MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Cain Marko]

Work in progress system of rules mean delays are possible. My solution: order more LCA MK-1s!!

Very good post Karan. Where are those Qatari M2ks?

CM

[Viv S]

Sorry for the late reply, simply had not enough time.

Now three questions here - you've claimed that since the Storm Shadow has not been integrated the EF is NOT truly multi-role and can only perform CAS. AFAIK no aircraft in the IAF inventory is equipped with a cruise missile for ground strike (Jags have the Harpoon though).

No, I said that the EF has no other A2G weapon except of LGB (which is a fact, not a claim!) and that restricts it from beeing a real multi role aircraft.

The IAF's Mirage-2000 has been flying without the Exocet integrated for a decade and a half now. So it doesn't serve as a multi-role aircraft in the IAF? AFAIK PGMs and gravity bombs are not 'also' A2G weapons, they are the primary A2G munition for any strike aircraft, be it dedicated or multi-role.

Jags are ground attack fighters and no multi role aircrafts, because they have more than limited A2A capabilities but compare the EF with MKI for example. It can use Kh 29 and 59 air to surface missiles, Kh 31 and 35 in anti ship and anti radiation roles and soon Brahmos, not to mention the KAB PGMs.
Mig 29 SMT multi role, because the uprades adds the A2G capabilties and it will be able to use most of the MKI weaponary too.
Mirage 2000-5, as I meantioned before can use the same weapon package that the Rafale uses.

So only the MKIs then. The Mirage-2000 and MiG-29 will become truly multi-role sometime in the future?

As you can see, even our present fighters are more multi role capable then the present EF and as long the partners did not decide what new weapons and moreover when they will be added, the EF for IAF will not really be useful for IAF and once again a reminder, the EF has only 3 heavy weapon stations for fuel tanks, or heavy weapons, which is another limitation of it in the strike role.

Only the MKI seems to 'more' multi-role than the EF. With regard to the EF's hardpoints - how deep a strike mission is it likely to be required to perform? With a single drop tank and two Storm Shadows, it will be able to hit a target 1000km away. Overkill... debatable, insufficient... certainly not. And this is assuming the EF can't use 3 fuel tanks along with 2 Storm Shadows. The inner wing pylons are believed to be rated upto 1500kgs, the only issue is the length of Storm Shadow (it may interfere with the landing gear), but seeing is the 4m Paveway-IV is cleared for it, the 5m Storm Shadow could well be so, as well.

In any case, when an aircraft with the range of the MKI (plus the luxury of a WSO) is available, the employment of the MRCA with hardpoints occupied by fuel tanks is hardly preferable.

Latest report (from RAF officials) hints that the partners will talk about the T3 somewhere next year, which obviously hints that they want to see how their chances in MMRCA will be. Brimstone and Storm Shadow is on the list, but possibly only from 2014/15 onwards, which again confirms what the Aviationweek article said, that the AESA get A2G modes added later.
Briten cuts their squadron numbers in half and is trying to sell EFs from their initial order to Oman and they most likely won't replace them with ne EFs. The chances for more F35 are higher (btw, UK is the biggest F35 partner)!

What is the co-relation between Tranche 3 and the Brimstone/Storm Shadow? The integration is not going to take place in a concerted coordinated tranche-style steo. Germany and UK will be integrating the Storm Shadow and Taurus independently.

With regard to cuts, the cut from the UK amounts 24 aircraft out of an expected 232. Out of the original plan for 620 aircraft, 560 have been ordered so far, which as a proportion is higher than French confirmed order for 180 Rafale out of an expected 234.

Also, the F-35 is NOT intended for service with the RAF.

That's the point isn't it. Have you read that the Luftwaffe is looking to shift integration of the Storm Shadow and Brimstone to the Tranche 3B or are you assuming it?

The German Luftwaffe is not integrating Storm Shadow, because they don't use it, they have Taurus and that's why I said that they will have to integrate it on their own and that's why they can delay the integration till Tornados are going to be phased out.

Again to rephrase it after due editing - where have you read or inferred from that the Luftwaffe intends to delay the integration of the Taurus? How does the Tranche 3A or Tranche 3B come into the picture?

And secondly my questions still remain - why would India want to import the Storm Shadow when the Nirbhay and Brahmos are available & what would an Indian request for integrating the missile entail (we've integrated the Sea Eagle and Harpoon on the Jaguar without any technical or financial downers).

You do realise that France hasn't weathered the economic crisis much better than the UK, and its economic revival is no where as robust as Germany's (who's posted the best growth rates among the major developed economies). While while they aren't very eager to purchase new aircraft, the RAF and Luftwaffe are both committed to upgrade plans.

Strange, then why didn't the French reduced Rafale orders, or A400 like Britan and Germany did? Why did they agreed to buy 12 KC390 in the Brazilian competition?
They have been hit like most of the contries in the EU too, but they are doing way better than UK and the only country that is on a good way is Germany, but even they are reducing the defense budget.

How did you assume its doing 'way better'? They've got a slightly higher growth rate (2.2% vs 1.8%) but have higher unemployment (10% vs 8%). British defence spending is and will continue to remain roughly at par with France. But rather than any of this, what it comes down to is that the collective defence budgets of UK, Germany, Italy and Spain (to say nothing of India joining the consortium) will thoroughly outmatch that of France.

I guess I can skip the part of Mirage 2000 upgrade, because Sarkozys visit already proved you wrong about it.

I had said that the Mirage upgrade bid may be cancelled and indeed if IP restrictions weren't an issue, should have been cancelled. The French came 'down' from $60 million to $40 million but that hardly changes the fact that it is a very expensive proposition.

You're right about the Rafale being delivered in 2012 (interestingly with another 54 aircraft unordered, it puts the delivery schedule at par with the EF). The Tranche 3 order will include all the R&D costs for all upgrades including the AESA.

Again think logically please! The order T3 EFs was done in 2009, but the commitment to AESA was cleared (from the EF consortium companies) only this year during the Farnborough airshow and is only pre-funded, so how can the order cost a year ago include R&D costs that are not even cleared now?
They ordered just the basic EF T3 fighter and the engines, which means in fly away condition and that for around $100 million euros each and India will be a partner nation, that is the fly away cost we have to pay too!

The R&D costs be it for the radar or weapons integration, is NOT budgeted separately. And the outlay for the Tranche 3 as you yourself pointed out was declared before the actual decisions about a configuration were made.

How do we know that India will pay the fly-away price for the Rafale if not the Eurofighter? If you budget the entire expenditure against the aircraft number (since the T3 and F3 are based on the T2 and F2 which have already been paid for), the EF ends up a cheaper by a mile. One can hope though that the French wouldn't pass on their R&D expenses to India despite a ToT requirement.

Btw, because one of you arguments against the Rafale is always the possibly high upgrade costs in future.

1. It is offered with a higher upgrade level than EF as I showed you before.
2. The fact that France upgrades all older Rafale F1 to the latest F3 standard, but that the EF partners wants to phase the older T1 out and sell them second hand to smaller countries, because it would be too costly to upgrade them to T2/T3 standard should tell you something about the possible upgrade costs of EF right?

1. I'm yet to see evidence of a higher upgrade level. Both will come with an AESA and the Meteor. Unless the Rafale gets re-engined with a 90kN class M-88, only incremental improvements of its own systems are going to be featured.

2. There were technical issues for the T1 from being upgraded to T3 standards, that made it uneconomical. The T2 on the other hand will all be upgraded to T3 standards. Also the T1 has been given an 'austere' air-to-ground capability via the Litening pod. India on the other hand will get the T3 not T1 variant, and will have its aircraft go through the same upgrade path as the RAF and Luftwaffe aircraft.

It stands as I said it before, Rafale is:

- more capable

The EF is optimized for high altitude high speed air combat unlike the Rafale which was intended for carrier operations.

- cheaper per unit

Divide the program cost by aircraft numbers and the EF remains much cheaper.

- more cost-effective to operate, because of more commonality and customisation options

As things stand, the Mirage-2000 will not feature the Scalp-EG, Damocles, MAWS, Spectra etc. The commonality is limited to the MICA and maybe fuel tanks and a jamming pod.

- more mature

The deliveries aren't expected till at least 2014. If the down select gets delayed to late next year it could be even longer. So a more mature fighter today is unlikely to retain that utility then.

- more useful for our forces

The IAF has an outstanding strike aircraft will a massive range and a WSO, which will can carry all available Indian (Nirbhay) and foreign (Brahmos) munitions. The MRCA therefore needs to be optimized for an air-to-air role while carrying out strike missions adequately.

- offers more future potential and less risk, because it has less funding problems than the EF partners and France will replace all older fighters with Rafale, while only Germany plans to do it with EF

The French have managed to keep the Rafale production line alive by dropping the annual production to miserly 11. Unfortunately it still has only a third of funding that the EF can garner(even less if India joins the consortium). And except for the Italians, all three air forces will comprised only of the EF Typhoon by 2020.

Where the EF has the advantage is the partnership and offsets, but again the more the EF partners gets into trouble, the higher the risks for us.

India has complete freedom while deciding the level of involvement it wishes. And the IAF/MoD are a cautious bunch who aren't going to blunder into anything. And the assumption that Germany and the UK can get into 'trouble' but France cannot is a simple fallacy.

The French weren't willing to give the UK and Germany equal participation, India can hardly hope for any. This lack of an option can hardly be a positive factor.

Imo only the competition is only about Rafale, or F18SH for political reasons!

Collectively the UK and Germany have much greater political heft than France, and the strong arming during the Mirage negotiations will hardly help its case.

[Kartik]

we keep talking about LCA Mk-1 orders. i dont know if we have the capacity to produce them if ordered as suggested here in the timeframe we would need them.

There will NEVER be capacity to produce unless there are orders. Why would any sane manager spend hundreds of crores more than what is required, on tools, jigs, new assembly line space all for some hope that the customer may order some more. When the IAF shows interest and puts up money up-front for another batch or a large purchase, HAL can start looking at setting up the required facilities.

[SaiK]

Awesome.. thanks to the DOFA that LCA may advance and get more orders. Hope IAF top notches are thinking the same.

Ref: DOFA/

2.5 The advisability of giving additional weights to offers having multiplier effects in terms of exports generated or building indigenous capability in strategic technology products, or other issues may be considered after reviewing the experience of implementing the above policy.


6.5 For `Buy (Global)’ category procurements, where offset is applicable if an Indian firm is bidding for the proposal and is offering an indigenously developed product, then for such a case offset would not be applicable.

engage..tejas.. warp 1.

[GeorgeWelch]

err.. on the cost based on numbers, Eurofighter I think has beaten or will beat the number of hornets built?

SH firm orders: 653
EF expected orders: 559

You may be thinking before the last order for 124 SHs in May.

[Baldev]

mrca should include 126 iphone/blackberry free with each fighter

[shukla]

Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF
Times of India

"It is a big deal. We have finished the evaluation and the matter is with the (defence) ministry now. Hopefully, it will progress and we will be able to sign the contract by July next year. After that it takes three years for delivery," Air chief marshal P V Naik said. He was talking to reporters after reviewing the Combined Graduation Parade of flight cadets of IAF at the Air Force Academy in Dundigal, about 35 km from here.

[sumshyam]

Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF
Times of India

After that it takes three years for delivery," Air chief marshal P V Naik said.

I was in impression that aircrafts will be delivered in 18 months...

[Christopher Sidor]

First it was Q1 of 2011, now it is Q2/Q3 of 2011 when we can expect to sign a deal. At this rate we will see the deal being signed in Q4 of 2011 or probably Q1 of 2012.

Dont these guys get it that our IAF fleet strength is way, way below the threat that we face from across the Himalayas ?

[Sancho]

Viv S

First of all, what you fail to understand is, that not the weapons IAF buys decides if a fighter is multi role capable or not, but the weapons and capabilities that are intgrated into the fighter and it's upgrade/tech level.
Our Mirage 2000 were procured for the A2A interception role with A2A ammo mainly, that's why IAF lacked enough A2G ammo during Kargil that could be used for them (and this short sight also should explain why a diversity of ammo, that can be used from different fighters of the fleet is important, instead of beeing limited to MKI and it's weapons alone), but that doesn't mean they couldn't use Exocet, or other French ammos that IAF simply didn't bought. So even they could be used in A2A, strike and anti ship roles back then!
With the 2000-5 upgrade they will be able to use the same weapon pack that Rafale uses, even if IAF didn't bought them now, because they are wired for those weapons and they were integrated into Mirage 2000-5s before!

That exactly is the problem for EF, because T3A might be wired to use other weapons, but they must be integrated first, with all neccesary software changes and tests, before they can be used and as long the partners, or any export customer don't fund the integration and software changes it's not possible at all.

Btw, 1000Km range with a single fuel tank and 2 x Storm Shadows for EF? Even in A2A config, the combat range is only a bit more than 1300Km, so your figures are not really realistic, just like your claim about carrying longer weapons on the inner wing pylons. Look at the following pic with 500 Kg Paveway 2 LGB, which are less than 4m long and tell me where you want to fit longer weapons on that inner wing station?

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/06 ... ge/bae.jpg

That is simply impossible, because of the gears! That's why EF so far is restricted to 3 heavy stations only and can either carry 2 x fuel tanks and 1x of these weapons, or 1 x fuel tank and 2 x weapons in less range missions. Moreover, the fact that the litening pod can be used only at the centline station so far, rules out the use of 1000Kg LGB completely, because all stations will be occupied by the fuel tanks and the pod!
As you can see, the EF needs CFTs badly to offer enough range and weapon stations in the A2G role and to be comparable to Rafale, F18SH (both up to 3 heavy weapons and a pod), or even the light Gripen (Gripen E/F is planed to carry 2 x fuel tanks, 2 heavy weapons and a pod).


One more point where you clearly are not up to date is the RAF:

RAF Dropping to 6 Fast-Jet Units

LONDON - Britain may halve its fast-jet fleet by 2020 or so, according to the commanding officer of the Royal Air Force's No. 1 Group.

"We are heading for five Typhoon squadrons and one JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] squadron," said Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, who commands the RAF's air combat group. "It will be a six-squadron world; that's what's on the books." That could mean 107 Typhoons, plus about 40 F-35C JSFs that support a large operational squadron of 20 to 25 crews, Bagwell said...

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... um=twitter


So to correct more of your wrong points:

- RAF will use F35 - fact
- they plan to cut down the EF numbers till 2020 to 107 or even less (so nearly half of the French Rafales that are already on order, so much for France has the same problems
like UK!) - fact
- Brimstone and Storm Shadow are not integrated yet and talks will start somewhere next year only - fact
- for induction planed from 2015 onwards - which means with AESA radar and in T3B
- also interesting is the fact that the Saudi deal could be in trouble and might be diverted from UK orders again and even the officer says that it's not clear if they will be replaced by new EFs again, while he is sure that more F35s will come - just as I told you before, Italy and UK reduced EF orders and plans with F35 in the strike role and for the future!

I told you these things before, but you keep denying it, will be interesting to see how you want to deny these statements of the an commanding officer of the Royal Air Force.

For the rest, you just have to look at it unbiased and you will see the truth, but you clearly don't want to.

[Sancho]

Naah.. it is not money, Mig would definitely win having a big clout with IAF. They have already saying many things including 50-50 venture with compete ToT. They could have easily got loans for making this.

India is not Sweden, hence that equation does not apply to us. Israel would be happy and so would be Russia.

Mig as of now has no future, and that was the reasons I thought for them to correct.

Doubtful, where is the point of a 50 - 50 venture, of a fighter that has no future? It's not like Brahmos, MRTA, or FGFA where export orders, or at least orders from India and Russia are clear. Same can be said about the ToT offer, what's the use of ToT nothing more than an RD33 engine upgrade? HAL is producing the engine under licence anyway, if we wanted it, it was available for LCA, but we didn't even wanted it as a stop gap like the GE 404, or 414. Russian avionics would be replaced with Indian, or western, which leaves only AESA radar ToT that would be useful, so complete Russian ToT of the Mig is not really an argument.
You misunderstood the part of pressuring Israel, because it has nothing to do with us, we can have the radar for LCA, but it's not available for competitiors of the US fighters in MMRCA!

[Viv S]

Viv S

First of all, what you fail to understand is, that not the weapons IAF buys decides if a fighter is multi role capable or not, but the weapons and capabilities that are intgrated into the fighter and it's upgrade/tech level.
Our Mirage 2000 were procured for the A2A interception role with A2A ammo mainly, that's why IAF lacked enough A2G ammo during Kargil that could be used for them (and this short sight also should explain why a diversity of ammo, that can be used from different fighters of the fleet is important, instead of beeing limited to MKI and it's weapons alone), but that doesn't mean they couldn't use Exocet, or other French ammos that IAF simply didn't bought. So even they could be used in A2A, strike and anti ship roles back then!

That's exactly what I said - according to you, the Mirage-2000 didn't serve as a multi-role aircraft with the IAF. And the first (and so far only) type operating as a multi-role aircraft is the MKI. Well that's your perception - I think most other people would agree that the IAF's Mirage-2000s today, despite the absence of the Scalp-EG and Exocet are multi-role aircraft.

With the 2000-5 upgrade they will be able to use the same weapon pack that Rafale uses, even if IAF didn't bought them now, because they are wired for those weapons and they were integrated into Mirage 2000-5s before!

With the Paveway and Litening the EF will be able to employ the same weapons as the Mirage-2000 today (along with the Tejas).

That exactly is the problem for EF, because T3A might be wired to use other weapons, but they must be integrated first, with all neccesary software changes and tests, before they can be used and as long the partners, or any export customer don't fund the integration and software changes it's not possible at all.

The software integration was done with the block 8 batch 3 & 4 within Tranche 2. Its the flight trials that haven't been done yet.

Btw, 1000Km range with a single fuel tank and 2 x Storm Shadows for EF? Even in A2A config, the combat range is only a bit more than 1300Km, so your figures are not really realistic, just like your claim about carrying longer weapons on the inner wing pylons. Look at the following pic with 500 Kg Paveway 2 LGB, which are less than 4m long and tell me where you want to fit longer weapons on that inner wing station? That is simply impossible, because of the gears! That's why EF so far is restricted to 3 heavy stations only and can either carry 2 x fuel tanks and 1x of these weapons, or 1 x fuel tank and 2 x weapons in less range missions

Check again. I didn't claim the aircraft would have a range of 1000km. I said it could hit a target 1000km away. Assuming both are anchored at the centre, the Storm Shadow will extend 50cms farther into the wing. Will it interfere with the landing gear? Unless you can examine the missile and aircraft close up, that can't be definitively stated. But its certainly not impossible to carry it.

Moreover, the fact that the litening pod can be used only at the centline station so far, rules out the use of 1000Kg LGB completely, because all stations will be occupied by the fuel tanks and the pod!
As you can see, the EF needs CFTs badly to offer enough range and weapon stations in the A2G role and to be comparable to Rafale, F18SH (both up to 3 heavy weapons and a pod), or even the light Gripen (Gripen E/F is planed to carry 2 x fuel tanks, 2 heavy weapons and a pod)

.

When you say 'enough range' how much are talking about. You want the aircraft to carry three fuel tanks, two Storm Shadows, (presumably) a pair of 1000kg PGMs on a mission to hit what exactly? And how often do you see this kind of mission being required in wartime?

One more point where you clearly are not up to date is the RAF:

RAF Dropping to 6 Fast-Jet Units

LONDON - Britain may halve its fast-jet fleet by 2020 or so, according to the commanding officer of the Royal Air Force's No. 1 Group.

"We are heading for five Typhoon squadrons and one JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] squadron," said Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, who commands the RAF's air combat group. "It will be a six-squadron world; that's what's on the books." That could mean 107 Typhoons, plus about 40 F-35C JSFs that support a large operational squadron of 20 to 25 crews, Bagwell said...

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... um=twitter

That's one RAF officer speculating. What would determine the actual size is a statement from Whitehall and not AOC No. 1 Group. The MoD hasn't announced any plan to retire the Tranche 1. Sure if Oman is interested in the T1 variant (questionable since they want to retire the Jaguar) the possibility of selling off the older aircraft exists. Fortunately, that will have no bearing on the cost of the EF to India or future upgrades to the aircraft.

So to correct more of your wrong points:

- RAF will use F35 - fact

Originally the F-35B was to be ordered and employed in JFH type structure. The F-35 number has now been cut and the F-35C will be ordered instead (not the F-35A), and unlike the JFH just a single carriers worth of aircraft will be ordered. If indeed AVM Bagwell is correct (and I don't think he is), the F-35 will have just a single squadron, which can be co-operated with the RAF.

- they plan to cut down the EF numbers till 2020 to 107 or even less (so nearly half of the French Rafales that are already on order, so much for France has the same problems
like UK!) - fact

Until that comes from Whitehall, that's far from fact.

- Brimstone and Storm Shadow are not integrated yet and talks will start somewhere next year only - fact

What talks? The Brimstone and Storm Shadow integration is NOT a part of the Tranche 3A plan.

- for induction planed from 2015 onwards - which means with AESA radar and in T3B

The Tranche 3A deliveries will take place from 2013 to 2016, which means that they don't preclude the AESA from being integrated.

- also interesting is the fact that the Saudi deal could be in trouble and might be diverted from UK orders again and even the officer says that it's not clear if they will be replaced by new EFs again, while he is sure that more F35s will come - just as I told you before, Italy and UK reduced EF orders and plans with F35 in the strike role and for the future!

The Saudi orders and allocations have already been done. And 24 British aircraft were diverted to the Saudis. And the officer you've quoted explicitly said that in his opinion only a single squadron of the F-35 would be bought. How is that a replacement of the EF with the F-35.

I told you these things before, but you keep denying it, will be interesting to see how you want to deny these statements of the an commanding officer of the Royal Air Force.

Like I said, if you want to accept his opinion as set in stone, lets do so. His statements makes it amply clear that the F-35 will NOT be replacing the Typhoon, and only reinforces what I said about the numbers being too small to be operated as a land based aircraft. And secondly, at no point did he claim that future upgrades would be economized on.

Fact remains - take the money spent on the Eurofighter program divide it by the number of aircraft produced (regardless of whether its delivered to the UK, to Saudi Arabia or to Oman) and the figure is much lower than the corresponding one for the Rafale.

For the rest, you just have to look at it unbiased and you will see the truth, but you clearly don't want to.

1. You've made a big deal about the Storm Shadow/Taurus not being integrated so far, but not justified why the IAF would want to purchase those missiles when the Brahmos and Nirbhay will be available for such high priority missions.
2. You've claimed that integration of these missiles is an expensive venture, but then failed to say what sort of figure 'expensive' implies. And just how much would it cost the Indian taxpayer.
3. You've ignored the point about the French having an inordinate amount of leverage over India with regard to a Rafale upgrade, which the participation in the Eurofighter consortium would nullify.

[SaiK]

There is no hard and fast rule to execute this MRCA contract and if MoD feels this can be canceled, it can do it in a jiffy.

The point I was making is that if Migs go on a correction mode from operations and support to improved product offering, they have a big upper hand in this MRCA or an upgrade of the existing Mig29s to 35 standards, that may include AESA, new engines, more composites and other 4++ technology etc.

They might very well squander a wonderful opportunity is besides the point I was trying to say. BTW, The migs can't be ruled out totally. What goes in, and how it is all going to shape up also plays important.

Please note that as is Mig35 may not be of interest for MRCA cause of those points I highlighted.

Question of which partnership that is going to win is now all that is left, as IAF has already given its choice to MoD.

[SaiK]

http://www.avia.ru/news/?id=1292591952
google translated-
The value determined by Lockheed Martin, Barbedzh not named, citing the fact that this sensitive information, because the F-35 is involved in several international tenders, which competes with the JAS-39 Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. F/A-18E/F costs an average of 42.7 million dollars excluding engines. It should be noted that the F/A-18E/F is equipped with two engines General Electric F414. For the purchase of 99 power plants of India Ministry of Defence will pay $ 800 million, or 8.08 million dollars apiece.

According to the Pentagon, the cost of engines Pratt & Whitney F135 for the F-35A CTOL $ 19 million dollars, and for the F-35B STOVL - $ 38 million. Compared with the party of power plants for the LRIP 3, the new F135 fell by ten percent.

[Singha]

wow $38 mil for a engine upfront makes it simply unaffordable for most.

[Viv S]

wow $38 mil for a engine upfront makes it simply unaffordable for most.

Not really. The $38 million includes the lift fan. The F135 for the vanilla F-35A on the other hand costs about $19 million and produces a thrust equivalent to roughly two F414s which are valued at $8 million each after thousands being manufactured. Considering the F135 is yet enter full scale production, it may not end up being too bad a deal.

[Philip]

A little bird told me that the US will be mightily pissed off if they do not get the MMRCA deal.It appears that they have been promised the deal.This then invites suspicion that secret deals that have been made by MMS and the US when the N-deal was engineered.What effect the Wikileaks will have on the deal is now open to Q.The US's criticism of Sonia G,revelations about its all-out support for Pak,and the treatment of Indian diplomats is bound to increase anti-US sentiment within the establishment.If the US cannot provide full TOT like the Europeans and Russians,then it will come off second best.There will be much resistance on these issues from the service too and for all MMS's pro-US tilt,sorry....prostration,the final nod from SG might go the European way.

[Nihat]

A little bird told me that the US will be mightily pissed off if they do not get the MMRCA deal.It appears that they have been promised the deal.This then invites suspicion that secret deals that have been made by MMS and the US when the N-deal was engineered.What effect the Wikileaks will have on the deal is now open to Q.The US's criticism of Sonia G,revelations about its all-out support for Pak,and the treatment of Indian diplomats is bound to increase anti-US sentiment within the establishment.If the US cannot provide full TOT like the Europeans and Russians,then it will come off second best.There will be much resistance on these issues from the service too and for all MMS's pro-US tilt,sorry....prostration,the final nod from SG might go the European way.

Who said Europeans and Russians will give full ToT , nobody does that, critical technologies remain with the vendor. It's only a fancy name for sending the blueprints of screwdriver tech.

Besides, all of your little birdie stuff are things and theories which have been floating around for quite a while now. I don't see whats new.

[Philip]

You can take a horse to the water...Nihat!

Anyway,believe what you will.I'm sorry I can't let you in further on my ornithological friends and their birdsong.We're on the verge of signing a deal with the Russians for the FGFA 250-300 of them.I daresay that the TOT we will get from them and the Europeans on the MMRCA will be far more than what the US will offer/give us.They refuse even their closest allies the British on the JSF,therefore all they will give us is the proverbial screwdriver and accompanying nuts and bolts.The track record of each foreign nation on TOT for India is there for all to see,who has helped us the most and who has helped our mortal enemy Pak the most! On that count ,the US wins hands down (barring the Chinese).

[himanshugoswami]

Philip, if what you are saying is accurate, then it is music to my ears. any of the Euro Canards would be a super buy for the IAF, with the Tiffy being slightly ahead then the other two.

the IAF was mighty impressed with the Tiffy and their view is that it would perfectly complement the MKI (per a few IAF jocks who are my freinds/relatives). the only issue is the unproven AESA for this bird.

whatever be the case, i sure hope Unkil does not manage a last minute coup...i would much rather the deal gets delayed and UPA kicked out of office next elections than to have a deal signed next year with US birds in our colours. In the meantime, we can continue with production of the MKI and LCA to fill up the gaps.

[Sancho]

That's exactly what I said - according to you, the Mirage-2000 didn't serve as a multi-role aircraft with the IAF. And the first (and so far only) type operating as a multi-role aircraft is the MKI. Well that's your perception - I think most other people would agree that the IAF's Mirage-2000s today, despite the absence of the Scalp-EG and Exocet are multi-role aircraft.

Once again, because IAF had in that time a seperation into dedicated A2A (Mig 29, M2K for example) and dedicated A2G fighters (Mig 27, Jags), not because it was not capable enough for more roles and now we are only looking for real multi role aircrafts, that's why the EF with it's limitations wouldn't be a good choice.

With the Paveway and Litening the EF will be able to employ the same weapons as the Mirage-2000 today (along with the Tejas).

So the costliest MMRCA will be, as far as it is known at the moment, only as capable as the Mirage 2000 TODAY!
With the upgrade, the M2K-5 can use LGBs, GPS guided AASM, cruise missiles and so on and be honest please, shouldn't an MMRCA that we buy for such high costs, at least offer the same and not less?

Assuming both are anchored at the centre, the Storm Shadow will extend 50cms farther into the wing. Will it interfere with the landing gear? Unless you can examine the missile and aircraft close up, that can't be definitively stated. But its certainly not impossible to carry it.

I really don't know why you need all these speculations and assumtions? Why not take those things to account that are known, or cleared?

Check these EF weapon configs, they even show loaded of a Storm Shadow (for ground displays, not tested yet) and as you can see, it is only possibly on the mid wing stations, with a single centerline fuel tank:

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofight ... s-fit.html

And I have to correct myself even, I though it would be possible to carry 1 cruise missile on the centerline station, but not even that seems to be possible, because ot the limited space between the gears (hardly enough for the 1000l tank), so even the Gripen will be able to carry more.

I hope you will stop these speculations about weapon configs now, EF is a great A2A fighter, but so far is not really multi role capable and even in future will be less capable than Rafale, or the Super Hornet in A2G, unless they change the position of the targeting pod and add CFTs. And unless these things are official, you have to admit that the EF offers less in this regard.

That's one RAF officer speculating...

Yeah sure, only an RAF officer speculating. Oman is talking about new EFs (T2, or even T3), not second hand T1s, according to the article those will be offered to other countires around 2015 because:

it would cost too much to bring them up to the required multirole standards offered by Tranche 2 and Tranche 3.

And the officer you've quoted explicitly said that in his opinion only a single squadron of the F-35 would be bought. How is that a replacement of the EF with the F-35.

Read again please:

Typhoon numbers could be clipped even further if Britain and Oman seal a deal to send the Persian Gulf nation about a squadron's worth of aircraft. The planes could be diverted from an existing RAF order; the question is whether they will then later be replaced, he said...

..."Six squadrons is the low point for the U.K.'s fast jet fleet," one analyst said. "You can expect that to recover a little as the Ministry of Defence bolsters its force of Joint Strike Fighters beyond the current level mandated in the new strategic defense and security review."

Bagwell was less sanguine. He called the first JSF squadron a "start point" and said more may come, but for the moment, "I expect a single squadron in 2020 and that's it."

Other senior RAF officers have said they aim eventually to operate around 100 F-35Cs, which will split their time operating from land bases and from the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

Again you mistunderstood it, these and other latest reports from UK shows, that the RAF aims on more than just one squad of F35s, so if they don't replace those EFs that will be diverted to Oman and maybe more to Saudi with new EFs, they will replace them with F35 instead!
Royal Navy is only planing with a single carrier with fighters anymore (the other one will be an helicopter carrier), which means they need around 30 F35s only, which leaves 70, or even more for the RAF.

Like I said, if you want to accept his opinion as set in stone, lets do so.

I do, once because that are reliable sources (and even named unlike those we often see spread by the media regarding MMRCA) and secondly you have nothing else than speculations only, without any proofs, so why should I believe something else?
That's why I told you all the time, see it without any pre-conditions, based on known facts and you will see the differences from what was planed in the 90, or early 2000s and what is reality now.
I proved that the EF is more costly, I proved that no other A2G weapon than LGBs are integrated yet, I proved that the partners are reducing orders and some of them have other commitments too, just as I proved that the EF is not capable enough in A2G without further upgrades (weapons, CFTs, EWS) apart from those that are cleared so far.

1. You've made a big deal about the Storm Shadow/Taurus not being integrated so far, but not justified why the IAF would want to purchase those missiles when the Brahmos and Nirbhay will be available for such high priority missions.

I did, because IAF has learned from the past that they can't rely on certain aircrafts and weapons for certain roles only during war times! They need multi role fighters that can do more and offer also more capabilities, be it the performance of the fighter itself, or through the available weapon package (diversity!).
Brahmos is only on the way of beeing ready (and needs time till its proven), will be costlier, can be carried only by MKI and in small numbers. While Storm Shadow / Scalp can be carrierd by M2Ks most likely all Eurocanards, which gives a cost-effective alternative to Brahmos and in higher numbers. Not to forget that if, Rafale would be selected for IN too, they would could use it too, because it's doubtful that Mig 29Ks will be able to carry Brahmos (at least not the first version).
Nirbhay is even farther away from beeing ready, so no need to speculate about it.

2. You've claimed that integration of these missiles is an expensive venture, but then failed to say what sort of figure 'expensive' implies. And just how much would it cost the Indian taxpayer.

Wrong, I said that these are additional costs, that have to be added, while fighters like Rafale, or F18 already have such weapons available and comes at lower costs anyway, what makes them by logic preferable.

3. You've ignored the point about the French having an inordinate amount of leverage over India with regard to a Rafale upgrade, which the participation in the Eurofighter consortium would nullify.

[/quote]

Your assumption that such things wouldn't be the case in EF consortium is wrong, because upgrades, or further developments have to be cleared from ALL partners (that's why Germany had to pressure Italy to join the AESA development first), which makes India dependent on 4 countries, instead of France alone.
If they want less ugrades then we want, we have to pay alone for them, same happend before, when UK went alone to integrate at least some A2G capabilities (LGBs and targeting pod), while all other partners remained with T1 fighters, because that's all what they needed then.

[Sancho]

A little bird told me that the US will be mightily pissed off if they do not get the MMRCA deal.It appears that they have been promised the deal.This then invites suspicion that secret deals that have been made by MMS and the US when the N-deal was engineered.What effect the Wikileaks will have on the deal is now open to Q.The US's criticism of Sonia G,revelations about its all-out support for Pak,and the treatment of Indian diplomats is bound to increase anti-US sentiment within the establishment.If the US cannot provide full TOT like the Europeans and Russians,then it will come off second best.There will be much resistance on these issues from the service too and for all MMS's pro-US tilt,sorry....prostration,the final nod from SG might go the European way.

Hi Philip, actually that is what everybody expects, a political decision towards the US (just like C17 for such high costs), be it for the nuclear deal, or the permanent seat in the UNC.
However, lets hope it won't end up that way and that GoI understands, that they already gave enough orders to the US and don't let us be too dependent on the US.

[srai]

quote="shukla" Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF
Times of India

After that it takes three years for delivery," Air chief marshal P V Naik said.

/quote

I was in impression that aircrafts will be delivered in 18 months...

You are confusing 18 aircrafts that are to be directly manufactured by the OEM with the delivery date

Typically, it takes at least 3 years from order to delivery. It is not possible to expedite faster than that ... unless that is if you divert some current production-line units to the new customer. You have to remember that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of vendors supplying many small parts. All of them have to further order raw materials from other vendors. And then add to this the time it takes to manufacture the parts in the quantities required. Then the time it takes to assemble them all on the final aircraft. After which, you need to do ground testing and flight checks.

[SaiK]

I envy Philip for the reasons he has friends with chai-walas who serve MMS /Manio gov. BTW, do they serve with ginger/ chai masala or plain?

[Philip]

Himanshu,let's hope that the Wikileaks description of Sonia G by the Americans is accurate,in that "she never fails an opportunity of wasting an opportunity",when it comes to buying a US bird!

[Singha]

I would be most interested if EF can arrange for meteor integration, Captor-E and extend all help necessary to integrate Sudarshan, Sudarshan2 (glonass guided) and Astra and also as part of offset help us work out a IIR aam for fleetwide use.

speaking of Astra and IJT both have vanished off the radar !! I do not even recall seeing any IJT in blr skies for a long long time.

[SaiK]

I thought I read they would shift only avionics related work to Bangalore. May be weapons integration would bring them much closer to winning the deal, from a rakshak angle. Meanwhile, the chai-biskoot guys are busy haggling $$$ with ruskies on pak-fa. I hope they stay clean on the paper and procedures.

[Viv S]

Once again, because IAF had in that time a seperation into dedicated A2A (Mig 29, M2K for example) and dedicated A2G fighters (Mig 27, Jags), not because it was not capable enough for more roles and now we are only looking for real multi role aircrafts, that's why the EF with it's limitations wouldn't be a good choice.

Except that with the Paveway-IV and the Storm Shadow (though its unlikely the IAF will want to import it), the EF that will be delivered to the IAF will be a 'full' multi-role aircraft.

With the Paveway and Litening the EF will be able to employ the same weapons as the Mirage-2000 today (along with the Tejas).

So the costliest MMRCA will be, as far as it is known at the moment, only as capable as the Mirage 2000 TODAY!
With the upgrade, the M2K-5 can use LGBs, GPS guided AASM, cruise missiles and so on and be honest please, shouldn't an MMRCA that we buy for such high costs, at least offer the same and not less?

I think I've already addressed the claim about the EF being the costliest. Take the program cost and divide it by the aircraft numbers and you'll get the price of the aircraft which includes the cost of R&D.

And if high costs are to be avoided, the IAF wouldn't order the AASM and Scalp-EG. Its not on order for the Mirage-2000. And while the IAF may be forced to buy the AASM for the Rafale, that's not an argument in favour of the aircraft.

Assuming both are anchored at the centre, the Storm Shadow will extend 50cms farther into the wing. Will it interfere with the landing gear? Unless you can examine the missile and aircraft close up, that can't be definitively stated. But its certainly not impossible to carry it.

I really don't know why you need all these speculations and assumtions? Why not take those things to account that are known, or cleared?

Check these EF weapon configs, they even show loaded of a Storm Shadow (for ground displays, not tested yet) and as you can see, it is only possibly on the mid wing stations, with a single centerline fuel tank:

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofight ... s-fit.html

And I have to correct myself even, I though it would be possible to carry 1 cruise missile on the centerline station, but not even that seems to be possible, because ot the limited space between the gears (hardly enough for the 1000l tank), so even the Gripen will be able to carry more.

By all means. Until its announced that the EF will not be able to carry the Storm Shadow on its inner pylon, I'm willing to wait and see.

I hope you will stop these speculations about weapon configs now, EF is a great A2A fighter, but so far is not really multi role capable and even in future will be less capable than Rafale, or the Super Hornet in A2G, unless they change the position of the targeting pod and add CFTs. And unless these things are official, you have to admit that the EF offers less in this regard.

It okay, you don't have to be gracious while putting the EF down.

So what mission do you see the IAF's EF/Rafale performing that requires three fuel tanks and two Storm Shadows/Scalp-EG, what frequency do you see this being carried out with and what prevents the Su-30MKI from carrying this out, considering that the MKI will have a greater missile load and a WSO?

That's one RAF officer speculating...

Yeah sure, only an RAF officer speculating. Oman is talking about new EFs (T2, or even T3), not second hand T1s, according to the article those will be offered to other countires around 2015 because:

it would cost too much to bring them up to the required multirole standards offered by Tranche 2 and Tranche 3.

That contradicts what you claimed about the RAF wanting to operate the EF for air-to-air missions and the F-35 for the strike role.

And the officer you've quoted explicitly said that in his opinion only a single squadron of the F-35 would be bought. How is that a replacement of the EF with the F-35.

Read again please:

Typhoon numbers could be clipped even further if Britain and Oman seal a deal to send the Persian Gulf nation about a squadron's worth of aircraft. The planes could be diverted from an existing RAF order; the question is whether they will then later be replaced, he said...

..."Six squadrons is the low point for the U.K.'s fast jet fleet," one analyst said. "You can expect that to recover a little as the Ministry of Defence bolsters its force of Joint Strike Fighters beyond the current level mandated in the new strategic defense and security review."

Bagwell was less sanguine. He called the first JSF squadron a "start point" and said more may come, but for the moment, "I expect a single squadron in 2020 and that's it."

Other senior RAF officers have said they aim eventually to operate around 100 F-35Cs, which will split their time operating from land bases and from the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

^^^ Doesn't say anything about the F-35 replacing the EF.

Again you mistunderstood it, these and other latest reports from UK shows, that the RAF aims on more than just one squad of F35s, so if they don't replace those EFs that will be diverted to Oman and maybe more to Saudi with new EFs, they will replace them with F35 instead!
Royal Navy is only planing with a single carrier with fighters anymore (the other one will be an helicopter carrier), which means they need around 30 F35s only, which leaves 70, or even more for the RAF.

First off, the F-35 was intended to operate in a JFH like formation. Secondly, 100 F-35s ??!!! They'll be buying barely two maybe three squadrons worth as things stand. What gave you the impression the F-35 was immune from the cuts which would only affect the EF (the major part of which is paid for in GBP not USD)?

Like I said, if you want to accept his opinion as set in stone, lets do so.

I do, once because that are reliable sources (and even named unlike those we often see spread by the media regarding MMRCA) and secondly you have nothing else than speculations only, without any proofs, so why should I believe something else?

Like I said, for the sake of argument, lets believe it, despite the fact that he states it as a possibility not certainty. So according to him the EF numbers will come down from eight squadrons, that it was contractually obligated to buy, to five squadrons while the F-35 will decline from six squadron to sole one.

Now HOW does any of that suggest that the F-35 is 'replacing' the EF, and therefore allowing the EF to economize on A2G capability?

That's why I told you all the time, see it without any pre-conditions, based on known facts and you will see the differences from what was planed in the 90, or early 2000s and what is reality now.
I proved that the EF is more costly, I proved that no other A2G weapon than LGBs are integrated yet, I proved that the partners are reducing orders and some of them have other commitments too, just as I proved that the EF is not capable enough in A2G without further upgrades (weapons, CFTs, EWS) apart from those that are cleared so far.

You haven't proven how despite having a much lower proportional program cost, the EF is more expensive than the Rafale, you haven't proven that the IAF's EF's will not have the ability to use the Storm Shadow, you haven't proven that the aircraft's unit cost or upgrade potential will be reduced by one of the partners shifting part of its quota to new countries, and you've failed to expound on what 'capable enough' entails.

1. You've made a big deal about the Storm Shadow/Taurus not being integrated so far, but not justified why the IAF would want to purchase those missiles when the Brahmos and Nirbhay will be available for such high priority missions.

I did, because IAF has learned from the past that they can't rely on certain aircrafts and weapons for certain roles only during war times! They need multi role fighters that can do more and offer also more capabilities, be it the performance of the fighter itself, or through the available weapon package (diversity!).
Brahmos is only on the way of beeing ready (and needs time till its proven), will be costlier, can be carried only by MKI and in small numbers. While Storm Shadow / Scalp can be carrierd by M2Ks most likely all Eurocanards, which gives a cost-effective alternative to Brahmos and in higher numbers. Not to forget that if, Rafale would be selected for IN too, they would could use it too, because it's doubtful that Mig 29Ks will be able to carry Brahmos (at least not the first version).
Nirbhay is even farther away from beeing ready, so no need to speculate about it.

The time-scale involved in the Nirbhay is offset by the fact the MRCA isn't expected to reach squadron strength until 2014. Seeing as the MRCA is expected to serve all the way to 2045 if not later, a Nirbhay fielded on 270 MKIs + 120 Tejas + 40 Jaguars + (possibly) 126 MRCA + PAK-FA/FGFA makes far better sense that ordering the Storm Shadow/Scalp-EG. The Brahmos is more expensive (for now) but its paid for and manufactured domestically, unlike the SS/S-EG which will have to be paid for in forex.

Also, the IAF already operates the Kh-59M missile which will tide it over until the Nirbhay enters service. More important is the fact that the PGMs in the form of the Paveway, KAB-500/1500 and (possibly) JDAMs will be the primary A2G weapon employed, there are sharp limits to how many million dollar missiles can be expended at any period during war.

2. You've claimed that integration of these missiles is an expensive venture, but then failed to say what sort of figure 'expensive' implies. And just how much would it cost the Indian taxpayer.

Wrong, I said that these are additional costs, that have to be added, while fighters like Rafale, or F18 already have such weapons available and comes at lower costs anyway, what makes them by logic preferable.

Sure. Question is what scale are these additional costs? Are we talking five zeros, six zeros or more? And that's why I mentioned the AASMs cost - at over EUR 100,000 it makes the integrating the £30,000 Paveway IV or the JDAMs economical especially for a large order.

3. You've ignored the point about the French having an inordinate amount of leverage over India with regard to a Rafale upgrade, which the participation in the Eurofighter consortium would nullify.

Your assumption that such things wouldn't be the case in EF consortium is wrong, because upgrades, or further developments have to be cleared from ALL partners (that's why Germany had to pressure Italy to join the AESA development first), which makes India dependent on 4 countries, instead of France alone.
If they want less ugrades then we want, we have to pay alone for them, same happend before, when UK went alone to integrate at least some A2G capabilities (LGBs and targeting pod), while all other partners remained with T1 fighters, because that's all what they needed then.

The AESA and Meteor were still cleared for integration. Between the UK, Germany, India, there's enough clout to over-rule any inertia from Italy and Spain. With France you need only get access to the upgrades that they deem necessary for their own aircraft and you get to pay their prices. India will not get a say in whether a 90kN engine should be developed, or whether TVC or CFTs are necessary and far more importantly will be compelled to pay French prices for the available upgrades.

How much do you reckon the UK paid for the Litening pod integration? Enough to argue for an restructuring of the planned upgrade path?

[glene]

IAF to Chose From Eurofighter and Rafael: MRCA

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2010/ ... r-and.html

[darshhan]

^^Glene , The above link is a paki owned website and is known to host malware.

[shukla]

India’s MMRCA battle enters the final rounds
FlightGlobal

"All the technical evaluations are done," says an industry source. "The next stage will be a downselect, likely in April or May after the Aero India show [9-13 February]. This will determine which aircraft go into contract negotiations." Another source, however, indicates that there is no fixed number of aircraft for the shortlist, and that all six aircraft types could, in theory at least, advance to the contract stage.

Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Nayak says that development of the production capacity required to produce the eventual MMRCA winner is already under way. "We will have to set up new infrastructure for this," says Nayak. "It won't happen in one of our existing factories, but hopefully will still be in Bangalore." He estimates that Hindustan Aeronautics alone will employ 3,500 to produce the MMRCA, and that it will take about three years to set up the facility.

[SaiK]

Should it be still Bangalore? Again, they have to create a new setup, so it could be combined setup for future PMF/FGFA/AMCA as well.

[andy B]

Alright bad a$$es, bad santa is here bearing gifts

I am guessing Viv S is going to love this one :

Typhoon arming up for AG role:
http://ifile.it/p1o6mez/RAF%20TYPHOON.zip

GRIPEN NG:
http://ifile.it/tzwa9pn/GRIPEN%20NG.zip

MIGS vs Vipers:
http://ifile.it/cixl5fa/MIGS%20VS%20VIPERS.zip

[Philip]

Why not Mysore? Close enough to B'lore,but would the GOI/MOD want to put all its aerospace PSU's in one state? It would be a sensible decision,close by and the other B''lore defence undertakings supplying HAL could do the same here.It all depends upon the winner.From the report it appears that a decision has been taken already to go in for a western fighter,otherwise the Nasik plant could churn out MIG-35s and SU-30MKIs.HAL has no more space for expansion in B'lore,as LCA production would replace the Jaguar line.Coastal cities are too risky from attack and the facility has to be far inland.H'Bad is another option.Coimbatore,where the first LCA sqd. is to be staioned at Sulur? Outside chance.I plump for Mysore.

[Singha]

in my opinion HAL will just obtain some more land on outskirts of Blr from state/central govt in areas like kolar, attibele or yeshwantapur/dobbalapur region and setup new shops there. they may already have such unused pieces of land.

[arya]

Why not Mysore? Close enough to B'lore,but would the GOI/MOD want to put all its aerospace PSU's in one state? It would be a sensible decision,close by and the other B''lore defence undertakings supplying HAL could do the same here.It all depends upon the winner.From the report it appears that a decision has been taken already to go in for a western fighter,otherwise the Nasik plant could churn out MIG-35s and SU-30MKIs.HAL has no more space for expansion in B'lore,as LCA production would replace the Jaguar line.Coastal cities are too risky from attack and the facility has to be far inland.H'Bad is another option.Coimbatore,where the first LCA sqd. is to be staioned at Sulur? Outside chance.I plump for Mysore.

Sir why not north? [HAL KANPUR]

[manum]

i just live beside HAL lucknow....and in gorakhpur where I've another house...we time to time see jaguar sorties...which is think is a not so famous but strategic airbase...

so yes, I always wondered what happens there, why north is still not into the picture...

I also saw recently a bomb disposal unit, just beside a railway station, while on the way from lucknow to gorakhpur, it has got its fence made of disposed off bomb shells...

[SaiK]

thanks andy b, so it is salex 1000p for gripen as well.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/14657/

1000E for typhoon.

captor --
so it says it would have twice the t/r modules as e-scan rbe-2, and much more advanced than APG79., with built in ECCM, and larger than JSF antenna apg-81.

wonder how many t/rs? it also specific to Indian mmrca order.

--
btw, mysore is a bad place.. I don't want this project to be jeopardized by animal rights activists. leave the mysore alone!

[Kartik]

Why not Mysore? Close enough to B'lore,but would the GOI/MOD want to put all its aerospace PSU's in one state? It would be a sensible decision,close by and the other B''lore defence undertakings supplying HAL could do the same here.It all depends upon the winner.From the report it appears that a decision has been taken already to go in for a western fighter,otherwise the Nasik plant could churn out MIG-35s and SU-30MKIs.HAL has no more space for expansion in B'lore,as LCA production would replace the Jaguar line.Coastal cities are too risky from attack and the facility has to be far inland.H'Bad is another option.Coimbatore,where the first LCA sqd. is to be staioned at Sulur? Outside chance.I plump for Mysore.

Sir why not north? [HAL KANPUR]

HAL Kanpur will likely be the place where HJT-36 Sitaras will be produced.

[Singha]

places like blr, coimbatore, chennai, salem, hyd in south have a good base of people and SME skilled in machine tools industry. people always like to centralize for ease of co-ordination and no need to replicate many functions unless some other factor like lack of land or political directive overrides. hence if land is available blr might get the new plant - my guess would be attibele side or near the volvo plant on the old madras road somewhere. being a Govt owned manufacturing industry expected to employee 1000s of local workers, the state govt will have no political opposition to granting it some land.