MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
rachit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 05 May 2008 16:49
Location: London

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rachit » 04 Aug 2009 17:27

plane price figures....rafale is way too expensive!

http://www.defencetalk.com/brazil-weigh ... ids-20888/

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Aug 2009 17:45

Ef seems to offer better sharing of tech vs SH. if PMO and Antony sir act patriotically and long term they
will run with Ef. if the noted american 'influence' on current regime weighs in, SH will bag it.

the rest are sideshows to follow process and make up the cast.

either way the J10-2 cannot face up to the contest.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2009 17:56

Ef seems to offer better sharing of tech vs SH. if PMO and Antony sir act patriotically and long term they
will run with Ef. if the noted american 'influence' on current regime weighs in, SH will bag it.


How come?

If India gets to build only a wing/tail/some other part and perhaps gets to assemble the final product, what advantage does India get?

Now, IF India gets to build the radar and engine, perhaps that is a great leap.

Also, what about offsets?

Then the headache of a partner potentially dropping out. The UK wants out anyways, so, I see India more as a replacement of the UK than a addition to the already existing partnership.

Thoughts?

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3298
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Tanaji » 04 Aug 2009 18:12

The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2009 18:16

Tanaji wrote:The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.


So, it is a political deal.

However, the deal could be split - by politics too. I suppose we can agree that some or all of the deal will go to the US.

In which case the ToT and offsets have a lesser meaning.

Charu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 03 Aug 2009 04:01
Location: 51°52'29"N 0°22'6"W

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Charu » 04 Aug 2009 20:11

Very good analysis of the Phazotron Zhuk AE/ASE AESA radar



http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rakall » 04 Aug 2009 20:13

Austin wrote:rakall I think the influence of Unkil is overrated , just because of media hype.

Its not easy for the politician and defence forces to forget what happened post 98 and how Unkil made each penny and each software count.

They cannot gurantee that sanction will not be applied or spares issue will not arise post sanctions.

I do not rate Unkil chance high for MMRCA , besides the media hype.
.



Tanaji wrote:The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.



The only think that history seems to have taught us is "We tend to forget history very easily"... and that worries me the most..

Suppose we "have to" validate the re-worked design of the semi-fizzled TNbum --- would we dare do it, if 6sqds were ransom to the test.... I hope the powers that be consider this...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2009 20:14

Charu wrote:Very good analysis of the Phazotron Zhuk AE/ASE AESA radar

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html


Be forewarned:

19th July, 2008
by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
© 2008 Carlo Kopp

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 04 Aug 2009 20:48

NRao wrote:19th July, 2008
by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, MIEEE, PEng
© 2008 Carlo Kopp
Whats wrong with that? Just curious!

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 04 Aug 2009 21:04

Tanaji wrote:The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.


If that is what GoI thinks then we are in for a ride.

What about the 6 C130Js?
What about the two power reactors?
More Chinooks / Apaches talked about...
Talks about 10 C-17s mentioned..


I think the two power reactors themselves should finish the quid-pro-quo. Living up to others expectations can come after you got your back covered, AND others follow through.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Aug 2009 23:03

Dmurphy wrote:Whats wrong with that? Just curious!


Kopp is from the Land of Oz. He has had an interest in pushing for more and better and newer techs for Oz. So, he tends to push a few limits. Which is OK from an Oz PoV.

But, he does produce the very best pictures, most are the latest.

IMHO, one (India) needs to take it with a pinch of salt. What he says may apply to - say - a Su-30 with some other nation and not with India ................. Or he may find China has a tech and say this is an Asian threat - may imply that India or Indonesia or some other nation has it - when they do not. However, it fits his task very well - which is to make the GoA buy latest and greatest.

I siad this long back - he can put a fang on the MKIs and call it a threat that Oz cannot counter.

Mihaylo
BRFite
Posts: 762
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 21:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Mihaylo » 04 Aug 2009 23:20

a_kumar wrote:
Tanaji wrote:The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.


If that is what GoI thinks then we are in for a ride.

What about the 6 C130Js?
What about the two power reactors?
More Chinooks / Apaches talked about...
Talks about 10 C-17s mentioned..


I think the two power reactors themselves should finish the quid-pro-quo. Living up to others expectations can come after you got your back covered, AND others follow through.


Forgot about the following 'pay offs'
..and the P8
..and the rust bucket USS Trenton LPD
..and giving in to their demands at Sharm el Sheikh

and I am sure more to come before the MRCA winner is even decided.

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby b_patel » 04 Aug 2009 23:33

plane price figures....rafale is way too expensive!

Its the same with the EF your paying for a quality aircraft not a Russian Mig. Also the Rafale has not been produced in large numbers making components expensive thus driving up the prices. Yes its expensive but Dassault is actually wiling to transfer technology unlike Boeing and they are willing to build the 36 fighters in Brazil. The super hornet isn't cheap either surprisingly. If you read the article the Super Hornet came in at about 90million which is much higher than I would have imagined.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4577
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Aug 2009 23:51

Its the same with the EF your paying for a quality aircraft not a Russian Mig.


Alas what would the poor IAF know, they operate 100s of russsian migs onlee. Poor blokes saddled with poor quality russian migs, flankers and what not.

CM

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 05 Aug 2009 00:19

Mihaylo wrote:Forgot about the following 'pay offs'
..and the P8
..and the rust bucket USS Trenton LPD
..and giving in to their demands at Sharm el Sheikh

and I am sure more to come before the MRCA winner is even decided.


Thanks.. how could I foget the
- P8-Is at a ticket price of $2.2 Billion.

To add to previous post
- C130J at $1B
- Each nuclear power plant is worth $5B by some estimates (well, it is not exactly going from Indian Forex, but it is business opportunity to US companies)

I see that the largest carrot (from Indian Forex reserves) will be the MMRCA. But for all the messing around happening lately on both Nuclear/Pakistan/China front (including having Robin Raphael back on stage), India has more reasons than not to put this large egg in US basket.

I guess that would be a political reason for "Why NOT".

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 05 Aug 2009 00:49

k prasad wrote:
abrahavt wrote:Rafale F3 R$ 263 = 141 USD
Gripen NG R$ 132 = 71 USD
Super Hornet E/F R$ 188 = 101 USD
The airforce says all three aircraft is suitable for them so it's all about a political decision now with focus on strategic plans and ToT.

If I was Brazil I would go with the Grippen. 90% of the Rafale's capability for 50% of the cost. Both are offering same level of TOT I presume.


This sort of a comparison is not correct... in a war, even a 2% improvement will leap you over the enemy... and this is what every single development programme aims for. Its like a classroom, with a large number of student's bunched in the 80-90 range. But only a rare one may vault over to get to 93-94, which gets him selected. In a war, that is the advantage that you need.


Not all 2% improvements will give a leap over the enemy. Things that do matter are few,eg. AESA vs other radars and TOT.

"superior" machines can be vulnerable to an "inferior" machines which are deployed in large numbers. So the equation in terms of price : 1Rafale=2Gripen=3Su30 may still be a valid sample.

The key question : Is the "2% better" (or even 5% better) rafale worth 2 times or 3 times price of other machines?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Unfortunately for arm-chair generals, Rafale is a quiet participant.
Last edited by a_kumar on 05 Aug 2009 03:16, edited 1 time in total.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Katare » 05 Aug 2009 01:23

Tanaji wrote:The MRCA deal is the pay off to Americans for the nuke deal. This will go to the Americans, EUMA not withstanding.


Man you should share this information with other 4 non-american companies, their political leaders and their diplomats. They are wasting 10s of millions of dollar each besides huge management and political capital to compete for this already fixed competition.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2009 01:24

So this AESA who is it needed against? Will mech steering do for starters or only the super duper version needed from get go?

MarcH
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 10:32

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby MarcH » 05 Aug 2009 02:13

Maybe the unfinished AESA of the Eurofighter isn't as bad as some people make it out. If true partnership is offered, India could get real codevelopment work on the AESA.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4577
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Aug 2009 02:38

I don't think there is a question of "unfinished" AESAs. By the time the first batch are delivered they will be to full specs. By all accounts, they expect a 1400 TRM beast for the Tiffy. And that will be very tempting esp. if co-development is offered (which it is). Remember these guys are also offering a miniaturized version for the LCA along with TVC EJ-200s.

The EF-2000 guys are not v.high up on the political order (and they know it), hence their big target is offsets, tots, development etc - goodies for the babus and bean counters. Not to mention kickbacks.

codevelopment of tranche 3 (including TOT/mfg/development on AESA, engines, EW) would make it sweet.

If they can do a solid job on this aspect along with a relatively modest price ($ 125 mllion), I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF settled for 100 EF-2000s (ACM tyagi i believe had mentioned reduction of numbers if necessary). Emphasis is on topnotch performance, "quality" (more than quantity I think), diversification and offsets. THe MiG guys better deliver on the AESA, EW (ELS), and datalinking capability all @ a v.low price.

The Rafale actually stands a better chance imvho. It can trump the EF in every way for this contest, if they play their cards right. Their AESA is more mature (fielded), better A2G, decent political clout, IAF dotes on the M2k.

Why are AESAs needed? As far as the bidders are concerned, its a part of the RFP and thats all that matters.

An aside, the Captor Mech is supposed to be some shakes (aesa or not), 165-180km detection for 5+ msq targets. Decent TWR, multitargeting ability, air/ground interleaving modes all present. Basically, the very best a Mechanically scanned radar can do I guess, EADS guys tout it as equal to a 1st gen AESA.

CM
Last edited by Cain Marko on 05 Aug 2009 02:58, edited 1 time in total.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 05 Aug 2009 02:49

MarcH wrote:Maybe the unfinished AESA of the Eurofighter isn't as bad as some people make it out. If true partnership is offered, India could get real codevelopment work on the AESA.


Not just AESA development, we should merge the EJ2000 into the fold of any possible pact. There will be a lot to be leveraged for domestic projects from this venture, provided we don't drop the ball.

Also interesting, looking far ahead, getting plugged into these big European Defence houses as a partner will give us some clout or visibility (indirect, if not direct) on Pakistani and (to smaller extent) Chinese procurements, the two we have to closely watch.

Just pray there won't be any scandals (BAE is "chaar sou chaalees voltt", not in a good way)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2009 02:59

The MRCA tech thread has more, but ....

So this AESA who is it needed against? Will mech steering do for starters or only the super duper version needed from get go?


From a pure agility PoV, one would prefer the super duper. Having said that there has been a proposal to combine the two.

Maybe the unfinished AESA of the Eurofighter isn't as bad as some people make it out. If true partnership is offered, India could get real codevelopment work on the AESA.


????????????????????. IF they assign that work to India under the partnership program. IF India gets to make only wings and wheels and tires, then it will not be that good. I do not think EADS works that way (as you think), it seems to me that they operate as a committee (voting on things). I do not think EADS will have a India specific stuff. Or am I wrong?

However, this still bugs me ............

we should merge the EJ2000 into the fold of any possible pact. There will be a lot to be leveraged for domestic projects from this venture


How would a EJ "partnership" help India? Nobody has been able to answer that so far. It goes back to what they will allow India to manufacture.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2009 03:00

ramana wrote:Maybe the Rafale or Mig 35 can be considered if access to other places for research in collateral areas is allowed? That would rule out the Grippen and EF as they dont have such places or are multi-lateral partnerships. US wont give access to thise places.


NRao and Cain Marko, what do you think?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16818
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Aug 2009 03:21

I wish the Israelis had a very, very mature engine.

On a more serious note ..... would not the "collateral" come with offsets? I suspect I am missing something.

I think what India NEEDS is core-competency products, which no one will provide India and India cannot reverse engineer them either - build ground up. And, this does not fall under collateral.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4577
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Aug 2009 03:35

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Maybe the Rafale or Mig 35 can be considered if access to other places for research in collateral areas is allowed? That would rule out the Grippen and EF as they dont have such places or are multi-lateral partnerships. US wont give access to thise places.


NRao and Cain Marko, what do you think?


Ramanaji,

I assume you refer to TOT, esp on high end tech.

It is almost a given that in terms of access, the russians trump everyone else. Point is how much do they really have to offer considering India is already on their boat with the Pakfa, MKI, Mig-29K? Rumor has it that the russian AESA house to watch for is not PHaza (zhuk makers) but tikhomorov (bars/zaslon?) with which india already cooperates.

French/dassault seems a decent option in that it offers both a decent degree of tot and has uber esoteric tech (as in spectra and RBE-2 AESA). They have shown a willingness too (JV with GTRE on Kaveri II, Thales tie ups). Not to mention the fact that they are willing to transfer mfg to Brazil for that deal (and this is for a paltry 36 jets for $ 2billion). A sort of golden mean is offered by this prospect imho. It is also said that the frenchies are doing their bit towards a brazilian nuke sub - so yes the french will dance to a great extent.

Won't discount the EF-2000 either - they certainly are talking the talk - TOT for LCA engines, aesa codevelopment, partnerships etc - and to some extent are walking it too - tie ups for EW suites are already in place with indian firms. They know this is probly the only area they can make a difference so they'll certainly try. The mult-lateral partnership thing could be offset with a mfg/development tie up for critical tech (current airwaves suggest that this a definite yes).

Gripen/Saab is supposed to be hot on offsets + TOT as well. But how far they can manage this with U.S. engines is anybody's guess. We already heard about the fiasco with israel. The U.S won't allow its tech to be transferred to 3rd parties esp. not when they are competing in the same race.

CM>

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby a_kumar » 05 Aug 2009 03:50

NRao wrote:How would a EJ "partnership" help India? Nobody has been able to answer that so far. It goes back to what they will allow India to manufacture.


The EJ thing can go two ways..
(1) India pays for ToT, 5 years later, we will be fighting over fineprint on what 20% or 30% meant.
(2) India pays for a stake (become partner) and has access, even if in limiter areas, to other technologies.

(2) sounds very ambitious. Without knowing what exactly EADS has it mind, got no clue how outrageous it is. But, IMO, aim high and see where one can land.

Got a high-level question on the below quote.. maybe gurus with insight can comment..
The consortium that developed the Eurofighter — comprising the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain — had decided on a unique manufacturing structure. Each part of the Eurofighter is manufactured in a different country; e.g. the right wing is made in Spain, the left wing in Italy. After that, all four partners assemble their own aircraft, bringing the parts together from the plants where they are manufactured.


Does the EADS partnership start and end in manufacturing sub-components?
- It can't be that Italy designs/manufactures left wing and Spain on its own designs/manufactures right wing. Somebody got to design the specs, so Italy and Spain can go ahead manufacture them.. who owns this effort?
- Lets assume Germany contributes with avionics software. Does that mean UK/Spain/Italy have access to the source-code or will Germany give the "binary files" and ask rest of the folks to take a hike.. (remember software issue with UK's Chinooks, because Uncle said.. "Oh.. no you misunderstood")

If its the latter, then the grand "EADS partnership" is nothing but a glorified "offset" mechanism, for all effective purposes. If that is the case, then India doesn't have much to gain by joining it, beyond the offsets EADS will have to meet anyway.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2009 03:53

Err not in aerospace areas but high energy physics for experiments of theoretical formulations.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4577
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Aug 2009 05:43

ramana wrote:Err not in aerospace areas but high energy physics for experiments of theoretical formulations.


Quite frankly saar, I wouldn't know. Me no particle phyjjicks type. Bosons and quarks seem more like the ancient idea of prana that hindu systems of spiritual research put forth. Perhaps a bit related to the medicloreans of starwars fame. :D

IOWs, to me, its all dark matter wonlee. Arun_saar, Vina, Dileep seem to be the wons equipped to relate the YEMRCA circus to such matters.

CM

FWIW, the euros do have some particle accelerator (supposed to make the earth a black whole wonlee). May be they give hindus access? In that case both the EF-2000 and Rafale are a good bet i'd guess.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Aug 2009 08:47

GeorgeWelch wrote:And the interest of Mother India is not to be so dependent on one supplier that it allows them to apply undue pressure.


It all depends on the number of blackboxes you have inside the A/C , the more number of blackboxes inside ( both software and hardware ) , the more dependent you are on the OEM.

The more modern the aircraft the more OEM will be inclined to revel and consequently more black boxes.

Mig will be more than happy for 100 % TOT as they have nothing to loose and every thing to gain from , might well change their fortune overnight.

More ever in the past they have been more than happy to integrate Indian/3rd party Avionics,Weapons , EW etc .

Considering the scale of the order between 126 to 200 , we might just make the entire aircraft , right to nuts and bolts at HAL and by our industry if its economically feasible

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 05 Aug 2009 09:53

Austin wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:And the interest of Mother India is not to be so dependent on one supplier that it allows them to apply undue pressure.


It all depends on the number of blackboxes you have inside the A/C


Not really.

Austin wrote:Considering the scale of the order between 126 to 200 , we might just make the entire aircraft , right to nuts and bolts at HAL


That didn't happen for the MKI (which was a larger order) so I don't expect that to happen for the MiG-35 either.

There are so many off-the-shelf components in a plane, it's simply not feasible to manufacture every single one of them

MKI tires anyone?

Not to mention important things like missiles.

No matter how much ToT you will still be reliant on Russia for some spares and support, and considering the large proportion of your fighters that are and will be Russian, it would seem wise to at least put some eggs in a different basket.

Austin wrote:More ever in the past they have been more than happy to integrate Indian/3rd party Avionics,Weapons , EW etc .


That's more an indication that they didn't have anything of their own to offer (at least that is competitive). I'm not sure how that is an advantage. Plus they can't offer ToT on what they don't own.

One of the components of the MRCA is ToT to help improve Indian expertise, and the MiG-35 is by far the weakest of all competitors in this area. You already have access to all the best Russian tech plus the MiG-35 seems to outsource many components which further indicates their lack of competency in certain areas.

And beyond political reasons for diversity, there is a military reason for diversity. Maybe (for instance) you find that most of your Russian missiles are misfiring or you find your American missiles are jammed or your Russian jammers are ineffective. By diversifying your fleet, you help eliminate the single point of failure.

There is something to be said about reduced logistics cost by reducing fleet types, but
1) Airlines have found that once fleet size is > ~50 any gains from commonality dwindle sharply (ie two fleets of 50 aircraft each have basically the same combined cost as one fleet of 100 aircraft). The numbers may be different for the military, but the basic premise remains.
2) Military capability and requirements override any concern about the minor difference in cost

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Aug 2009 10:26

GeorgeWelch wrote:Not really.


Why not ?

Austin wrote:That didn't happen for the MKI (which was a larger order) so I don't expect that to happen for the MiG-35 either.


Did we asked for full 100 % TOT and production rights at HAL for MKI ?

Or only selective technology for aircraft ?

There are so many off-the-shelf components in a plane, it's simply not feasible to manufacture every single one of them

MKI tires anyone?


It depends on if you want to , if for economic reason we dont , we cant fault the OEM as they offer full TOT and production rights.

Not to mention important things like missiles.


So you want to manufacture missile as well ?

No matter how much ToT you will still be reliant on Russia for some spares and support, and considering the large proportion of your fighters that are and will be Russian, it would seem wise to at least put some eggs in a different basket.


Its no wiser for me to stretch your logistics to the extent it sound insane .

These aircraft may or may not see a war , but logistics is what will bleed you every day.

If its a choice between putting egg in one basket with logistics advantage as I see , or adding yet another type to the circus that IAF has , I will choose the former.

At the least they don't sanction us or block spares , not to mention help on strategic Projects , not just talks.

That's more an indication that they didn't have anything of their own to offer (at least that is competitive). I'm not sure how that is an advantage. Plus they can't offer ToT on what they don't own.


Its IAF choice , they wants xyz for different countries , plus no TOT was offered for these by the respective OEM nor was it asked for , pure off the shelf purchase and system integration of different components is what MKI is about , much less about TOT

One of the components of the MRCA is ToT to help improve Indian expertise, and the MiG-35 is by far the weakest of all competitors in this area. You already have access to all the best Russian tech plus the MiG-35 seems to outsource many components which further indicates their lack of competency in certain areas.


Thats an acceptable risk , cost-effectiveness and logistics wise , with FGFA we will leap frog any MMRCA technology in the coming decade.

How many technologies you can count of which we may perhaps get from West or US which is not there on Tejas or Mig-35 ? And at what cost will that come at ?

And beyond political reasons for diversity, there is a military reason for diversity. Maybe (for instance) you find that most of your Russian missiles are misfiring or you find your American missiles are jammed or your Russian jammers are ineffective. By diversifying your fleet, you help eliminate the single point of failure.


Yes by that logic you should buy a gun from Russia , bullet from US , TI from France and yes soldier from India so that there is no single point of failure.

There is something to be said about reduced logistics cost by reducing fleet types, but
1) Airlines have found that once fleet size is > ~50 any gains from commonality dwindle sharply (ie two fleets of 50 aircraft each have basically the same combined cost as one fleet of 100 aircraft). The numbers may be different for the military, but the basic premise remains.
2) Military capability and requirements override any concern about the minor difference in cost


Which airlines ? Can you provide a reliable source ? how does it apply to Military/Fighter aircraft where every nut and bolt will come from OEM and Technology can come with restrictions and political strings attached.

In military they say, Its the Logistics stupid

Technology is dynamic and can be learn to live with plus/minus , every country does , logistics will bleed you day in and day out or help sustain and win the war

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 05 Aug 2009 11:30

Austin wrote:
There are so many off-the-shelf components in a plane, it's simply not feasible to manufacture every single one of them

MKI tires anyone?


It depends on if you want to , if for economic reason we dont , we cant fault the OEM as they offer full TOT and production rights.


I'm not faulting the OEM, it's simply reality.

You CANNOT manufacture every single nut and bolt for a modern fighter, it is simply not economically feasible.

Austin wrote:
Not to mention important things like missiles.


So you want to manufacture missile as well ?


I was pointing out another area where you are going to be dependent on the original country.

Saying you get full ToT with MiG-35 is meaningless because
1) It doesn't advance Indian industry at all
2) Even knowing full specs, you are still reliant on Russia and putting all your eggs in one basket might not be the wisest course.

Austin wrote:
No matter how much ToT you will still be reliant on Russia for some spares and support, and considering the large proportion of your fighters that are and will be Russian, it would seem wise to at least put some eggs in a different basket.


Its no wiser for me to stretch your logistics to the extent it sound insane .

These aircraft may or may not see a war , but logistics is what will bleed you every day.


1. Any of the MRCA competitors will be cheaper to operate than the MKI many advocate buying instead.
2. The most expensive air force is the one that's second best.

Austin wrote:If its a choice between putting egg in one basket with logistics advantage as I see , or adding yet another type to the circus that IAF has , I will choose the former.


If you want to talk about logistics advantage, the SH is the clear winner with its proven durability, reliability, low maintenance hours and world class support.

Austin wrote:At the least they don't sanction us or block spares , not to mention help on strategic Projects , not just talks.


As they say, Past performance may not be indicative of future results.

They haven't in the past, but it is best not to put yourself in a position where you are vulnerable if they change their mind.

If you select the SH, in the absolute worst case India will still not be vulnerable because they have so many other types.

On the other hand, if you select MiG-35 and the absolute worst case came about, India would be in very deep trouble indeed.

It is all about risk avoidance. The worst case with the SH is better than the worst case with the MiG-35.

Austin wrote:
That's more an indication that they didn't have anything of their own to offer (at least that is competitive). I'm not sure how that is an advantage. Plus they can't offer ToT on what they don't own.


Its IAF choice , they wants xyz for different countries , plus no TOT was offered for these by the respective OEM nor was it asked for , pure off the shelf purchase and system integration of different components is what MKI is about , much less about TOT


ToT is a very important part of the MRCA competition, I'm not sure you can dismiss it so easily.

Austin wrote:
One of the components of the MRCA is ToT to help improve Indian expertise, and the MiG-35 is by far the weakest of all competitors in this area. You already have access to all the best Russian tech plus the MiG-35 seems to outsource many components which further indicates their lack of competency in certain areas.


Thats an acceptable risk , cost-effectiveness and logistics wise , with FGFA we will leap frog any MMRCA technology in the coming decade.


The point of the MRCA is to fill in the gap till the FGFA arrives.

To say the quality of the MRCA doesn't matter because the FGFA will be better is to call into the question the entire point of the MRCA program.

Austin wrote:How many technologies you can count of which we may perhaps get from West or US which is not there on Tejas or Mig-35 ? And at what cost will that come at ?


Looking at the 'success' of the LCA program and how many parts of the MiG-35 have to be outsourced, quite a few apparently.

And the 'cost' is quite clear: the selection and purchase of a western fighter.

Austin wrote:
There is something to be said about reduced logistics cost by reducing fleet types, but
1) Airlines have found that once fleet size is > ~50 any gains from commonality dwindle sharply (ie two fleets of 50 aircraft each have basically the same combined cost as one fleet of 100 aircraft). The numbers may be different for the military, but the basic premise remains.
2) Military capability and requirements override any concern about the minor difference in cost


Which airlines ? Can you provide a reliable source ? how does it apply to Military/Fighter aircraft where every nut and bolt will come from OEM and Technology can come with restrictions and political strings attached.


This is a well known principle and no, the military is no different. The advantages of scale work the same for everyone. If you have to create a maintenance depot for a different type and there is only 1 plane of that type, then the entire cost has to be borne by that single plane. Once it is amortized across a larger number, that price per plane drops.

BUT, and here's the key point, there's a limit to how low you can make the unit cost. As you increase the number of planes you must increase the size of your maintenance depot and the number of people who work there, thus you reach a point of DIMINISHING RETURNS. Going from 1 plane to 2 planes you cut your per-plane cost by almost 50%, but going from 50 planes to 100 planes you only reduce your per-plane cost by maybe 2%. Once you have reached an efficient size, any further increase does not gain you much

And of course the other point that you keep ignoring is that the MiG-35 is NOT the same plane as the MiG-29 or MiG-29K. So you have already limited your possible commonality advantage right from the beginning.

Austin wrote:In military they say, Its the Logistics stupid


I'm glad that you agree logistics is so important.

Which is why partnering with a proven, reliable logistics support system is so important. If you go with the MiG-35 you are on your own. Some manufacturer stops making their black box? Tough luck. Your jammer is obsolete? Too bad, go fix it yourself. On the other hand, you can rely on the USN to take care of any such issues and guarantee full functionality and upgrades well into the future.

The USN fleet of SHs is massive so they are ALWAYS looking for ways to reduce maintenance costs, and India will be able to piggyback off their efforts.

For instance:
- F414 EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine) - three times longer hot-section life, reduced life-cycle costs, increased FOD resistance
- RVSM certification for increased compatibility with civilian airspaces so it can cruise at more efficient altitudes.

The USN is always funding initiatives like this to reduce TCO.

With the MiG-35, India would be totally on its own to fund such things.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rakall » 05 Aug 2009 13:05

Singha wrote:Ef seems to offer better sharing of tech vs SH. if PMO and Antony sir act patriotically and long term they
will run with Ef. if the noted american 'influence' on current regime weighs in, SH will bag it.

the rest are sideshows to follow process and make up the cast.

either way the J10-2 cannot face up to the contest.



EF is an extremely agile fighter.. very very.. in close combat - it is probably the best available.. if one were to go by the whispers - EF go the better of MKI's when they went 1-on-1 in Indradhanush2007... commonality with Eurojet, if (it better be) Eurojet is selected for Tejas..

However EF still does not have the AESA & still unproven in its A2G..

For whatever reason if IAF decides not to go with Mig35 - lower upfront costs, more ToT, fleet commonality etc... then IAF has to think whether it wants more A2A capabilities (as in EF) or more A2G capabilities (as in Rafale) and weight it againt the relative cost of EF Vs Rafale..

Hopefully they will leave out the Unkil stuff & concentrate on Mig35, Rafale & EF-Typhoon

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Aug 2009 13:08

>> still unproven in its A2G

would use same weapons and pods seen on current gen a/c like m2k, tornado, f16 etc. dont think any EF-specific A2G weapon is there.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rakall » 05 Aug 2009 13:20

Singha wrote:>> still unproven in its A2G

would use same weapons and pods seen on current gen a/c like m2k, tornado, f16 etc. dont think any EF-specific A2G weapon is there.


Yupp.. but so far not yet tested to deliver all those.. and the A2g weapon delivery is limited to pod cued weapons..

the radar's A2G capability is still unproven !!!!

Added later: But EF's A2A capabilities are awesome.. apparently it can hold its own in close combat withe the F-22.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby andy B » 05 Aug 2009 14:38

^^^ Read some time ago in one of AFM mags cant remember when about an EF on a routine excercise near Lakeneath (IIRC thats where ze F-15Es are based) being jumped by two F-15Es and engaging in mock combat the yanks pressed hard on the EF and the EF in turn busted both the bogies... :twisted:

A2A the EF will be aces AG IMHO they will be developed as the Tornade AG variants will be phased out or start forming reserves in the next decade.

They have already tested the paveway 4 series on them and I am sure the Brits want the Brimstone qualified on the EF with the Krauts wanting the KEPD 350 and other stand off munitions on their EFs.

The pod thing remains a problem for now but I dont think that will be the situation in a few years time...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Aug 2009 14:49

we would have to fund integration of the Litening4 pod to keep commonality with current and future weapons.

the CAESAR radar needs to come online and prove itself both A2A and A2G thats true. CCIP bombing / gun work must also be demoed.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20972
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Aug 2009 15:50

"Round and round the merry-go-round"! We seem to be going round in circles on a merry-go-round with this deal.The horses in the competition go up and down with the strains of the accompanying music from each manufacturer,singing the praises of its own horse.Let's try and put together the latest news in perspective and see where the rival horses are in the race right now."Horses for courses" is an old saying and this MMRCA race is neither a sprint like the "2000 Guineas" nor the "Oaks".It is not a "St.Leger" either,which requires huge stamina from the animal,but more on the lines of that classic,the Epsom Derby,where the animal requires good staying power,plus "cornering" ability at Tattenham Corner,and the capacity to sprint well at the finish.The IAF's course is described as a "multi-role" one indicating just that.It also gives a distinct advantage to twin-engined mounts over single-engined ones for that "second-wind" requirement-meaning,range,endurance and payload.

No 1:Gripen.
The US has banned this filly from using an Israeli AESA radar,to keep its blinkers from being equal to or better than that of the F-18SH's (which seems to be the preferred choice for the US for India).Unless there is a setback to the LCA breeding programme,the Gripen is at the start of the race trotting at the tail end of the field,as though it would be perhaps cheaper than the others,it would mean acquiring a new aircraft and breeding tech.The SAAB stud farm also suffers from a major setback,the lack of a strong "jockey",meaning a political powerhouse,who can steer the horse through the bunch at the finish.In this respect,the US,Russia and the French probably have the best jockeys.

Odds:30-1 (good long shot though)

N0 2:F-16 Falcon.
This famous gelding ,rather long in the tooth,has been racing for three decades now and has in the past won many a trophy.But it is handicapped by its age and the fact that our rival stable to our west,wearing "green colours",has a horse from the same breeder and the same parents.Therefore,it is highly unlikely that we will want the equivalent of two Ambassador cars trying to race each other across Howrah Bridge (hilarious to behold),a task in which neither can defeat the other! In addition,the gelding is accused of quietly stealing secret measurements of the course from the clubhouse,infuriating its rivals especially the French,who want it disqualified or to run with a high handicap,The F-16 is slightly behind the Gripen at this stage of the race,gamely bringing up the rear.

Odds: 50-1

No 3:MIG-35.
This Russian stallion from the famous MIG bureau,has in its early "Coltish" days got the better in sprint exercises of the American gelding above,especially those animals in German colours.It dances in the air like a Nuryev or Nijinsky.The animal,has been fed on some 100 proof vodka and now is unequalled in the sprint,thanks to its TVC tail,which can swish in any direction,able to swat flies "tous azimuths" ! Its former "farting" problems have been resolved with a better diet and since Indian jockeys have ridden its younger brother before and are breeding the same,buying more for the IN too,should make it one of the hot favourites.In addition,it has a splendid Russian jockey,the very same one who rode the SU-30MKI into IAF colours,who "knows" Indian Race Clubs and their stewards very well,should it all come down to a photo-finish.Acquriing this supersonic sprinter should be the cheapest option for the IAF,especially as a nuclear fuelled fish has just been launched with Russian breeding expertise and another Russian bred fish is due later this year for the IN.However,there is a handicap factor going against this fancy from winning,its blinkers capability and in that the IAF already have that incomporable undefeated stallion,the SU-30MKI Flanker in its stable and are going to breed an even finer stealthy sprinter called the PAK-FA ,of 5th-genetic strain,from the Sukhoi stud farm.The IAF's stable might like to indulge in some cross-breeding by acquiring a European or western genetic strain of horseflesh to avoid too much of in-breeding.It's well placed for the final sprint,just behind the leaders.

Odds: 4-1

No 4:F-18 Super Hornet.
This expensive American pony has had as long an innings as the F-16 and the animal has been given massive doses of steroids to keep it racing like the late Flo-Jo.However,its long innings is coming to a close as owners like Oz do not want to buy any more from this family.Most of America's allies who race this beast are lusting after another young foal called the JSF F-35,plus this nag comes in at a very expensive price for its age and has no future for breeding.American breeders are trying their best to sell this pony with warpaint,claiming that their nag is favourite of western jockeys and has the best long-distance eyesight thanks to AESA blinkers.All the other animals in the race claim that they too have the same kind of blinkers,though of different make.However,the US had a smart jockey earlier called Bush,who saw to it that the supply of nuclear fodder was dependent upon India buying a US animal! The White House stud farm,under new Black management,will do its best to keep the deal from unravelling,and sent an experienced female jockey called Clinton to give it the whip.Unhappy Congressmen however are trying to put new conditions upon the supply of nuclear fodder and also dictate to India the specified courses where the animal can run and where it cannot.It also wants the right to inspect the animal wherever it is running and even during a race,to see if its testicles are not being used clandestinely for stud purposes!This to many in India is unacceptable,as it might prove impossible to entertain especially during a race againt mortal rival Pakistan.India is however willing to allow semen samples to be sent outside its stables for testing.It is this factor,that nuclear fodder ,other saddle-room spares and breeding technology might be witheld by America,especially if we test radio-active fodder again.Some insiders say that despite these handicaps,the stewards "have been made an offer they cannot refuse".Watch this pony's progress carefully keeping in mind that old axiom,"Money makes the mare go"!
Leading the pack at the moment,but can it remain first at the finish?

Odds: 5-1

No 5:Rafale.
This fine French filly is a raring to go anywhere and has great capability for the future.It can cavort across any course like a Moulin Rouge dancer and has a perfectly shaped body with superbly shaped boobs,lovely smooth legs and underbelly and an inviting behind.Having enjoyed the pleasure of riding iits older sister,the Mirage-2000,which has satisfied IAF jockeys for years,this animal should in fact be the hot favourite,but in typical French fashion,the horse entered the stalls facing in the opposite direction as they run so on French courses and was about to be disqualified to the delight of the Americans.The small made French jockey,Sarko,light in the saddle,came to its rescue and used Dassault's great influence with the stewards to allow it to continue in the race.The chief handicap of this splendid filly is that like all fine French wares,it is an expensive acquisition, and has not won any races outside Longchamp.It was unduly handicapped the French claim,thanks to some "pulling","doping" and opening the gates last at the start,due to American stable owners when running on pro-American courses in the Far East.Since the IAF jockeys have a taste for fine French fillies,this filly is in with a great chance.

The filly is running just behind the leaders ahead of the MIG-35

Odds:3-1.

No 5:EADS Typhoon,
This fine stallion is a cross-breed genetically,of the best of non-French European traditions.It is racing for several European nations,especially in the colours of British and German stables.Both a powerful sprinter and endued with great stamina,this European animal has the advantage that its breeder,EADS,has already won a race for a breeding contract for the LCA Tejas programme,as the animal lacks both power and stamina and needs careful breeding programme.EADS is willing to provide both breeding tech and the right fodder machine (EJ-200) to make the LCA filly go.The breeders also claim that this stallion can compare favourably with the king of the course,the Flanker SU-30 MKI in the IAF's stables.Running juast behind the leader,the SH.

Despite being expensive,The odds-on favourite at 2-1.

However,if the race gets too dirty and becomes a scandal,the organisers might disqualify the lot and instead return to acquiring more advanced versions of the Flanker and old favourites on steroids like the Jaguar,M-2000 and MIG-29,while waiting for the two young foals to arrive,the PAk-FA and the LCA.
Last edited by Philip on 05 Aug 2009 17:26, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 05 Aug 2009 16:40

:D Nice post Philip.

Eminently readable and entertaining to boot. Difficult to comment on the odds though - betting is always very personal.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4047
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 05 Aug 2009 16:48

Speaking of horses , i wonder if it is possible to have a running commentary in BRF as to which filly is in the lead untill the finals :D


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests