MRCA News and Discussion

ksmahesh · Post by **ksmahesh** » 10 Aug 2009 19:35

Austin wrote:
nachiket wrote:Because of that philosophy the IAF ended up fighting Sabres with Gnats in 65.
Didnt they tell us Nuclear Deterrent Works , and we need to spend less conventionally once we make it overt.

65 wont happen coz we have established nuclear detterent , unless ofcourse deterrence fails then you know what happens

65 did happen right in Kargil. and if signs are to go by 1962 is around the corner too.

Conventional philosophy of nuclear deterrent does not work with a rogue state in neighbourhood.

Austin wrote: The IAF should do with what they get and fight with what they have.

IMO this is not correct. IA tried to do the best with what they had in 1962 we all know the past.

The point is we (as a nation) have to give our IAF what is best. IAF/IA/IN cannot afford to come second (Quote from IN chief).

We have to build/buy/beg/borrow/steal.

Although I love Su30MKI and if similar IAF decides that Mig35 MKI is feasible then so be it. The important thing is to stay miles away from F-16/18 for the obvious reasons of spares could be used as leverage; almost colonial demands from yumri khans etc

Not a fan boy but IMHO Rafale/Mig35 would be nice.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 19:45

Nuclear deterrent helped in de-escalation of Kargil , the war was limited , or so the Paki want to believe.

For rouge state who does not understand N deterrence and crosses the threshold , the only option is to exercise the nuclear option.

No amount of conventional or technology superiority will deter them if nuclear doesn't.

65 , 71 and post 99 is a different ball game , our troops will get shaheed more by fighting cross border terrorism and Naxals than any conventional war.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 19:51

Austin wrote:Nuclear deterrent helped in de-escalation of Kargil , the war was limited , or so the Paki want to believe.

For rouge state who does not understand N deterrence and crosses the threshold , the only option is to exercise the nuclear option.

No amount of conventional or technology superiority will deter them if nuclear doesn't.

That's not the point.
We did require the use of conventional weapons right? Specifically our air force. IAF suffered from having only 1 aircraft type capable of good high altitude performance as well as ability to deploy Laser guided weapons as also the lack of sufficient numbers of Laser guided bombs.(Only 9 were used IIRC) Again a situation of fighting with what they have
IA had no bulletproof vests/helmets no weapon locating radars and suffered because of it.
fighting with what they have?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 19:56

I am not talking about BP vest and other life saving equipment , $10 billion for a phoren aircraft is not a small price for a single deal , we are discussing MMRCA here.

ksmahesh · Post by **ksmahesh** » 10 Aug 2009 20:07

Austin wrote:Nuclear deterrent helped in de-escalation of Kargil , the war was limited , or so the Paki want to believe.

For rouge state who does not understand N deterrence and crosses the threshold , the only option is to exercise the nuclear option.

No amount of conventional or technology superiority will deter them if nuclear doesn't.

65 , 71 and post 99 is a different ball game , our troops will get shaheed more by fighting cross border terrorism and Naxals than any conventional war.

Can we say with surety that war with china is out of question?

IMVHO unless we have (in addition to nuclear deterrence) a strong AF Chinese might start a conventional regional conflict in Arunachal/ Leh and with NFU noose around our neck we would be helpless.

Requirement of IA for equipment for low/high intensity conflicts are disjoint from IAF's need for number and quality of planes.

Lets not make it a zero sum game that if IAF gets "whatever (but not F-16/18)" IA will suffer...

However I believe we are digressing. So this is my last post on the issue..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Aug 2009 20:12

Something tells me that Austin is playing a merry game here, what the heck its the MRCA thread anyway.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 20:13

Austin wrote:I am not talking about BP vest and other life saving equipment , $10 billion for a phoren aircraft is not a small price for a single deal , we are discussing MMRCA here.

Well I was just highlighting a few instances of what the fight with whatever u get line of thinking leads to. It has been overused in India IMHO.
FYI I did talk about the problems IAF faced during Kargil before mentioning BP vests etc.
Anyway I admit this is OT and I will not comment on it further.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Aug 2009 20:48

Austin wrote:So coming back to the point , can Rafale or Typhoon or F-18 can provide something overwhelming that an MKI or upgraded MKI cannot do or provide , hence worth the $ 10 billion.

....
Can a cheaper Mig-35 or M2K-5 or Tejas can do 80 % of same thing with half the cost and build up numbers , while the MKI does the heavy job ?

The weapons payload of SU3-MKI, Rafale, Eurofighter and F18 are around 6500-8000kgs. Range is similar too, around 15000-2000 kms, except for the SH which is a bit less. So even I am not sure whether going in for a new dual-engined fighter is really saving anything for us. What is "Medium" in the MRCA among all the contenders? The only ones are F16 and Gripen, and one is getting more body jobs done than michael jackson, and another is pretty similar to LCA with no stong political godfather. So these are ruled out. And the initial cost for all these aircraft is pretty high compared to SU30-MKI. Even if operational cost is bit lower, I don't think it will make signinficant difference over the 25 year life span of the aircraft. And if we buy more SU-30MKI, the unit cost too will be lower due to the increased volume.

With the IAF also working with Russians on the 5th generation fighter, and MCA, I fail to see the need to go in for MRCA at this time. I think it is better to stick with LCA and SU-30MKI. Why can't we work with Russians/Israeli/French to develop AESA and other required components if technologies is what we are after by going in for MRCA?

If we do go for MRCA, then 15 years down the line, this is what we will have:

LCA
MRCA
SU-30MKI
PAK-FA
MCA

The IAF will again end up with multiple aircraft types, pretty similar to what we have today.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 20:52

Generally on integrating disparate missiles onto IAF ACs:

Feb, 2009, ACM:

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories242.htm

Periodic upgrades in the aircraft’s sensors and weapons were already planned to ensure their air dominance role.

The Air Chief mentioned the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars for their jump in sensor performance and reliability, pointing out that overall, “IAF would have the capability to dominate the required airspace for the specified time period.”

“It involves the employment of potent combat platforms, armed with long range sensors and BVR (Beyond the Visual Range) missiles, along with requisite Electronic warfare and Precision Strike capability. The range and reach would be enhanced by utilizing air-to-air refueling. Command and Control would be exercised by airborne AWACS in coordination with other airborne and ground-based sensors like Aerostats and high-powered radars.

“The size and composition of the composite package would depend on the target system, the threat envisaged and many other tactical considerations.”

Seems to me that there will be a (heavy?) dependence on the MRCA, for only the MRCA will host an AESA (for sure). Other than that the IAF seems to have a mix-n-match philosophy - depending on what the enemy (hope am janata has noted that Pakis and China took exception to naming the nuke sub "Arihant" - since they do not see themselves as enemies of India

) throws at the IAF.

Wonder what the RFP states. Cannot recall much on that topic. IIRC there will be some Indian components, perhaps some French and Israeli. Other than that what else needs to be integrated we will need to wait till 2014 I guess.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2009 21:19

Philip wrote:Austin is right.The Cabinet committe on security will come down very heavily on cost,as defence deals generally get short shrift with demands from other critical sectors like agriculture,etc.We are in the grip of a drought in 2/3rds of the country and the farmers lobby will be demanding huge subsidies.Keeping the country self-sufficient in food is the primary task of any govt.,to keep food prices down.The Indian Army also wants better support for ground ops and "bomb trucks" equipped with stand off PGMs can do the job as effieicntly as advanced multi-role birds.This is why some air forces have started looking again at turboprops for COIN etc.Adding new upgraded twin-engined Jaguars with more powerful engines will add to the numbers of "bomb trucks" and strike aircraft at a more affordable cost.{Producing a large number of cheaper LCAs,a "national objective" too will make up the numbers,while more capable sircraft like the Sukhois maintain the air dominance advantage.Any conntender who can offer the 126+ aircraft a $billion less than its competitors,which also meets basic requirements will be hard to beat,especially as the 5th-gen fighter is supposed to give us that qualitative tech. edge for furure decades.

PS:If our pilots have rejected the MIG-29,why on earth then are we upgrading the whole lot and why too is the IN happy with buying the MIG-29K with at least 40+ to be acquired? If reports that the Russians are going to buy the MIG-35 for their air force is correct,which will be very cost effective for them too,it will add to the aircraft's attractiveness.

Agriculture is still 70% of the economy. And its better to support them than subsidize foreign companies that will sell arms to TSP. And its not a lobby but a national self interest. If you dont have a vibrant farm sector it will be back to begging bowl. The farm sector was builtup as a vital national security interest.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 21:22

ramana wrote:
Agriculture is still 70% of the economy.

Slight nitpick, 65% of the populace may be engaged in agriculture but its by no means 70% of the economy. Share of agriculture in GDP is closer to 17%.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2009 21:24

OK. People are as if not more important than rupees.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 10 Aug 2009 21:43

Philip wrote:Austin is right.The Cabinet committe on security will come down very heavily on cost,as defence deals generally get short shrift with demands from other critical sectors like agriculture,etc.We are in the grip of a drought in 2/3rds of the country and the farmers lobby will be demanding huge subsidies.Keeping the country self-sufficient in food is the primary task of any govt.,to keep food prices down.The Indian Army also wants better support for ground ops and "bomb trucks" equipped with stand off PGMs can do the job as effieicntly as advanced multi-role birds.This is why some air forces have started looking again at turboprops for COIN etc.Adding new upgraded twin-engined Jaguars with more powerful engines will add to the numbers of "bomb trucks" and strike aircraft at a more affordable cost.{Producing a large number of cheaper LCAs,a "national objective" too will make up the numbers,while more capable sircraft like the Sukhois maintain the air dominance advantage.Any conntender who can offer the 126+ aircraft a $billion less than its competitors,which also meets basic requirements will be hard to beat,especially as the 5th-gen fighter is supposed to give us that qualitative tech. edge for furure decades.

PS:If our pilots have rejected the MIG-29,why on earth then are we upgrading the whole lot and why too is the IN happy with buying the MIG-29K with at least 40+ to be acquired? If reports that the Russians are going to buy the MIG-35 for their air force is correct,which will be very cost effective for them too,it will add to the aircraft's attractiveness.

The MMRCA deal will only be signed in the fall of 2010 at the earliest. It may well be in 2012. The world economy is already bouncing back.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 21:59

"Agriculture": 60% of work force, 16.6% of GDP
"Industry and Services": 17% of work force, 27% of GDP

Economy in 2008: $1.209 Trillion

$10 billion is nothing. Stated many a time: just allocation of funds to build new roads in India: $95 billion. New nuclear reactors; $100+ Billion.

Besides MRCA is supposed to pull in 50% offsets.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 22:06

ramana wrote:OK. People are as if not more important than rupees.

Never said that. I was correcting what appeared to me a factual error.
Besides its not as if the GOI is pulling money out of budgetary allocations for Social welfare or Farm sector schemes to finance the MRCA acquisition.
Further as NRao pointed out we can't forget the 50% offset clause.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Aug 2009 22:10

I think the amount too would be paid in installments over the years as they get delivered. And since around 100 aircraft would be assembled in India along with progressive indigenization, some of it does get ploughed back into our economy.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Aug 2009 22:13

Sorry for my ignorance ... but still I see no point in having a new kind of AC plane. Especially when it offer not much on top of Su-30MKI. If we are buying only to get AESA, it is not good investment. I will put $10b bet on LCA/MCA/Engine development.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 22:22

RKumar wrote:Sorry for my ignorance ... but still I see no point in having a new kind of AC plane. Especially when it offer not much on top of Su-30MKI. If we are buying only to get AESA, it is not good investment. I will put $10b bet on LCA/MCA/Engine development.

Even pumping in $10bil into the MCA program won't deliver the aircraft in the time frame that the IAF is looking at. Su-30 production is already maxed out and the IAF needed the MRCA aircraft 5 years ago. As far as the LCA is concerned it is a light fighter designed to replace the Mig-21s and has nothing to do with the MRCA order. The IAF has already indicated that they will be inducting the mk1 in small numbers and the mk2 in larger numbers when it becomes available. So the MRCA does not affect it.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Aug 2009 22:27

we can buy the 40 Su-30MKI off the self from russia ... we are also in discussion upgrading Mig-29, Jagaurs and so on. If more efforts from IAF, GoI, MoD, HAL, ADA are put ... things can move faster then current rate, With this rate, I dont think we will ever see LCA/MCA ... since more than one month.. no news on LCA because everyone is busy and interested in MRCA.

IAF have lived with Mig-21 for additional 1.5 decades and waiting for MRCA since 5 years ... I hope they can wait until 2011-12 for LCA-Mk1. (Every time there is a crash... I curse everyone

)

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Aug 2009 22:29

nachiket wrote:Even pumping in $10bil into the MCA program won't deliver the aircraft in the time frame that the IAF is looking at. Su-30 production is already maxed out and the IAF needed the MRCA aircraft 5 years ago. As far as the LCA is concerned it is a light fighter designed to replace the Mig-21s and has nothing to do with the MRCA order. The IAF has already indicated that they will be inducting the mk1 in small numbers and the mk2 in larger numbers when it becomes available. So the MRCA does not affect it.

IAF won't get MRCA for the next 5 years at least. The earliest that the GoI will finalize the agreement is an year or so before the next elections, and that is four years down the line. The IAF will start getting the aircraft 12-15 months after the agreement is signed. Which means not before 2014-2015. The SU-30 production run will be winding down by then.

I am yet to be convinced on how exactly different the IAF considers the MRCA to be from the heavy SU-30MKIs. Majority of the contenders are similar to the MKI. Is it more of an IAF philosophy to have two lines of aircraft, one russian and one western at all times, like Mig-29/Mirage, Jaguar/Mig-27 etc?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 22:36

RKumar wrote:we can buy the 40 Su-30MKI off the self from russia ... we are also in discussion upgrading Mig-29, Jagaurs and so on. If more efforts from IAF, GoI, MoD, HAL, ADA are put ... things can move faster then current rate, With this rate, I dont think we will ever see LCA/MCA ... since more than one month.. no news on LCA because everyone is busy and interested in MRCA.

IAF have lived with Mig-21 for additional 1.5 decades and waiting for MRCA since 5 years ... I hope they can wait until 2011-12 for LCA-Mk1. (Every time there is a crash... I curse everyone )

We have already signed the deal to buy 40 Su-30 mki off the shelf from russia.
And who is this 'everyone' you talk about(in bold). LCA project is handled by ADA and HAL and they are definitely not interested in the MRCA right now. LCA test flights are continuing and RFPs have already been isuued for the GE-F414 and EJ-200 engines for the LCA mk2.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Aug 2009 22:38

The seven squadrons projected were supposed to be meant for Strategic air command for specialized missions and escorts for AWACS. Whatever did happen to that command ? Is it operational ? Does it have a joint mandate as it was going to be ?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 22:44

RaviBg wrote:
IAF won't get MRCA for the next 5 years at least. The earliest that the GoI will finalize the agreement is an year or so before the next elections, and that is four years down the line. The IAF will start getting the aircraft 12-15 months after the agreement is signed. Which means not before 2014-2015. The SU-30 production run will be winding down by then.

Well that's the tragedy of our acquisition process isn't it? The IAF wanted 126 M2k5s but the delay in issuing RFPs resulted in the assembly line being shut down. You can't expect the IAF to forego the acquisition just because the MoD was too slow and they would be getting their planes late.

RaviBg wrote: I am yet to be convinced on how exactly different the IAF considers the MRCA to be from the heavy SU-30MKIs. Majority of the contenders are similar to the MKI. Is it more of an IAF philosophy to have two lines of aircraft, one russian and one western at all times, like Mig-29/Mirage, Jaguar/Mig-27 etc?

The Rafale/Typhoon and F-18 are similar to the MKI w.r.t payload,weight,range etc. but not the other three.
If the IAF is still looking for an aircraft of similar capabilities to the M2k5 then the Gripen/Mig 35 stand a better chance of winning the contract. OTOH if they have changed their requirements after being tempted by the goodies on offer they might veer towards one of the heavier jets.
IMHO the Rafale/Typhoon/SH would be still less expensive to maintain than the Rambha. Other differences would include reduced RCS, AESA radar etc.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Aug 2009 22:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:Not really. You would have to compare to the equivalent offers from Gripen and Rafale, and we don't have those.

Oh sir but we do! The Rafale @ $ 140 million at most and the Gripen @ $ 71 million.

Each country's requirements are different, hence comparing packages across different competitions isn't really valid.

Perhaps, but the Gripen's price to each country (norway, netherlands and brazil) pretty much is the same. Not only that, the Aussie and Brazil offers on the shornet are also similar in terms of price ($ 190 million per a/c).

Which is why comparing aircraft price by press release is a futile exercise.

Esp. when your favourite is at the bottom of the pole

Only if you cherry pick which prices you want to look at.

Lets just stick to the available prices offered to Brazil shall we? $ 140 mil for rafale (and this includes manufacturing rights, which the others don't), $ 71 million for the Gripen NG, $ 190 million + for the Super Hornet. Sorry, no cherries being picked here, its for all to see.

CM

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Aug 2009 22:54

nachiket wrote: IMHO the Rafale/Typhoon/SH would be still less expensive to maintain than the Rambha. Other differences would include reduced RCS, AESA radar etc.

I agree that Rafale/Typhoon/SH would be less expensive to maintain than the Rambha based on anecdoctal evidence. However, the question is , by how much? Does it justify paying double the cost of rambha for each one of these aircraft?

As regards to the reduced RCS, AESA etc, it depends on who our potential adversaries are going to be. The main ones are the pukis and the chinese. With the aerostat radars and AWACS, will AESA and the large RCS of rambha make that big of a difference? And against the chinese, they too have SU-27 and SU-30s, and no western aircraft.

Don't forget that the PAK-FA is supposed to be inducted too, and LCA does have a small enough RCS. If we are investing in MCA too, that would be a MRCA equivalent. And AESA radars and RCS reducing technologies for SU-30 can be developed with other countries.

It is the avionics and weapons package that defines the modern aircraft. Look at F/A-18, the platform isn't state of the art, but the defining features are its avionics suites. And since there are multiple vendors for these suites, that is where our focus should be while developing our own platform.

Do we really need 100 each of 4-5 different types of aircrafts?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Aug 2009 23:00

Rahul M wrote:austin,
a) low-medium-heavy mix for cost considerations (I'm certain ALL MRCA contenders will have a significantly lower operating cost than the rambha )

[
THis is a point that really needs to be looked at. The top end of the MRCA race (Rafale, Tiffy, Shornet) can cost as high as $ 140-200 million per bird as per most reports. The Low end (Gripen NG, MiG-35) cost as low as $ 60 - 80 million per bird. I bet all offers are pretty standard as to support/logistics/infrastructure setup.
THe Su-30MKI acquisition cost is now about $ 45-50 million per bird. Now how can getting exhorbitant MRCA (such as the shornet) possibly make up for the price difference over a period of 30 odd years? Then include the cost for MLUs, which are almost always more expensive with "western" a/c.
I simply can't see economy (cost savings) as a justification for the top end MRCA. The only western bird to offer it is the Gripen.

Rahul,
About twin seaters vs single seaters. WOuld it be that difficult to convert an mki to a single seater? THe su-35 is in fact single seater.
As far as OEM support is concerned, I think much of this issue has been resolved which translates into the decent uptimes IAF has with its fulcrums. This will only get better with the set up of the RD-33 mfg line. also taking a good look @ the IN deal, they seem to be countering every possibility of such issues.

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 23:08

RKumar wrote:Sorry for my ignorance ... but still I see no point in having a new kind of AC plane. Especially when it offer not much on top of Su-30MKI. If we are buying only to get AESA, it is not good investment. I will put $10b bet on LCA/MCA/Engine development.

The main reason has always remained to beef up the number of squadrons - from day one.

AESA is a very recent entry - and, IMHO, is a bonus. (Given Indian politics they have been reluctant to do anything that might cause flu in in 'hood - including BD/SL/etc).

Having said that there are three aspects to ALL this:
1) No matter what happens to the MRCA the upgrades of Jags/MiG-29/M2K/etc will go ahead. Same is true for the LCA/MCA/FGFA. NONE of them are dependent on the MRCA. And, it is not that if the MRCA vanishes that those funds will make ANY difference on any other project. (IF it does please let me know.)
2) The MRCA - over time - has grown to be a beast of its own. It is THE ONLY component that will (supposedly) pull in 50% in offsets - that is a cool $5 billion - reinvested (if properly done) in India. No MRCA, no offsets.
3) There are funds (note that DM returns unused funds to FinMin every year) - however, they need to be utilized well. LCA etc need funds, but they also need better infrastructure/management BEFORE more funds are thrown at them. Funds by itself will not solve any problem.

On generic topic:
a) After thinking a little more I am not too sure if I should be more scared of the US Congress or the Indian politicians or a combo of them both
b) Upgrades as a way of living is not an option - it cannot be. Any modern fighting force will degrade very, very quickly (upgrade a radar, may need a more powerful engine, etc, etc, etc. Upgrades impact the original equipment and so they can only go so far before it has to be redesigned - thus a new item). An upgrade along with infusion of newer specimens are the ONLY way to keep pace. I really cannot see an alternative
c) Upgrades IMHO will not encourage better in-house techs. The offsets that the MRCA brings will force some thinking (at least). In 2008 Boeing/LM (I forget which) stated - openly - that HAL is in no position to absorb some of the newer techs in an offset arrangement. This - IF properly handled - should provide for an uplift of Indian companies. (And, it does not only apply to US techs - that was just an example.)
d) Which governments among all these vendors would be most interested in supporting research and supply of spares for themselves? And, which among them has the funds to do so at a sustained level?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 23:10

RaviBg wrote: I agree that Rafale/Typhoon/SH would be less expensive to maintain than the Rambha based on anecdoctal evidence. However, the question is , by how much? Does it justify paying double the cost of rambha for each one of these aircraft?

As regards to the reduced RCS, AESA etc, it depends on who our potential adversaries are going to be. The main ones are the pukis and the chinese. With the aerostat radars and AWACS, will AESA and the large RCS of rambha make that big of a difference? And against the chinese, they too have SU-27 and SU-30s, and no western aircraft.

Don't forget that the PAK-FA is supposed to be inducted too, and LCA does have a small enough RCS. If we are investing in MCA too, that would be a MRCA equivalent. And AESA radars and RCS reducing technologies for SU-30 can be developed with other countries.

It is the avionics and weapons package that defines the modern aircraft. Look at F/A-18, the platform isn't state of the art, but the defining features are its avionics suites. And since there are multiple vendors for these suites, that is where our focus should be while developing our own platform.

Do we really need 100 each of 4-5 different types of aircrafts?

Well, I'm no expert, but here's what I think. The IAF wanted the M2k5s. They can't get them anymore. So why not get the best aircraft out of the ones that are available within whatever financial restrictions are placed by the govt.
And the IAF seems to be impressd by the AESA tech enough to include it as a requirement in the RFP so they obviously think that the AESA will matter.
As far as the MCA and PAK-FA are concerned no one knows when they will become operational. And the IAF needs to arrest the fall in numbers.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 10 Aug 2009 23:12

NRao wrote:"Agriculture": 60% of work force, 16.6% of GDP
"Industry and Services": 17% of work force, 27% of GDP

Economy in 2008: $1.209 Trillion

$10 billion is nothing. Stated many a time: just allocation of funds to build new roads in India: $95 billion. New nuclear reactors; $100+ Billion.

Besides MRCA is supposed to pull in 50% offsets.

IIRC, Industry makes up 28% of the GDP and the Services make up 54%.

Anyways, like someone said, that this is the last chance for India to have a look at the latest tech before it goes at it alone. By that logic, the deal is very important. The technology that this deal promises to bring with itself, along with all the offsets, $10 Billion is not such a huge amount after all, given that we extract the best out of this deal. The IAF has to have the both quality & quantity, given the threats it faces from all sides. From the technology pov alone, I'm hoping that it'd be EF/Rafale, no problems with the Mig but we already have access to the best Russian tech via the PAK-FA.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Aug 2009 23:18

nachiket wrote:And who is this 'everyone' you talk about(in bold). LCA project is handled by ADA and HAL and they are definitely not interested in the MRCA right now. LCA test flights are continuing and RFPs have already been isuued for the GE-F414 and EJ-200 engines for the LCA mk2.

everyone means means GoI, MoD, IAF, HAL, ADA, Import lobby and to certain extent circumstances ... no one can blame only one party. For me it is mutual failure and (nothing to do with above sentance) every win is mutual win.

LCA project is handled by ADA and HAL and they are definitely not interested in the MRCA right now ... I c missing IAF as tester and that was the point I wanted to make .. Thank you for making it for me.

Sorry boss, I have not entered it manually.. something went wrong during posting --> RaviBg

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 23:23

Chandragupta wrote:
NRao wrote:"Agriculture": 60% of work force, 16.6% of GDP
"Industry and Services": 17% of work force, 27% of GDP

Economy in 2008: $1.209 Trillion

$10 billion is nothing. Stated many a time: just allocation of funds to build new roads in India: $95 billion. New nuclear reactors; $100+ Billion.

Besides MRCA is supposed to pull in 50% offsets.
IIRC, Industry makes up 28% of the GDP and the Services make up 54%.

You are right. Sorry about that.

On the tech front too, that has been my argument. MRCA is indispensable. And, when it comes to "Tech" there is not much to discuss about IMHO. And, no I am not in sales.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Aug 2009 23:24

RKumar, you have quoted nachiket but the quote has my name on it. Can you please edit it?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 23:29

RKumar wrote:
RaviBg wrote:And who is this 'everyone' you talk about(in bold). LCA project is handled by ADA and HAL and they are definitely not interested in the MRCA right now. LCA test flights are continuing and RFPs have already been isuued for the GE-F414 and EJ-200 engines for the LCA mk2.
everyone means means GoI, MoD, IAF, HAL, ADA, Import lobby and to certain extent circumstances ... no one can blame only one party. For me it is mutual failure and (nothing to do with above sentance) every win is mutual win.

LCA project is handled by ADA and HAL and they are definitely not interested in the MRCA right now ... I c missing IAF as tester and that was the point I wanted to make .. Thank you for making it for me.

I still did not get what you are trying to say. Are you referring to IAF test pilots being involved in MRCA trials and hence being unavailable for testing the LCA?
I do not know if that is the case. Haven't come across any news claiming as such.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Aug 2009 23:40

nachiket wrote:I still did not get what you are trying to say. Are you referring to IAF test pilots being involved in MRCA trials and hence being unavailable for testing the LCA?
I do not know if that is the case. Haven't come across any news claiming as such.

Yes, that is what I want to say. Please check news regarding shortage of test pilots.

Tejas IOC gets delayed again

IDRW: Lack of Pilots and Lack of aircrafts have been blamed for Low sorties, what’s your take on that?

VS; Regarding Lack of Aircrafts all blames goes to Hal, they took more then two years to setup Production line for Tejas even when the funds where provided to them, in last three years only two LSP (Limited series Production) Tejas have taken to air, and Tejas Lsp-3 is already one year behind schedule. As per the original Schedule at least 5 LSP should have taken to sky by mid 2009 but Slow pace of work by Hal on Tejas Lsp has kept the whole program waiting for the new aircrafts. Coming to lack of pilots it’s the responsibility of IAF to see that enough pilots are deputed to NFTC for the Tejas Programs, Lack of pilots is not a major issue here but lack of Aircrafts certainly is.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 23:47

RKumar wrote:
nachiket wrote:I still did not get what you are trying to say. Are you referring to IAF test pilots being involved in MRCA trials and hence being unavailable for testing the LCA?
I do not know if that is the case. Haven't come across any news claiming as such.
Yes, that is what I want to say. Please check news regarding shortage of test pilots.

There is no indication that this is due to the MRCA trials. The shortage was experienced before commencement of MRCA trials.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Aug 2009 23:50

Cain Marko wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:Not really. You would have to compare to the equivalent offers from Gripen and Rafale, and we don't have those.
Oh sir but we do! The Rafale @ $ 140 million at most and the Gripen @ $ 71 million.

No, those are for different countries and hence aren't comparable

Cain Marko wrote:
Each country's requirements are different, hence comparing packages across different competitions isn't really valid.
Perhaps, but the Gripen's price to each country (norway, netherlands and brazil) pretty much is the same.

You have no idea what Gripen's offer to Brazil is.

Cain Marko wrote:
Which is why comparing aircraft price by press release is a futile exercise.
Esp. when your favourite is at the bottom of the pole

Sorry, that would be the Rafale

Cain Marko wrote:
Only if you cherry pick which prices you want to look at.
Lets just stick to the available prices offered to Brazil shall we? $ 140 mil for rafale (and this includes manufacturing rights, which the others don't), $ 71 million for the Gripen NG, $ 190 million + for the Super Hornet. Sorry, no cherries being picked here, its for all to see.

Where are you getting those prices?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Aug 2009 23:53

I dont expect test pilots to fly new types of planes in one day.... they have to do their homework

before flying 100-200 million bucks of plane

I might be wrong with my theory ... it is like adding 2 plus 2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Aug 2009 00:03

The MRCA tests were planned too far ahead in time and that too it involves mature vendors. There should be no problems with testing the MRCA.

LCA? It will come when it will.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 11 Aug 2009 00:14

NRao wrote:The MRCA tests were planned too far ahead in time and that too it involves mature vendors. There should be no problems with testing the MRCA.

LCA? It will come when it will.

I agree ... but since few months it need resources. I dont say we have only 15 pilots (which might require for testing MRCA) but still it puts dent on the resources. What vendors has to do with our pilots wrt to the point we were discussing... did i miss something.

Did I say problem is with MRCA testing

Of course LCA/MCA? will come if these ever come out of thin air sometime.... somewhere.... (scarcastic)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Aug 2009 01:11

IF it is planned well, there can be no "dent" - just cannot.

The issue with the LCA is two fold (IMHO), the LCA is not on any schedule that we can talk about (which by itself causes some problems) and that has to contribute to the deficiency of test pilots (because the plan is not followed - for what ever reason).

The number of MRCA pilots is well known and If the IAF cannot provide it I bet the vendors will not sit quietly. I think the MRCA test is a very well orchestrated event from both sides.

Test pilots by themselves cannot be an issue. Specially if the others keep the date.