MRCA News and Discussion

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 30 May 2009 18:29

Well...somewhere I had read that the Air chief indicated that 2015 would be the yr to start taking deliveries of MRCA type aircraft. I think that is a long period of time .....and it would good to discount F-16/18 and Mig-35 type aircraft since they would be very old architectures once the deliveries would be complete in a period of a maximum of 5 yrs.....making it 2020. We would then want to use the aircraft for at least 15-20 yrs.

PAK-FA would be good....but rukiz logistics are questionable.

I would like to put the money on EF-2000 or F-35 (especially).....similar to lines of what the isrealiz are doing. Upgraded F-16s now....future F-35......

What do you guys think?

The Mig-35s should simply replace these old Mig-29s....

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 30 May 2009 18:49

prabir wrote:Not a supporter of Antony, but you will agree that he is a honest man. So, if F18 is selected, then there will be some secret understanding on US policy w.r.t Pakistan and China. I am sure of that.

The problem is that his leadership isn't that honest and american leadership is more honest. So there will be secret understanding wrt Pakistan and even NPT (Obama's favorite) for sure but what will it mean for India is anyone's guess.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 May 2009 19:17

The Mig-35s should simply replace these old Mig-29s....

If IAF+DRDO thinks we could own mig corp to 50-50, then its a high probability. Else, votes are down for the migs.. largely due to their MTBF, high life cycle cost, poor spares and supplies, politics, and least regard to contractual agreements. In addition, the russkies have started jacking up prices like one possessed.

Furthermore, pakfa and futuristic deals are for now a hype rather a deal. The specs don't even counter act with what the western blocks think its 5th gen and such features. There is a lot of catch ups.. and not withstanding, the russkies holds us by the b@lls where it hurts us more, further enhancing the dependency factor to greater than 80% all the time. Their handle on us is very hidden with wide spread agents and inside-jobers. But they do give us a sense of freedom, that is more virtual than actual imho.

If pakfa to be futuristic, a french help or EADS help could make it a clean deal. Are they willing to such open platform inviting some nato blocks into it, at the discretion of our choice.

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 30 May 2009 21:24

Edited

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 May 2009 01:35

Edited

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 31 May 2009 01:54

Edited

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 May 2009 10:12

Edited

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 01 Jun 2009 03:24

Edited: OT parts of reply moved to PAK FA thread

SaiK wrote: If IAF+DRDO thinks we could own mig corp to 50-50, then its a high probability. Else, votes are down for the migs.. largely due to their MTBF, high life cycle cost, poor spares and supplies, politics, and least regard to contractual agreements. In addition, the russkies have started jacking up prices like one possessed.

What gives you the idea that MiG corp is up for sale, or India has expressed any such interest ? You have brought this point up this point in the past, so I don't know where you are getting this idea from ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jun 2009 08:49

Mig Corp for sale

They are doing quite ok , they are certainly not as cash rich as the Sukhoi walas are , but they will do well in the long run

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 01 Jun 2009 09:01

I think Saik was just joking, trying to make a point that Mig's chances stand very low.

And I agree with that.

Guys try and read in between the lines.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 04 Jun 2009 06:39

m mittal wrote: I think Saik was just joking, trying to make a point that Mig's chances stand very low.

That is SaiK and your opinion.

m mittal wrote: Guys try and read in between the lines.

I am a relatively new member at BRF, but in my short time on BRF I think I have a fair idea of when SaiK'ji is joking and when he is not, though I have to say in his case I am never 100 % sure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Jun 2009 06:48

Jai garu the other day we were discussing about aspiring Admins on Nukkad ; however every time I come to MRCA thread I know yours is the job which none of the wannabe admins would want

--runs back to nukkad--

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jun 2009 18:29

This MRCA is largest ever currently happening multi role deals that is going on. It is important to hightlight the list of participants especially who regard this deal as make or break. One of them (in the top of the list) is Mig35. They were willing to give us the bang for the buck deal., and I hope they do continue to be competitive rather fall victim to nato block cost/performance and life cycle cost. IMHO, from a strategic sense, it would not matter a few % cost up on life cycle and maintenance, if we can give the right airframe for the airforce. But, in the meanwhile we do get the same from say Boeing, then why not suck the hell out of 'em.

This deal is the only chance for us to establish those that we are feeling that we haven't focused enough. ie, engines and radars, and netcentric weapons. Toting greatly in these areas, is going to help MCA to a large extent, and perhaps these contenders may also feel having to give too much for little. When we think of technology, that we can say ...atlast, we know now what and how to do it, etc. could make the lost race in this field for about 20 years now.

GTRE and Saturn/PW/GE/Snecma must colloboration could helps us standardize and gain large expertise in precision engineering and turbine technology. Association with Elta especially to boosted up range of AESA radars, and further going ahead with a joint research on next generation t/r modules would put us in a better position when MCA arrives.

Netcentric capabilities can be established along with MRCA deal, and further enhanced with a customized version for IAF (perhaps with colloboration with Navy and Army as well, to a integrated setup).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2009 19:25

Mig35. They were willing to give us the bang for the buck deal

Pre-selection or post-selection?

The latest Russian (perhaps not MiG) trend has been that they build in a 100% escalation clause that is written in invisible ink!!!

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 05 Jun 2009 15:42

SaiK wrote:In B4 TriaLs?

Yuppo... I think we should stop flogging a sleeping horse, at least till the birds actually come rolling in to test.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 05 Jun 2009 16:52

Ib4TL posts are not needed, yet, and have been deleted.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2009 17:59

SaiK wrote:
we should not have over dependence on anything american.
my point is this,
we should have over dependence on anything Indian.

The GUBO begins!
Left with no option, India may agree to US physically inspecting defence equipment it sells to Indian armed forces and the End-User Verification Agreement (EUVA) for the purpose will come up for finalisation during US Under Secretary William Burns' visit here from June 10 to 13.

"Ideally, we (India) would not want to have this clause at all (in the agreement with the US). Our concern is we cannot allow the equipment to be intrusively inspected,"

"We do not have such agreements with other countries, except for an undertaking. But only the US has this law and we realise that it is a requirement. We are sure the concerns of both sides would be factored into the final EUVA draft,"

why?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jun 2009 18:21

If this was not posted before, take a gander at the dutch evals - many of the a/c are contenders for the MRCA. Keep an eye on the U.S. legacy contenders. IIRC the main criteria was "multirole" ability.

http://bruxelles2.over-blog.com/article-22711204.html

Vive le Rafale!

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2009 18:30

CM saab, translations please.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jun 2009 19:00

Me no understand french either. But graph is self explanatory. Here is a google translation:

The Government of the Netherlands would have encouraged the American fighter aircraft, Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), when selecting in the 2000s, knowingly dismissing the latest versions of its competitors? Yes, according to NRC Handelsblad journalists who had access to confidential documents of the Ministry of Defense Dutch.

When the government decides to invest $ 800 million into the development of this aircraft - who should take over from the F16 - it does not, in fact, all the information of competitors who are developing models most modern or the most advanced version of the Eurofighter - version 3 - or the latest version of the french Rafale aircraft. In the comparison table, we can see that the french Rafale aircraft holds the rope facing the JSF, and even that version over the F4 (see table below).

As a result, the government could recommend peacefully on 13 February 2002, Members of the Second Chamber, which had to decide on the investment, that the evaluation report shows that the JSF is the most effective from an operational ".

Today, the Dutch government must finally decide to buy the machines. A budget of EUR 5.6 billion is at stake if the Eurofighter and Rafale threw in the towel, it only remains in the track with its Swedish Saab Gripen new generation. This information falls to the bottom in Swedish just get one last time (until 30 September) to present the latest information to the second chamber. Government and the Cabinet has to decide on the final purchase of the first JSF in February (see the article in the NRC Handelsblad).

Further elaboration on the graph via arthuro @ keypubs, http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=84:

A surprising and important detail had been made public: the technological and operational evaluation by the RNAF of the three candidates. According to the RNAF criteria, the JSF had been graded 6.97; the Rafale, 6.95; and the Eurofighter Typhoon, 5.85. This grading is surprising because it compares aircraft which seem only marginally comparable. The Rafale is beginning to enter into service; the Typhoon is in its terminal phase of development; and the JSF is a ''paper aircraft'', with only theoretical capabilities. The grading is also surprising because the JSF, placed on an almost equal footing with the Rafale, is far from being able to demonstrate the operational and technological superiority attributed to it. If one adds the fact that in the economic evaluation by the competent Dutch government body, the CPB, the JSF was deemed very problematic, it is fair to wonder on what factual basis the selection of the JSF was made. One is also led to wonder about the role of the RNAF, which made public the evaluation grades, which did not really facilitate the Dutch government's task.

Seems like the JSF was selected simply based on U.S. political weight much to the

of the euros.

CM

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2009 19:14

There is technical eval, then there is a political eval. In India the Cabinet makes the ultimate decision - the political decision/eval.

Which is why I think India will make the MRCA rec a 200 AC deal, give 126 to Rafale (the tech eval winner - IMHO of course) and the rest to F-18 (political eval winner). If political > technical, then the vendors switch places.

The beauty of the Indian rec is that to start with the number of ACs is very, very large. I think only the USN/USAF has a bigger rec than IAF, may be Chicom too. So, to compare a 24 unit rec of Oz or a 18 AC rec of some European country is rather meaningless. I would think when the rec is small (SK, Singapore, RNeth, etc) the political side will more than likely win. Only because India has such a large rec can India afford to split the deal.

Let us see.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jun 2009 19:33

NRao wrote:There is technical eval, then there is a political eval. In India the Cabinet makes the ultimate decision - the political decision/eval.

Which is why I think India will make the MRCA rec a 200 AC deal, give 126 to Rafale (the tech eval winner - IMHO of course) and the rest to F-18 (political eval winner). If political > technical, then the vendors switch places.

The beauty of the Indian rec is that to start with the number of ACs is very, very large. I think only the USN/USAF has a bigger rec than IAF, may be Chicom too. So, to compare a 24 unit rec of Oz or a 18 AC rec of some European country is rather meaningless. I would think when the rec is small (SK, Singapore, RNeth, etc) the political side will more than likely win. Only because India has such a large rec can India afford to split the deal.

Let us see.

As a jingo I wouldn't mind, but the infrastructure & logistical setup for two such totally different a/c boggles the mind. The possibility seems remote that 2 birds of uber quality - rafale + shornet could be chosen. In case of a split deal (200 birds), it would be 75 Shornet + 126 MiG-35/126 Gripen (considering its engine commonality with the Shornet).
JMT.

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2009 19:39

CM,

That is THE point.

YOU are thinking like a techie.

Now switch over and put on your political cap. (Assume: IF we buy the F-18 (126 of them) we get blah, blah, blah from the US, IF we buy the F-18 (75 of them) we get blah-2, blah-2, blah-2 from the US) I do not know what comes with the F-18, but from a political PoV it has to count for a LOT more than a Grippen or even a MiG-35. From a PURLY political PoV.

Which politician (in the cabinet none the less) is going to CARE for ground support systems, when s/he has the pressure of making a political decision?

BUT, you are absolutely right from a tech PoV. AND, this is a headache for the IAF, NOT for the politician.

BTW, IF AT ALL, the numbers go up from 126 to say 200, that itself will be a political decision. And, FinMin will be made to come up with the extra cash. Print extra Rs perhaps.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jun 2009 19:46

NRao wrote:CM,

That is THE point.

YOU are thinking like a techie.

Now switch over and put on your political cap. (Assume: IF we buy the F-18 (126 of them) we get blah, blah, blah from the US, IF we buy the F-18 (75 of them) we get blah-2, blah-2, blah-2 from the US) I do not know what comes with the F-18, but from a political PoV it has to count for a LOT more than a Grippen or even a MiG-35. From a PURLY political PoV.

Which politician (in the cabinet none the less) is going to CARE for ground support systems, when s/he has the pressure of making a political decision?

BUT, you are absolutely right from a tech PoV. AND, this is a headache for the IAF, NOT for the politician.

BTW, IF AT ALL, the numbers go up from 126 to say 200, that itself will be a political decision. And, FinMin will be made to come up with the extra cash. Print extra Rs perhaps.

Frankly, if it is to be a pure political decision, i don't see any more than 126 birds and all of them will probly be the F-18/16. Politically, it's pretty clear what the GOI wants , no different from the dutch or the nords, only technically a LOT worse. Those gizmos on the teens better be good!

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2009 19:53

I reluctantly agree with you (I think the IAF should have more say than an Indo-US/whatever deal). But the fact remains that politics plays a huge role in such matters.

However, the point I am trying to make is that with the Indian requirements the number of air crafts is SO large that it can be a dual decision. With so many ACs I would think that an Indian politician/s will be made to negotiate hard on the political front - specially if the IAF does NOT want a US AC.

On the flip side, when the number of ACs are small (10-25) the decision typically will always tilt towards the political side.

I would think India is in far better situation than most other nations - P-8, C-130, MTR (whatever), FGFA, subs, tanks - I mean India has a LOT to play with even on the political front.

Only if the Indian politician can dance with the Indian armed forces, that would be great.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2009 21:39

under the political objective, we could still have technical aspects that leverage politics;

We do have these playing:

0. Indian Babooze' interpretations and assumptions.
1. American Laws
2. Indian RFP
3. Evaluation Officers at IAF. [they have a command too, and say b@lls to babooze]
4. Agents and those dark ones as well
5. DDM
6. Contender's goofups/politics (recent rafale documents) [owing to "there are no accidents"]

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 06 Jun 2009 02:26

Air Chief Marshal Major said that there was no credence to the rumours that the approximately $10 billion acquisition would be divided into two competitors. “Our plan is to use Su-30 MKIs, MRCAs, Tejas, upgraded Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 as well as Jaguar aircraft.”

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

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Jun 2009 03:05

Ameet wrote:Air Chief Marshal Major said that there was no credence to the rumours that the approximately $10 billion acquisition would be divided into two competitors. “Our plan is to use Su-30 MKIs, MRCAs, Tejas, upgraded Mirage-2000 and Mig-29 as well as Jaguar aircraft.”

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

(Ameet, it would be real nice if you could use the "quote" button.)

That statement has no meaning. Did the CAS and some of us forget that the IAF actually wanted the Mirage 2000 for the MRCA?

That is politics for us.

CAS can say anything he wants - and specially one on his way out (granted he said it in Feb). This being India, and not Pakistan, politicians are the bosses - like it or not. Instead of being nose deep in M2Ks, we are some 10 years away from inducting a MRCA (from the original date) (granted there are other benefits - offsets, etc). But, all this was precipitated by the politicians, and, ................... they can still overturn an IAF decision, split the deal, kill the LCA and hand the deal to three vendors, whatever.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 06 Jun 2009 06:12

So far all that the political and military leadership has done is talk and stall.

If we look at what is really operational now, really on order now, and what is really in final negotiations... nothing significantly new has happened on the fighter force for the last decade. MMRCA has been in a freezer for 7-8 years.

Instead of saying "we will have this and that by [date] " how about actually go ahead and sign some contracts.

Everything can't be perfect all the time before a decision, the military need equipment! Some issues can be resolved later.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 06 Jun 2009 15:33

If we are going for split order than 175 Rafale (125 New + 50 for old Mirage replacement, since no upgrade contract has been signed for Mirages) + 75 Mig 35 including the replacement of Mig 29.

Benefits are
1. Some infrastructure will be there and doesnt need to start from scratch.
2. No new aircraft type is added
3. Can get best of both the worlds

Just a wet dream but who knows...

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Jun 2009 15:37

with the way us is behaving now -mIG 35 is sure
now guys which base you think they will be based
lohegaon-jodhpur ambala pathankot jamnagar

or chabua guahati lilabari

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2009 16:25

guwahati is one place that has ample land to provide a second runway and big new fighter base
facilities. a largeish AF station is already there but currently only a Mi17 heli units.

silchar is another place that could be a fighter base, albeit the airport is on a plateau and weather over the cachar hills can be a tad rough.

we need another base between guwahati and WB to close the chain or maybe a big one in
eastern bihar to support the Sikkim front.

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 06 Jun 2009 16:48

Seniors, I have few silly questions :-

1) NPCL will buy reactors and fuel worth tens maybe hundreds of billions, isn't this enough for Nuclear deal ?

2) What can we expect USA to do if we won't buy f16 or f18 ?

3) The current US administration don't really care about Indo-US relations as much as last administration did (Lecturing us on Kashmir, Hillary going to China directly, Passing bill against Offshoring etc), why should we appease such people while our Air Force suffers ?

- A Newbie

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Jun 2009 16:59

most likely we are not buying any f16/18 -mig 35 is expected to outshine every thing during field trials and the us leaning of our leaders have taken a hard reality check after LET chief was released ,more us aid to pakistan even the strongest us supporter is now running for cover

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 07 Jun 2009 00:47

nitinr wrote:If we are going for split order than 175 Rafale (125 New + 50 for old Mirage replacement, since no upgrade contract has been signed for Mirages) + 75 Mig 35 including the replacement of Mig 29.

Benefits are
1. Some infrastructure will be there and doesnt need to start from scratch.
2. No new aircraft type is added
3. Can get best of both the worlds

Just a wet dream but who knows...

This shows a very strong reason for not buying F16/F18. This also allows us to get positive offsets for LCA and MCA. This approach is the best way forward.

satya · Post by **satya** » 07 Jun 2009 02:38

Based on my conversation with a Dilli Billi wrt MRCA ::

Commission money is not an issue . Since all offer/give same percentage more or less making it a non-decisive factor (this was a pre-condition somethings Germans didn't understood quite well initially ) . Kinda surprising but hey we are very very efficient when it comes to hard earned money / cuts from deals ( tried & tested & updated system is in place ).

Factors deciding the ''aircraft-1" on 1st announcement & ''aircraft-2'' on 2nd announcement will be different . First one will be based entirely on inventory/reserve/ no. of aircrafts that can be made available at time of 'emergency' under some sort of agreement ( Apparently induction time is still IST time zone one so yes a bit longer than one predicted here on forum but a lease option for more will be part of deal though not be talked about openly . Well we are learning from our western neighbour that has such agreement with ME countries ) In nutshell , its an insurance policy albeit an expensive one that we will have to buy to ensure PRC's intentions remain intention & nothing beyond . 2nd aircraft announcement will be as our ABV famously said " inki bhi baat rakhni padegi na" !

So what about technology and MKIzed version , oh yes it will be here , well 30% offset has to do something ( didn't we get new interiors in Hyundai Santro series against not so pleasurable standard plastic in all maruti models . Got the idea ). Does it mean only superficial changes no but don't expect 'ever' to have another Su-30 MKI in making. Same trick can't be pulled twice ! ( DB's words ) so something in btw .

So why the delay well GoI ( netas & babus both included ) are patting their backs for having pulled of civil nuke deal riding on a chariot where one of the horses was MRCA deal ! Are they expecting to pull another such a deal hmm...................

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2009 03:11

Satya,

I am more confused now than ever before.

Assume "commission" = kick-back/S. Well, what else is new? Sigh. Well, let us move on.

What is this about "aircrafts that can be made available at time of 'emergency' under some sort of agreement" in plain English? Does it mean that while the contract is being filled out (at say 10 ACs per year) and India goes to "war" with PRC, then India is assured X number of air crafts immediately if ND so desires?

Now, Air craft-1 and air craft-2? ABV?

On MRCA deal being one of the horses, so either of the F-1X is in? (nothing new there, but for kicks.)

Sorry for being so daft.

On the MKI thing, true, yet the MRCA will be MKIezed to whatever extent it is possible. Nothing to do with offsets.

satya · Post by **satya** » 07 Jun 2009 03:26

NRaojee

sorry for not writing clearly but that's more or less i came to know . Anyhow here's a bit more explaination :

Assume "commission" = kick-back/S. Well, what else is new? Sigh. Well, let us move on.

Yes commission= kickback ( in dilli its always deal & how much is deal then a number is told either b4hand or understood and that no. is % of total deal money in a sort of escrow account type thing ! ). But look at bright side , its not 'the' or an issue at all !

What is this about "aircrafts that can be made available at time of 'emergency' under some sort of agreement" in plain English? Does it mean that while the contract is being filled out (at say 10 ACs per year) and India goes to "war" with PRC, then India is assured X number of air crafts immediately if ND so desires?

A bit more complex than that . No. of aircrafts made 'available' will not exceed number mentioned in contract and only in circumstances of ''SOS'' type scenario only . As i said its an ''insurance policy'' against worst case scenario .

Now, Air craft-1 and air craft-2? ABV?

MRCA will be split btw 2 companies not one and it was always so from time RFPs were sent.

ABV = Atal Bihari Vajpayeejee , he was a very fine balancer and always knew how to balance both sides . Same rule applies here : 2nd company will be to appease the particular nation only .

A bit about technical details ,our defense services understand the workings of GoI and what they do is when they send their reports they write ''must haves'' & '' good to have'' technical parameters to be part of a deal ensuring whichever supplier is selected they get stuff they want in first place . Hope am making some sense .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2009 04:29

Thx. Well, somewhat .............. I guess.

My understanding:

1) Number of ACs will remain 126
2) BUT, they will be split between two vendors
3) A majority will be bought from the one considered to be IAF compatible
4) The second vendor will be a "political" decision
5) IF need be IAF will have access to more ACs - in case of an emergency

Close?

IF that is true, then my original scenario holds:

a) Two vendors
b) 200 ACs (ie: 126 + ACs in an emergency) ("emergency" is a political word to increase the numbers bought outside of teh original RFP)(GoI will gen an emergency)
c) One will be a technical purchase, the other a political one

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 07 Jun 2009 04:49

Computer problems on Eurofighter T2 jets.

Screens can go black in midflight so the German Air Force only put the most experience pilots in them until they have solved the problem. They also had computer problems during the trials in Switzerland but that was on something else since the jet couldn't start one day.

(german) http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschla ... 26,00.html

Let's see if they find a fix in time for the IAF trials.