MRCA News and Discussion

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 07 Jul 2009 00:55

NRao wrote:As stated:

While the USA has claimed that the Gripen has only a "very limited" chance of being selected, the possible inclusion of an Israeli radar would have allowed New Delhi to push down the price of rival offers to supply either the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or the Lockheed Martin F-16, the sources add.
The US is no afraid of others winning based on the AESA. They are afraid of India negotiating a lower price with the US.

They clearly are not and cannot be afraid even of an Israeli AESA - as a technology.

Sir can you explain why unkil is not AFRAID(if it is) of losing the contract while more or only AFRAID of lowering the prices?

Another point is that , f16/18's prices are already lower than their competitors except mig .

One more option is that we can get elta2052 on any ac(say rafale) whose tot we get,despite getting its particular aesa tot, we can negotiate with israelis to submit tot of 2052 while arming lcablk2 in bulk with with it,!
where is the issue of a specific aesa behind unkil's sabotage in gripen's deal?
I guess it is only to snatch the contract and not let drdo to develop its high tech avionics in future. so to have double profits!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 02:24

Sir can you explain why unkil is not AFRAID(if it is) of losing the contract while more or only AFRAID of lowering the prices?

That is the easiest part.

The "source" stated it, which was reported by the news report, which is what I pretty much quoted.

Also, it makes sense (to me at least).

(Also, I would urge you to visit the techie thread for MRCA. There are a few articles on AESA that are very relevant to thsi discussion.)

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 07 Jul 2009 03:13

My reflection so far about MMRCA reporting in the media (papers/blogs) is that so far almost nothing has been really accurate. Only the rare official statements with named persons and official statements from the manufacturers has been worth listening to.

I do not expect much news in the coming year either except that we see things happening like test flights and so on. But we will not get any real info from the tests, all we will get is more rumours from unnamed sources.

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 07 Jul 2009 03:48

I have always been of the opinion that give India the hardware and India has enough software power to "catch up". Which is why I preferred the US stuff. IMHO, IF India can get FULL ToT of hardware, that should be good enough. India can build the sofwtare part - in fact let me go out on a limb and state that the final product will be better than the vendors.

Do you think that if India is not given the software for the AESA radars they can create it from scratch in no time. Do you know how many millions of lines of code there are? Do you know how many years it took them to write it. It is not like writing code for some corporation. India had trouble with the MMR code and had to get Israeli help to get it working. I am not saying that Indian programmers are not good but you need many years of experience writing such code. Coding an AESA radar for all the functionality is no childs play and uncle aint gonna give us the code. Hell they wouldnt give it to UAE after UAE had paid to have it written.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 06:27

Hell they wouldnt give it to UAE after UAE had paid to have it written.

I never expect the US to part with their AESA code.

Please (re)read my postS. I am not sure what they will and they won't give. All I am certain is that both (LM and Boeing) have stated that they can meet the Indian RFP requirements (which are rumored to be 60% ToT for AESA - and, no, I have no clue what 60% means). And, more importantly, they have stated that they will give India everything they have learned on using the AESA (IMHO, NO other vendor has this experience, and, I feel it is critical - else IAF has to build it up. In the case of the Rafale (my fav BTW) it can happen ONLY AFTER 2012!!!!!).

Do you think that if India is not given the software for the AESA radars they can create it from scratch in no time. Do you know how many millions of lines of code there are? Do you know how many years it took them to write it. It is not like writing code for some corporation. India had trouble with the MMR code and had to get Israeli help to get it working. I am not saying that Indian programmers are not good but you need many years of experience writing such code. Coding an AESA radar for all the functionality is no childs play and uncle aint gonna give us the code.

Yes, I am personally painfully aware.

But my pain is not the issue.

The issue is IF India can get to be a leader in this particular technology - AESA.

And, I happen to think India has a decent chance - to be a leader.

And, that the problem with India (IMHO of course) is hardware - it is said that Russia took a long time to get the T/R modules manufactured - which held up the rest of the development. It is my understanding that India does not have the metallurgical capabilities to deal with this issue (I could be wrong).

Which is why I would HOPE that India gets the hardware as ToT and whatever software it can get - in the 60% ToT for AESA.

From there, even with millions of lines of code, no matter how difficult it turns out to be, THAT is Indian strength. I do not have any doubt/s that India can get that done.

IF one looks around that seems to be the trend with India: missiles, tanks, air crafts, ships. The hardware is an issue. Once India imports the right hardware the product is just fine (for the original recs of course).

What do you think?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 06:28

dorai wrote:My reflection so far about MMRCA reporting in the media (papers/blogs) is that so far almost nothing has been really accurate. Only the rare official statements with named persons and official statements from the manufacturers has been worth listening to.

I do not expect much news in the coming year either except that we see things happening like test flights and so on. But we will not get any real info from the tests, all we will get is more rumours from unnamed sources.

The REAL problem?

We do not know what is in the RFP.

Till then we have to gas - like this thread. But that is part of life, not a knock.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2009 09:29

Nrao saar I read your posts and I am

infact

.

Can you enlighten us about the logic behind your theory of sharing the HW onlee and no SW ; I presume you are aware that US opposition to sharing the source code is primarily due to their known policy of protecting their IP wrt AESA (and yes SW and HW both together constitute a RADAR) what makes you think that they would provide a TOT for entire APG-79 system apart from the SW , is this a toekn or some kind of a ribbon which needs to be cut by Indians onlee.

And afaik there is a 50% offset clause and no 60% TOT clause (it makes little sense) ; and I guess there are a lot of modules and parts which can make that 50% figure and still not include the AESA and even the critical Engine technology.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 07 Jul 2009 10:48

Sorry for being OT. I am a mechanical engineer, but have worked on some open firwares for specific circuit boards (mp3 players). At times, some chips on the board will be proprietory - we dont know what it does, its pin configuration etc. A disassembled original firmware provides a lot of clues about such blackbox chips.

My point, though an AESA radar is million times more complicated than an mp3 player, if US can provide considerable source code and not share the full hardware details, we can still do decent guesses about the hardware configuration. Vice versa is very difficult - writing code from scratch and perfecting it is a herculean task.

All depends on what that "60%" is...

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 07 Jul 2009 11:21

Kailash wrote:... if US can provide considerable source code and not share the full hardware details, we can still do decent guesses about the hardware configuration. Vice versa is very difficult - writing code from scratch and perfecting it is a herculean task.

All depends on what that "60%" is...

I am sure the IAF is aware about these things, hopefully.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Jul 2009 16:29

http://**************/2009/0 ... david.html

What went totally unnoticed and was left unreported by India’s mainstream media was that a seventh independent bidder too had presented its detailed bid—this being SIBAT—the Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Department of the Israel Ministry of Defence, and Israel’s counterpart of Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp, France’s Office Francais d’Exportation de Materiel Aeronautique (OFEMA), the United Kingdom’s Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), and Pakistan’s Defence Export Promotion Organisation (DEPO). The consolidated bid from SIBAT had adopted a consortium approach just like what the other M-MRCA bidders had done. The prime contractor as per SIBAT’s submissions was Israel Aerospace Industries and included RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems, Elbit Systems and RADA Electronics.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 17:29

Can you enlighten us about the logic behind your theory of sharing the HW onlee and no SW

My post two posts prior to yours:

Which is why I would HOPE that India gets the hardware as ToT and whatever software it can get - in the 60% ToT for AESA.

Besides: "HOPE", is in capitals!!!!

I presume you are aware that US opposition to sharing the source code is primarily due to their known policy of protecting their IP wrt AESA

Yes.

However, I would urge you to read krishnan's url in the previous post.

And afaik there is a 50% offset clause and no 60% TOT clause (it makes little sense) ; and I guess there are a lot of modules and parts which can make that 50% figure and still not include the AESA and even the critical Engine technology.

From May, 2008 :: this

Raytheon Company's Dave Goold wrote: Transfer of technology is mandated under India's Defence Procurement Procedure enunciated in 2006 and which is now being fine-tuned. In the case of the IAF tender, the extent of technology transfer for the radar is said to have been pegged at 60 percent.

60% is not my concoction.

The ONLY part where I speculate is how good India is at manufacturing (out of the R&D building) T/R modules. From my read India is not even close - but, I could be totally wrong.

Kailash,

It is my understanding that just manufacturing the hardware is an achievement in itself. The individual module for the AESA is what I am talking about - not arranging a bunch of modules to form the radar "surface".

See next post.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 17:40

On "millions" of lines of code:

Yes it is a bitch, no two ways about it (I have been there personally).

First, as part of the "ToT" I would expect some code, so there is no question about "from scratch".

Second, the quality of code India can get will vary from each vendor. Russians seem to be way behind (from news reports just published - posted a few pages ago). IF that is true, then getting an "AESA" from Russia will mean writing code "from scratch" or close to it.

My argument is that IF India gets an AESA from France it will mean less code as compared to the Russians. An Israeli AESA will have even lesser code to write.

ALL this assumes that the US is the gold standard - which I think it is (from publications, etc).

Now, I am not sure what the US will sell.

But, for sure, IMHO, whatever they are willing to sell (NOT ToT), should be better than everything out there except for the Israeli product. IMHO, the other vendors are too far behind to catch up by 2012. As RU/FR make progress so will the US. It is my belief that the US will maintain a qualitative advantage ( a very large one) over time - ONLY because of the funds it has and the total lack of funds the others have. Outside of Israel - perhaps EF - the others would not have started an AESA effort if it were not for the Indian MRCA (other nations have a MRCA effort too).

The issue then becomes where does India want to be WRT AESA assuming that the US is THE standard, in say 5 years. By this I mean no importing of anything WRT the AESA in 5 years - for Indian consumption.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 19:04

A BIG surprise (for me at least):

Developing the ‘Smart Skin’ concept for Su-30MKI

And come 2014, UAC, together with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will begin upgrading the first 100 IAF Su-30MKIs by modifying their airframes to make them stealthy, converting the existing ‘Bars’ into an active phased-array radar, enhancing the situational awareness by incorporating active electronically scanned transmit/receive arrays on the aircraft’s wings

That should be conformal AESA.

That - IF true - is a quantum leap - even in 2014.

In addition, both UAC and Tikhomirov-NIIP have come together to develop the ‘smart skin’ concept under which an AESA array’s transmit/receive modules can be placed anywhere on board the Su-30MKI to generate the relevant radiation field required for achieving more than 180-degree field-of-view.

(The article is by Prasun K. Sengupta)

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 07 Jul 2009 19:14

(The article is by Prasun K. Sengupta)

In which case, you should disregard it completely.

The Russians are still on their first generation AESA, which hasn't even been operationalized yet. I am extremely skeptical that they can jump to distributed, conformal Tx/Rx modules on wings. Remember that these modules will move as the aircraft's wings flex, vibrate, etc. That is a heck of a jump in 5 years.

I call BS.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 19:34

Perhaps.

The US first tested this "smart skin" in 1997 (NASA used a F-18)!!

However, the conformal AESA can be installed anywhere - on vertical fins, below/over wings, etc. Need not be over moving parts.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Jul 2009 19:53

NRao,

You know very well Sengupta has no credibility he makes up all sort off hyper tech BS for his articles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2009 22:01

You know very well Sengupta has no credibility he makes up all sort off hyper tech BS for his articles.

True, which is why I had quite a few built-in "disclaimers" in my post.
_______________________________________________________________________

However, the guy seems to have lifted part of his article's content from:

AESA Radar Options Displayed (This article is about AESA for the MRCA.)

This article seems to have been updated in April, 2009. It also contains language that is very similar to a Russian article that I came across about three weeks ago, so my assumption is that this author has some value.

He stated:

Tikhomirov NIIP, on the other hand, is busy developing its X-band AESA radar for fitment on to both the Su-35BM and the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft that will be co-developed by Russia’s United Aircraft Corp and India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Thus far, three prototype AESAs have been built and are now undergoing laboratory tests, with the first functional unit due to enter the flight-test phase in 2010, and the series-produced radars entering service by 2015. The AESA’s front-end antenna array will also be offered for integration with the existing NO-11M ‘Bars’ PESA radars by 2014. Yet another AESA variant being designed by Tikhomirov NIIP is called the ‘smart skin’ in which the T/R modules can be located anywhere on board the aircraft to generate the relevant radiation fields required for almost 360-degree airspace surveillance coverage.

Sengupta made that leap of faith: to tie up the MKI and the smart skin.

In the process he seems to have copied some of this authors partial sentences. (So what else is new?)

But, coming back to the AESA topic, this article seems to be far more authentic and comprehensive. Perhaps worth multiple reads.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 08 Jul 2009 13:47

NRao wrote:It is my understanding that India does not have the metallurgical capabilities to deal with this issue (I could be wrong).

Do you really think that *any* country would share this knowledge? This is one key technology (like engines or previous pesa's and slotted arrays) that wont be transferred for decades. We already making the T/R modules in India. We can only hope that things in house will get better.

NRao wrote:It is my understanding that just manufacturing the hardware is an achievement in itself. The individual module for the AESA is what I am talking about - not arranging a bunch of modules to form the radar "surface".

That I agree. But that sounds like we have expertise in "arranging a bunch of modules to form the radar "surface"" which we obviously do not. Last I remember, our AWACS program, with the only flight-worthy AESA, required foreign consultations on systems integration.

NRao wrote:AESA Radar Options Displayed (This article is about AESA for the MRCA.)

That sections on CAESAR clearly shows the number of simultaneous functions that would be required from an AESA radar. Clearly this is something which will take us decades to develop, even with strong software background (without that it would have been impossible).

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 08 Jul 2009 14:23

Two cents.
I've been reading Shiv Aroor's series on MMRCA competitors, and it was interesting that the IAF would apparently have been perfectly happy with a set of Mirages. In that case, why didn't they simply order about 60 Mirages, to be delivered post-haste, and then go through this leisurely process for another 60-80 aircraft? Would have plugged the gap with an aircraft we know, and not created any commonality problems. Then yes, we could've used a still-sizeable order to get some political leverage/ a leap forward in tech.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I see it going one of two ways, given the current situation:
1) An American jet, most like the Superbug, trading off some tech advancement for political mileage. The govt would ask for support for India's UNSC bid, maybe a dry-up of aid to Pak, what do you think?
2) The most advanced plane possible, probably the Typhoon. Very little political mileage, but still useful trade relations, and an aircraft that handle most threats foreseaable for the next 10-15 years. Yes, the Ef isn't really a mature fighter, but it will be, and being part of the programme might be useful. The PAK-FA/FGFA, well, that's still a phantom, no? Would be nice to have a proper 4++ fighter, even if it isn't going to be of very much use immediately.
Personally, I like the Rafale best - it seems to do what we need, but Aroor I think was right - France has done nothing to deserve a Scorpene deal, 126+ fighters and possible future sub contracts.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 08 Jul 2009 15:52

I have been watching the MRCA saga for sometime now. Sharing my perspective.

I view MRCA through different prisms

Cost Advantage:
Gripen, Mig 35 and F-16

Technology Advantage:
Super Hornet, EF, Rafale

No strings Advantage (including TOT):
Gripen, Rafale

Geo political Advantage
Super Hornet, F-16

The ultimate choice by IAF will be a convergence of above streams after due trade offs. The extent and number of trade offs is anybody's guess. It will be after a holistic cost- benefit analysis.

IF the Super Bug is offered at not so expensive rates AND IAF gets the required codes to integrate weapons of its choice (along with other customizations), then it is my belief IAF will bite the Bug even if TOT on AESA radar is not forthcoming.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 08 Jul 2009 15:53

You forgot the most important prism. Palm grease

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Jul 2009 16:27

KiranM wrote:Technology Advantage:
Super Hornet, EF, Rafale

I believe we forgot Russians here.

Although, many of us believe Russians dont have advanced technology, we should not forget that the deal will not only involve aero tech. Russians have helped ATV and many other products. Which country in the list of contenders will do that

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2009 18:04

Do you really think that *any* country would share this knowledge?

Per the Russia article they are willing to part with this technology.

We already making the T/R modules in India.

Then where is the problem? Do T/R "modules" differ from application to application (main radar vs. conformal vs. chapati vs. etc)?

That sections on CAESAR clearly shows the number of simultaneous functions that would be required from an AESA radar. Clearly this is something which will take us decades to develop, even with strong software background (without that it would have been impossible).

Nope. Writing code is never an issue.

It is - always - the algos (image procs - the true brains) (and to some extent the processing power - which I assume is not a problem today). Recall that for some 30-40 years grads of IIStat from India have been in demand in the west.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 08 Jul 2009 18:39

nrshah wrote:
KiranM wrote:Technology Advantage:
Super Hornet, EF, Rafale
I believe we forgot Russians here.

Although, many of us believe Russians dont have advanced technology, we should not forget that the deal will not only involve aero tech. Russians have helped ATV and many other products. Which country in the list of contenders will do that

-Nitin

India is already working with Russia on FGFA project. So best of Russian technology will anyways come to India. Why then purchase Mig 35?

Instead go for some diversity.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Jul 2009 19:22

Chiron wrote:India is already working with Russia on FGFA project. So best of Russian technology will anyways come to India. Why then purchase Mig 35?

Instead go for some diversity.

I have already mentioned technology has to be looked into broader prospective instead of just aeronautics. There are host of areas where we can be avail russian expertise. It includes both military and cilvil. To name a few -

Civilian
- Nuclear reprocessing
- Manned flight to space / moon
- Heavy payload rockets (heavier than GSLV 3 that is being developed). there are heavier payload than 4T GTO

Military
- Nuclear Submarines (it is already helping and i havent read we have paid for the same)
- SLBM
- Cruise missile
- Seekers
- Jet engines.
- Ship engines/propellers (Making marine version of Kaveri propel project 17A or 17B)

Areas listed above are those where they are already helping us. There may be many other areas which is outside media coverage.

Many of the areas listed above are such that barring french, i am cent percent sure none will even think of helping us

Also, as u rightly said with FGFA, we will be getting best of technology related to aeronautics. Thus we should think of what else we can get. Also, i am not saying to purchase Mig 35. I am only saying that let us not sideline russia (our All weather, fire and forget, Day and night friend - who stood with us even when indian economy was shit) just because off late Americans/Europeans have shown their inclination towards us.(mind u only after we became one the fastest growing economy)

-Nitin

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 08 Jul 2009 19:41

krishnan wrote:You forgot the most important prism. Palm grease

Unfortunately, data to show that prism is classified as top secret. Unless you wanted to be booked under OSA and shipped to one of the interrogation centres exposed in The Week.

nrshah wrote:
Chiron wrote:India is already working with Russia on FGFA project. So best of Russian technology will anyways come to India. Why then purchase Mig 35?

Instead go for some diversity.
I have already mentioned technology has to be looked into broader prospective instead of just aeronautics. There are host of areas where we can be avail russian expertise. It includes both military and cilvil. To name a few -

Civilian
- Nuclear reprocessing
- Manned flight to space / moon
- Heavy payload rockets (heavier than GSLV 3 that is being developed). there are heavier payload than 4T GTO

Military
- Nuclear Submarines (it is already helping and i havent read we have paid for the same)
- SLBM
- Cruise missile
- Seekers
- Jet engines.
- Ship engines/propellers (Making marine version of Kaveri propel project 17A or 17B)

Areas listed above are those where they are already helping us. There may be many other areas which is outside media coverage.

Many of the areas listed above are such that barring french, i am cent percent sure none will even think of helping us

Also, as u rightly said with FGFA, we will be getting best of technology related to aeronautics. Thus we should think of what else we can get. Also, i am not saying to purchase Mig 35. I am only saying that let us not sideline russia (our All weather, fire and forget, Day and night friend - who stood with us even when indian economy was shit) just because off late Americans/Europeans have shown their inclination towards us.(mind u only after we became one the fastest growing economy)

-Nitin

To have such gains I rather not gamble it with MRCA which will be one of the mainstays of IAF. Also, what you have stated will be more worth in $$ than the MRCA contract. So if Mig is not selected, I dont see why we cannot buy the remaining stuff. What you listed are not freebies.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 08 Jul 2009 20:20

IAF’s search for jets to begin in B’lore

Kalyan Ray: New Delhi: DH News Service

The Indian Air Force’s (IAF) search for 126 multi-role fighters in a mega $10 billion defence deal is expected to kick start from Bangalore where the planes will undergo the first round of trials in a month or two ... . . . . .

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 08 Jul 2009 20:22

To have such gains I rather not gamble it with MRCA which will be one of the mainstays of IAF. Also, what you have stated will be more worth in $$ than the MRCA contract. So if Mig is not selected, I dont see why we cannot buy the remaining stuff. What you listed are not freebies.

I am not suggesting to gamble with MRCA. I have never suggested to purchase Mig 35, if we feel it is not comparable to others.
But the question is - Is mig 35 actually not as advanced and dont give competitive edge over the other contenders? I dont feel so. We criticize it for its old airframe, but does F 16 has new? We downgrade it saying radar not matured, but does Rafale/ EF / gripen has matured radar?

Again I am not suggesting to purchase Mig 35. Rather I am Rafale fan personally.

With respect to stated technology, i feel sorry to differ but no country, except Russia and probably France, will even think of helping us for whatever $$ we have to offer.

I am only saying let us not see technology only thru TOT for specific contender. With LCA / AJT / MCA / FGFA we will catch the best of the standard in next 5 - 10 years. Let us now look other areas which can be explored.

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2009 21:24

Arun_S wrote: IAF’s search for jets to begin in B’lore

corrected URL

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2009 21:38

Arun_S wrote: IAF’s search for jets to begin in B’lore

AWST, June 29, 2009, has an article titled "Victory in the Air" (Page 32). Key item of interest WRT the Indian MRCA:

Russian fighter manufacturer Sukhoi plans a decade-long production overlap of its latest Flanker model with its fifth-generation fighter program for the Russian air force, apparently further undermining MiG's ambitions for a next-generation fighter.

The air force operates two tactical fighter types, the Su-27 and the lighter MiG-29 Fulcrum. There has been considerable speculation that, because of its likely cost, the air force might not be able to acquire the PAK-FA in the numbers needed to replace both types.

Having lost to Sukhoi on the PAK-FA program, MiG had focused its efforts on further upgrades to the Fulcrum and a medium-fighter concept, known as the LMFS. This was intended both as a complement to the PAK-FA and successor to the Fulcrum in the export market.

One senior MiG official says neither the need for the LMFS nor the lack of available funds has changed. The air force's ability to support a third fighter procurement alongside the Su-35 and the PAK-FA is also an open question.

To me there is too much uncertainty WRT the MiG planes.

I would not be surprised if this uncertainty is kept on slow boil because of the Indian decision. I suspect they will let MiG go once India makes up her mind for the MRCA.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 08 Jul 2009 21:49

NRao wrote:I suspect they will let MiG go once India makes up her mind for the MRCA.

What do you mean by this? Will MiG be effectively shut down? If not, what future does MiG have?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2009 22:43

What future will MiG have? Do not know.

But, the same article states that even their UAV Skat has been sidelined. Seems to me that the Sukhoi team is taking over. Perhaps the MiG team will merge into the Sukhoi - although they keep saying that they are just one company.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2009 23:04

KiranM, Good way of looking at things.

My thoughts:
1)To me the MRCA is to hedge against PRC. IA 12 mtn divs are good but need IAF strength to be augmented.
2) Need to hedge against single supplier handicap.
3) Need to ensure TSP doesnt get supplies sustained by Indian order
4) Need to ensure there is a surge capability in the country of origin, in case things go south.
5) Need to ensure path for induction of future systems

2) Requires splitting the order or ensuring a major power is in good humor. So may be increase the order and get the increase from this power.

4) Is important for weapons are to deter and fight wars. Neither Sweden or France has the surge capability.

3 & 5 will be the deciders for the remanent.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2009 02:36

MRCA at $10 billion should not be taken too seriously. When compared to other deals (nuclear is at some $100+ billion)(Roads/etc is at $95 billion), this is nothing.

Get the very best MMRCA deal possible. Maro golli to all aspects, what others think and how they feel. What is best for India go for it boldly.

Get the FGFA IF possible - IMHO that project is not as mature as one thought (the 2009 PAK-FA is at best a technology demonstrator of the lowest order).

Then REALLY chase MCA - engine, radar, avionics, ALL. IF by 2020-2022 India can master the MCA things should be looking good.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 09 Jul 2009 06:19

MMRCA Part 6 - The Typhoon Truth - LiveFist

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 09 Jul 2009 12:03

NRao wrote:...Get the very best MMRCA deal possible. Maro golli to all aspects, what others think and how they feel. What is best for India go for it boldly...

Jai Ho! And stockpile critical spares please!

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 09 Jul 2009 15:01

The dassault mirage2000h survival rate in Iaf has been phenomenal ,if I am not wrong then this lot has only one crash till date

.
Isn't it enough to rely on french machine like Rafale ,as we periodically face accidents and attrition rate in last year is 10 acs

i.e in a decade we can lose 5-6 squadrons without retirement

.
I don't think that IAF should think too much in selecting Rafale amongst other contender,just go for it

Love this thing bombing porks

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 09 Jul 2009 17:05

Samay wrote:The dassault mirage2000h survival rate in Iaf has been phenomenal ,if I am not wrong then this lot has only one crash till date .
Isn't it enough to rely on french machine like Rafale ,as we periodically face accidents and attrition rate in last year is 10 acs i.e in a decade we can lose 5-6 squadrons without retirement .
I don't think that IAF should think too much in selecting Rafale amongst other contender,just go for it
Love this thing bombing porks

No your wrong, IAF has lost more than one mirage.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 09 Jul 2009 19:31

Kakarat wrote:No your wrong, IAF has lost more than one mirage.

Recall IAF losing 3 Mirages in a space of one or two weeks during some air exercise.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 09 Jul 2009 20:26

With regard to the Rafale ..... its disadvantages like small diameter antenna start to evaporate as technology advances. With aesa official increase in range is 50% ..... with next technological leap such as GaN array there could be a further increase in range ..... further negating the antenna size constraint.

But the key may eventually be meteor and Caesar. Typhoon and Rafale are soo close.