorporated in SU30MKI, Also the newest variant of R77-RVV-SD and RVV-MD are being offered with Mig 35 with open ended architecture. No other MMRCA will give india such flexibility

5) Americans and French have huge end user liabilities, we will never be able to user russian munitions on f18SH/f15/rafale/gripen But we can seamlesly integrate israeli and western munitions on MIG35

6) India was interested in the SAAB viggen but as US didn't its american engine to be exported to india , we ended up buying the SEPECAT. So if US relations go sour .. gripen is in trouble. Doesn't that say a lot about commitment of Swedish firm towards india.

7) About Russian denying AESA tech to india... I am not aware of a Russian commissioned aircraft using AESA radar. They gave us NIIP N011M Bars (Panther) radar which is still pretty elusive to the western world (or atleast its claimed as such )... i guess thats says a lot.

Although I would love to see the MIG 35 at a lower price around 40Mil and see 200 of em ... i dont think we will be getting that.

This thread features citizens from different fields who have immense knowledge about defense hardware and their views i think reflect the broader sentiment of the MOD. After following this thread for last 3 -4 months I think I have come to terms with the fact that Eurofighter or Rafale might win this bid. (128 of them at a price twice of the MIG 35)

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 09 Dec 2010 00:13

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
nike wrote: IAF needs western tech, and in western tech gripen is the cheapest option + SAAB is offering us 100% TOT. AS far as JV goes, Russia has never given us any crucial technology or we have never been any serious design partners with Russia on (FGFA, 25% design part)+crucial tech like engine and AESA won't be given to us. With collaboration with Sweden on AMCA we will gain a lot of experience and design strategies(+developement would be a lot faster). I agree with the part that DRDO can develop these things(longer time), but how much can they impress IAF with their indigeneous products, but with SAAB as a partner trust me, things would be lot easier for DRDO. DRDO needs to gain the trust of IAF,Army with these collaborations and later DRDO can go on it's own.Sweden is a small country that can be easily influenced(for 100% TOT in JV) , which is not the case with Russia or France.
1) FGFA, SU 30MKI, Nuclear Subs, Reactors, cyro engines, are the big stuff that comes to the mind once we talk about russian.

2) Russia has provided us vital technologies like manufacturing Alloys, micro welding optimization, prepreg carbon fibre manufacturing techs,

3) Not to forget the amount of end user freedom on MKI, 21bisons 27's, application of cryo engines etc.

4) Russian has never offered india downgraded exports as it did to rest of the world. Technologies from Su37 and Su35 were incorporated in SU30MKI, Also the newest variant of R77-RVV-SD and RVV-MD are being offered with Mig 35 with open ended architecture. No other MMRCA will give india such flexibility

5) Americans and French have huge end user liabilities, we will never be able to user russian munitions on f18SH/f15/rafale/gripen But we can seamlesly integrate israeli and western munitions on MIG35

6) India was interested in the SAAB viggen but as US didn't its american engine to be exported to india , we ended up buying the SEPECAT. So if US relations go sour .. gripen is in trouble. Doesn't that say a lot about commitment of Swedish firm towards india.

7) About Russian denying AESA tech to india... I am not aware of a Russian commissioned aircraft using AESA radar. They gave us NIIP N011M Bars (Panther) radar which is still pretty elusive to the western world (or atleast its claimed as such )... i guess thats says a lot.

Although I would love to see the MIG 35 at a lower price around 40Mil and see 200 of em ... i dont think we will be getting that.

This thread features citizens from different fields who have immense knowledge about defense hardware and their views i think reflect the broader sentiment of the MOD. After following this thread for last 3 -4 months I think I have come to terms with the fact that Eurofighter or Rafale might win this bid. (128 of them at a price twice of the MIG 35)

Your points are good but I think IAF does not want ANOTHER Russian arms system in Mig-35 simply because we had a bad experience with Admiral Gorshkov where the Russians agreed on a contract and then reneged on it and demanded more money. Now what can we do in a situation like that? We are stuck. It was not nice of the Russians to put us in a tight spot like that and take advantage of the situation. It just leaves a bitter taste in our mouths. It wouldn't be as bad if the Russians were top notch with other dealings but they have been bad with spares for our other systems, cost and time over-runs with other naval ships that were built in Russian shipyards, etc, etc. This might be the case of the Russians being penny-wise and pound foolish, or shooting themselves in the foot or cutting off their nose to spite their face...whatever metaphor you want to use. When they do things like this, India then starts to wonder about their reliability and their intentions to keep their word, i.e. adhere to contracts etc. and not take advantage of situations. No matter what they have provided India, and they have provided much much more more than anybody else but that doesn't mean they should take advantage and not hold to their contracts. Now India has been looking everywhere else to "diversify" our stuff so no one country can get a hold of our necks in crunch time. The Russians didn't realize how good they had it with India. Now whenever we look to buy stuff we don't look to Russia automatically any more, now there is a competition.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Dec 2010 01:01

I think that you're pretty much "stuck" if you source weapons from foreign vendors as we have seen throughout our history. So that as a criteria is pretty useless. Since we are trying to set up manufacturing with deep TOT then the question of one supplier vs the other could be looked at objectively from just the qualities of the aircraft on order. If the IAF prefers the Mig-35 or the F-16 or the Rafale or the F-18, it should work. If there are problems then there is the present day (and growing) Indian Military Industrial complex which adds to the ability to potentially make arm twisting over spares harmless.

We need to wait for the IAF/geopolitical considerations for this order. I just hope they can get the order out soon.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 09 Dec 2010 03:44

Luxtor wrote:
Your points are good but I think IAF does not want ANOTHER Russian arms system in Mig-35 simply because we had a bad experience with Admiral Gorshkov where the Russians agreed on a contract and then reneged on it and demanded more money. Now what can we do in a situation like that? We are stuck. It was not nice of the Russians to put us in a tight spot like that and take advantage of the situation. It just leaves a bitter taste in our mouths. It wouldn't be as bad if the Russians were top notch with other dealings but they have been bad with spares for our other systems, cost and time over-runs with other naval ships that were built in Russian shipyards, etc, etc. This might be the case of the Russians being penny-wise and pound foolish, or shooting themselves in the foot or cutting off their nose to spite their face...whatever metaphor you want to use. When they do things like this, India then starts to wonder about their reliability and their intentions to keep their word, i.e. adhere to contracts etc. and not take advantage of situations. No matter what they have provided India, and they have provided much much more more than anybody else but that doesn't mean they should take advantage and not hold to their contracts. Now India has been looking everywhere else to "diversify" our stuff so no one country can get a hold of our necks in crunch time. The Russians didn't realize how good they had it with India. Now whenever we look to buy stuff we don't look to Russia automatically any more, now there is a competition.

About the gorky deal ... it was india's idea to buy a ship that was rusting since 1996... major delays occured due to ships deterioration. Agreed Gorshkov got delayed but imho we are still getting a good deal for the money we are paying. I think its unfair to brand russians bad vendors due to gorshkov deal . Also look at t54,T90's , t72, BMP2, BRDM, mig 21, mig 29,mig 23, mig 27, Mi 35, MKI, MI-8, TU142, All these procurements and license productions did not have any substantial problems.

The Russians didn't realize how good they had it with India. Now whenever we look to buy stuff we don't look to Russia automatically any more, now there is a competition.

I am pretty sure that they know how valuable india is ... Russians are second largest defence suppliers in the world, and have been in this business for a long time. i think they know the magnitude relations with india.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Dec 2010 05:22

If M35 is not chosen as MRCA, it is just because of Mig and not Russia per say. Think about $30b investments for 300 pakfas to keep them and us engaged, perhaps inviting super power attention to a new stealth a/c taking air! The raptors are already feeling their skins are getting burned off next generation Irbis aesa radiations or even thinking about it.

The main requirement for a multi role a/c for India is to serve multi purpose as a gap filler for late arrival of LCA cum phasing off Mig21s and 23s, and help local industries develop further with offsets. This is one of the reasons, in the MRCA contract that gives more importance to offsets, plus technology transfer that we may get with this.

imo, ToT would be the deciding factor from the list of a/cs already submitted by IAF to the selection committee. Few more months to go, and the heat must be felt by many manufacturers. And forget the khan a/s for argument sake, since the khan are super rich or least bothered to even consider in lighter terms a non-coldwar attitude towards us. It is going to be much more learning for both India and USA to get into mainstream fighter/defence purchase that can be given a green signal from both DC and delhi, and the next day bombing and raiding in paki neighborhood. USA has long way to even think of their weapons used against pakistan.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 09 Dec 2010 07:11

Sandeep, this is a new phenomenon with the Russians - breaking contracts and demanding more money after we have committed ourselves and already had paid hundreds of millions. The other weapons deals you have mentioned were executed earlier without much problems as far as I can tell. Then again many of them were bought during the Soviet era so that might have made a major difference. The Soviets didn't bother to penny pinch us, they were looking at the bigger picture to keep India happy and in their loose orbit. Now what if the roles were reversed and India wanted to break the original Gorshkov contract and wanted to pay much less than what was stipulated in the contract, would the Russians accept that? A contract is a contract, that's why you sign a contract. In my opinion the Russians should have grit their teeth and swallowed the extra cost of the refit. Underestimating the refit work needed is their problem. Don't get me wrong, we have a very important relationship with Russia but that doesn't mean that they can take advantage of it. Friends don't take advantage of friends. I know, I know, in international relationships there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 09 Dec 2010 08:03

Luxtor wrote:Sandeep, this is a new phenomenon with the Russians - breaking contracts and demanding more money after we have committed ourselves and already had paid hundreds of millions. The other weapons deals you have mentioned were executed earlier without much problems as far as I can tell. Then again many of them were bought during the Soviet era so that might have made a major difference. The Soviets didn't bother to penny pinch us, they were looking at the bigger picture to keep India happy and in their loose orbit. Now what if the roles were reversed and India wanted to break the original Gorshkov contract and wanted to pay much less than what was stipulated in the contract, would the Russians accept that? A contract is a contract, that's why you sign a contract. In my opinion the Russians should have grit their teeth and swallowed the extra cost of the refit. Underestimating the refit work needed is their problem. Don't get me wrong, we have a very important relationship with Russia but that doesn't mean that they can take advantage of it. Friends don't take advantage of friends. I know, I know, in international relationships there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.

whatever it is ... I have seen the video of Gorkshov in livefist .. and if any Indian Navel Delegates and Negotiator thought that ship can be made sea and battle-worthy under a billion then I must say they were having too much of Vodka...

it is not like we are negotiating sell of car or a bike.. . properly evaluation potential cost involved in a project is as much a responsibility of a seller as it is for buyer... or else this will happen..

all too common phenomena... increase in scope.. beyond SOW ... underestimated effort... going back to client ..asking for more.. sounds all too familiar with Indian IT companies...

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 09 Dec 2010 11:04

^ blame the person who got cheated

price was fixed after wide ranging negotiations taking into all considerations but price was unilaterally increased by Rosoboronexport citing mistakes in calculations, now you know who was responsible for the delay and cost escalation

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Dec 2010 11:10

If we wanted a Russian bird to start with then GoI would never have bothered with a global tender in the first place.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2010 11:46

Look,the Gorshkov was a one-off deal.It was to repair,renovate and then modernise a cruiser-carrier into functioning as a true flat top to operate MIG-29K class aircraft.This has never been done anywhere and far more difficult than simply renovating for example an old RN carrier like the Viraat or Illustrious.It took about 5 years of dilly-dalling allowing the vessel to deteriorate further and then without getting the full plans fron Ukraine the builder.Both sides totally underestimated the job of rewiring the entire ship and the enormity of the work entailed.At that period of time however when the deal was done,there was no other alternative to the IN available and was itself a fault of faulty and indifferent planning for the replacement for the Vikrant and Viraat by the MOD.We now have the same thing happening with the IN's sub fleet,where the Scorpene is overdue and the cost overruns are perhaps even higher than that of the Gorky deal and a decision on the second line of subs has yet to be made.

Moreover,even with the Trenton the CAG found many flaws in the deal,especially with the almost useless Sea Kings that came with it.We suffered an accident involving several fatalities too after it was inducted into the IN as the Jalashwa.Therefore one can understand any reluctance on the IN's part if another "rustbucket" acquisition is intended either from east or west,but the IAF are buying new aircraft which should pose no problem

Buying a new aircraft is a totally different scenario.We have had an excellent experience acquiring the SU-30MKI and there should be no reason why acquiring MIG-35s also will prove to be an inferior deal.The MIG-35 that flew at Aero-India last time supposedly flew with an AESA radar.Details have been mentioned some time ago.As a stop-gap aircraft to keep numbers happy at low cost,this would be an excellent option,but if the IAF truly want western tech to come with a western bird then they will have to pay a lot more.It's why I've repeatedly said that we need more than the 126+ aircraft (western bird) and should also buy a qty. of MIG-35s to first complelent and then replace our existing MIG-29s (being upgraded).This is because we will not be able to even produce the extra numbers required ourselves in a short space of time,as the major production will be done in India.As for M-2000 upgrades,it the cost is going to be so high,why not get a quote from the Israelis? We did the same thing with the Harrier LUSH upgrade when the BAe upgrade was found too expensive.We could do a similar LUMP (Limited Upgrade Mirage Project) ,"like it or lump it",He!he!
The money saved could easily help underwrite the cost to the IAF of another two-three sqds. of MIG-35s.

nike · Post by **nike** » 09 Dec 2010 11:58

Philip wrote:Look,the Gorshkov was a one-off deal.It was to repair,renovate and then modernise a cruiser-carrier into functioning as a true flat top to operate MIG-29K class aircraft.This has never been done anywhere and far more difficult than simply renovating for example an old RN carrier like the Viraat or Illustrious.It took about 5 years of dilly-dalling allowing the vessel to deteriorate further and then without getting the full plans fron Ukraine the builder.Both sides totally underestimated the job of rewiring the entire ship and the enormity of the work entailed.At that period of time however when the deal was done,there was no other alternative to the IN available and was itself a fault of faulty and indifferent planning for the replacement for the Vikrant and Viraat by the MOD.We now have the same thing happening with the IN's sub fleet,where the Scorpene is overdue and the cost overruns are perhaps even higher than that of the Gorky deal and a decision on the second line of subs has yet to be made.

Moreover,even with the Trenton the CAG found many flaws in the deal,especially with the almost useless Sea Kings that came with it.We suffered an accident involving several fatalities too after it was inducted into the IN as the Jalashwa.Therefore one can understand any reluctance on the IN's part if another "rustbucket" acquisition is intended either from east or west,but the IAF are buying new aircraft which should pose no problem

Buying a new aircraft is a totally different scenario.We have had an excellent experience acquiring the SU-30MKI and there should be no reason why acquiring MIG-35s also will prove to be an inferior deal.The MIG-35 that flew at Aero-India last time supposedly flew with an AESA radar.Details have been mentioned some time ago.As a stop-gap aircraft to keep numbers happy at low cost,this would be an excellent option,but if the IAF truly want western tech to come with a western bird then they will have to pay a lot more.It's why I've repeatedly said that we need more than the 126+ aircraft (western bird) and should also buy a qty. of MIG-35s to first complelent and then replace our existing MIG-29s (being upgraded).This is because we will not be able to even produce the extra numbers required ourselves in a short space of time,as the major production will be done in India.As for M-2000 upgrades,it the cost is going to be so high,why not get a quote from the Israelis? We did the same thing with the Harrier LUSH upgrade when the BAe upgrade was found too expensive.We could do a similar LUMP (Limited Upgrade Mirage Project) ,"like it or lump it",He!he!
The money saved could easily help underwrite the cost to the IAF of another two-three sqds. of MIG-35s.

agreed, SU-30MKI has been an excellent experience, but the problem is now Russians are also hardcore buissness men, just like French and IAF won't be looking at Mig-35

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 09 Dec 2010 13:01

nike wrote: agreed, SU-30MKI has been an excellent experience, but the problem is now Russians are also hardcore buissness men, just like French and IAF won't be looking at Mig-35

Agreed that Russian have gradually becoming businessman... But how does that prohibit we dealing with them? Aren't others business man as well? French / unkil / EU?? What are they? Which business man gives you better than he himself keep? Case in point MKI... It is after 10 years that Russian Airforce will have something equal or better than MKI....With all cost escalation that we crib on, cost of upgrading Mig 29 is significantly less than Mirage while providing similar or better capabilities and includes engine change...

koti · Post by **koti** » 09 Dec 2010 14:56

Nike,
If you read the responses you are getting carefully, it should be pretty clear by now that the Mig-35 is an equally capable and extremal pocket friendly platform.
The Russians now are just like the rest of the competitors in chasing money.

So it becomes irrational to further crib about the Vikramaditya deal or to suspect recurring spare problems.

Atleast, the Russians don't indirectly fund our Foe's military capability automatically making us to purchase big ticket items from themselves.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 09 Dec 2010 17:23

either rafale or typhoon will win

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 09 Dec 2010 18:00

In order to make a strong India, we should stop copying other countries and people. We should develop our own technologies and systems to safe-guard India. India should have the indigenous capacity to fight and win the next war with our complete supplies. Not that in the middle of a war our diplomats and secret services are fighting to procure ammunition from other countries. Even though we may not have the technological maturity but we should be making every endeavor to safeguard our country with the available technology.

We are currently priding ourselves in being the cynosure of all the world's eyes as a lucrative 'market'. We are the 'buyers' of these supposedly high-tech items. Often we forget that in many situations our countrymen or 'expatriates' are working for these 'sellers' to give us the 'superior' technology.

MMRCA definitely may help us in the short-run but we have to rely on our arms to safeguard our country. No other country is capable of protecting India either by weapons or militaries.... Our security is more dependent on our own indigenous capability. MMRCA selection may give us some short - term remedy but as a collective conscience, we must stop looking at others for our own security. We not only have good brains but also an industrial sector to create unique defence products much better than the world has ever seen. In the multi-polar world, India is now one of the poles and to safe-guard it we cannot fight with weapons from other 'poles'.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2010 18:21

Very true,but we must "walk before we can run".I would say that we are now trying to "trot",and need help in order that we can run by ourselves around 2020.One must also not forget or lose sight that in the great endeavour to develop and build everything ourselves,our armed forces require reliable weapon systems "now" to meet any threat that might emerge without warning as it did on 26/11.Such systems might not always be available within the country and we should have ahealthy mix of indigenous,hybrid and foreign systems and slowly reduce our total dependence on other nations in the fullness of time.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 09 Dec 2010 18:23

Gorky was a mistake by both parties - Russians for underestimating the work and us believing the estimate without taking stock of the ground situation. That being said, if the vendor makes a mistake, a major part is usually absorbed by the vendor to keep client's good faith. In this case, that went for a toss.

Just a couple of days back there was a news report that induction of Mig29K is getting delayed due to Russians citing some clause or the other - this has left the Navy with a bitter taste.

MKI was different - they needed the money badly at that time. They have been very good friends in the past but now everything is driven by $$. RD33 re-export to pukes is an example that stands out.

Of late they have been trying to catch us by our b**s and then squeeze it if one may put it crudely. Let us see what we get with PAKFA as well.

OT anyways; let us get back to MMRCA.

kuntal.saha · Post by **kuntal.saha** » 09 Dec 2010 19:27

this deal is not about overall relation with Russia... this is about a single deal which needs to be looked in different prespective !!

MIG35... going by recent experiences of NAVY is a bad taste (29K)... seems MIG corporation not Ruskis havent still figured out hydraulic failure issue which IAF is facing for ages even with MIG29 and to some extend MKI (as per what I know IRKUT have mitigated that issue)... so as there is no SU version available in race best thing is to go with EU version. Best non Amarican (% of avionics) western bird is EF... which I have my bet on !!

nike · Post by **nike** » 09 Dec 2010 20:02

Philip wrote:Very true,but we must "walk before we can run".I would say that we are now trying to "trot",and need help in order that we can run by ourselves around 2020.One must also not forget or lose sight that in the great endeavour to develop and build everything ourselves,our armed forces require reliable weapon systems "now" to meet any threat that might emerge without warning as it did on 26/11.Such systems might not always be available within the country and we should have ahealthy mix of indigenous,hybrid and foreign systems and slowly reduce our total dependence on other nations in the fullness of time.

Agreed with philip, tht was my initial point, we should not only see MRCA as strengthning our AF , but also to boost up our indigenous R&D and Arms Development.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Dec 2010 06:04

nike wrote:
sharmaG wrote:$3.1B for upgrade of 51 M2K's? That's about $60M/AC. Wouldn't that buy us at least three squaderns of brand new F18/EF/MiG35...? What's the deal? There is some misinfo in this deal.
Deal is for $2.1 Billion
http://sify.com/finance/india-france-fi ... bjhgh.html

$2,100,000,000 / 51 units = $41,176,470.6 per unit

Here's a great document from Dassault Aviation:
Mirage 2000 Combat Aircraft Upgrade in Dassault Aviation

...

The target of this mid-life update is to obtain a new version of the Mirage 2000 with a fly away price for new aircraft of the 80% of the one of Mirage 2000-5 but with attractive operational characteristics.

...

Since $41,176,470.6 upgrade per unit is supposedly 80% of a brand new Mirage 2000-5, we can figure out what IAF would be paying had it gone for license production of the Mirage 2000-5 (instead of the MRCA). It would have cost the IAF around $51,500,000 per new Mirage 2000-5 inducted (plus TOT, license and infrastructure expenses).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Dec 2010 06:29

Why do you think IAF bumped up Ramba's numbers?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 10 Dec 2010 07:21

EuroFighter

nike · Post by **nike** » 10 Dec 2010 09:02

we are struck with this MRCA tamasha, mean while pakistan is raising up new squadrons of JF-17, not only this 10-15 countries are intersted in JF-17.LCA should be hurried up

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Dec 2010 10:31

in EF pic bottom right, what is the weapon with 3 small rocket type things hanging off small sub-pylons? brimstone launcher? 12 missiles and 4 ~~semi-conformal meteors~~ CBU105 would be a credible anti-armour loadout, with two asraam on outermost pylons to hunt down AH1 cobras seen loitering around like a lion going after a dog.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Dec 2010 11:31

Singha wrote:in EF pic bottom right, what is the weapon with 3 small rocket type things hanging off small sub-pylons? brimstone launcher? 12 missiles and 4 semi-conformal meteors would be a credible anti-armour loadout, with two asraam on outermost pylons to hunt down AH1 cobras seen loitering around like a lion going after a dog.

Yup those are brimestones....they are currently operation on Toradoes in Afghanistan IIRC.

BTW GD joo had asked some time by which was the unit in the RAF responsible for OCU and setting up the manual for the Typhoon its the 17(R) Squadron based in RAF Coningsby

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Dec 2010 06:52

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Dec 2010 06:55

nike wrote:Apart from mig, every aircraft consist of US contents. Then why not choose Gripen NG, a cheaper option(compare to Rafale & EF). Gripen+Metor would be a deadly combination(we have US engines too).Sweden can assist in faster development of LCA( AESA & other components). Not only this, collaboration with sweden can open a lot of JV in (Tank, artillery) between India and Sweden. Sweden is a small country, but it has expertise in lot of areas, why are we not milking those opportunities to achieve the goal of self dependency. India would be having western tech and then there would be no (or minimal)compalins from Army or AF. We can take this collaboration further in AMCA

Sweden is a great partner for future collaboration.

I hope there is future collaboration whether or not their plane gets selected.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Dec 2010 08:02

It depends on % of the content, and what type of the content that is not acceptable either to us or we have refused to agree like CISMOA etc. BTW, if we want to buy with US content why Gripen, why not directly from the khans provided similar agreements - example P8I, CJ130, etc? The only reason may be fighter aircraft is more strategic and direct use purposes against supplier's friends (our enemies) may get hit with the same weapons, hence there needs to be a mutual understand between the supplier and the consumer that the customer is always right in this in its use.. there can't be political, electronic nor logistical pressure on us after purchase whatsoever.

We should also not forget that most of these content that we feel that we can gain in the production engineering and processes is where the highlight of the offsets going to happen per understandings.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Dec 2010 08:45

One thing that I've thinking about wrt the 40 aircraft for the strategic forces command and the MRCA / Rafale.

The 40 N bombers can't be unique aircraft that can be easily identified by satellite by everyone, they will have to be of a type that are already in service with the IAF in large numbers so that the real N bombers are hidden.

This is why I think that the 40 strategic bombers will be the 40 MKIs that have been ordered or will be in addition to the 126 of the MRCA winner.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Dec 2010 08:51

..........
The 40 N bombers can't be unique aircraft that can be easily identified.........
..............

Perhaps only until the FGFA/AMCA come on board? I find it very hard to believe that either the MMRCA or the MKi will be considered to be a long term option. To get this command going a short term solution is OK. I would think.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 12 Dec 2010 10:15

Whether these bombers will be Su-30 or not, but they had to be very long range bomber, for there will be no AtoA refueling available , so their range should exceed 3000 kms .
Pakfa would be better to use.