sunnyv wrote:@ Kartik
We had a article covering the Report about flight performance of aircrafts ,
As per article - officer in charge told that "There is no extra point for demonstrating extra features, when we are evaluating an aircraft we only look for our req and whether aircraft can demonstrate that , if it does then a tick is put for that criteria . If a particular aircraft has anything special it dosen't count."
Now my Question is -As per your post only top3 performing aircrafts will make it to final three and less capable will be eliminated , but if all are equal in as per req of IAF asked ,how list will be generated .
Bcoz cost and Geo-politics strategic benefits are domain of MoD not IAF , and ministry will decide that .
It would be difficult for IAF to decide whom to leave and whom to carry, if a 60mill plane gives what you need similar to what 90mill is also giving , how can IAF be unbiased towards additional feature like Supercruise ,TVC ,Ga-Ni chips etc.
I believe that the Eurofighter Typhoon top execs' interviews have clarified that aspect a bit. They made it clear that they were worried that if the IAF was simply going to tick boxes and not look into the additional performance aspect of each contender, then each and every one of the MRCA candidates would clear. The reason being that (as one industry exec put it) the requirements are not that stringent and all of the candidates would comfortably pass them during the flight trials. They all have already cleared the technical rounds. And obviously, being the most expensive of the lot but also providing (probably) the best pure performance and potential than all the rest, EADS were keen to see that additional points or weight was allocated for exceeding the requirements.
The IAF has clarified to EADS that additional performance will be taken into account and its not just a matter of ticking boxes based on minimal performance goals being met. the EADS chief said so during interviews.
I'm guessing that weightage is given to each factor and the IAF will have an equation or a formula (similar to how the USAF evaluates its tanker contest) that takes into account this weightage. And a final score for each contender is taken at the end which will decide who goes into the final lists.
The US Tanker requirement had a set of mandatory requirements and non-mandatory requirements. If the candidates met the mandatory requirements, then a price check was done and whichever was cheaper would win. If prices were equal, then non-mandatory requirements would be checked and the USAF would be willing to pay 1% of the overall value of the contract more for the aircraft that exceeds the baseline performance.
I'm not saying that the IAF has adopted the same practice, but it’s a good barometer of how an evaluation may be conducted. The IAF may have changed their evaluation to also include non-mandatory requirements into their total score formula- only those who are familiar with the evaluation process will know. For instance, the IAF may say that
-take off from x feet with y payload at z altitude and z1 temperature is a mandatory requirement and anyone who meets the requirement gets a tick and a score
-however, if you can also take off from (x-50) feet with the same y payload at z altitude and z1 temp then you get an additional score that will eventually add up in the formula.
There is a good reason for the above requirement - in a war situation, a cratered runway may still be available and the ability to take off from a really short runway is a major benefit in a war time situation. so the IAF may confer additional points for such capability. Similarly, they may set such requirements for avionics, radar, flight performance, maintenance requirements and so on. And one can also see that some other practices may eventually filter in as well, which were not originally mandated- for instance the recent "hot refuelling" of the Gripen. It shows the IAF that here is an aircraft that in a war can maintain a sortie rate that will easily surpass any of the other fighters. Obviously it’s a huge advantage because with good serviceability and very low turn-around times alongwith hot refuelling ability, you have a fighter that automatically becomes a force multiplier..fewer airframes can maintain a non-stop CAP or QRA.
Anyway, this is a complex process and it is difficult to say who is a favourite and who isn't.
Unfortunately, we haven't had any journalists taking a good long look at the evaluations and the process. Vishnu Som would be the ideal journo to take it up or maybe Pushpinder Singh Chopra in Vayu Aerospace since they have good industry and defence contacts..sometimes I wish I was a journo and had that many connections. My gripe is that for such a huge and important deal, there is still not so much clarity on the exact process of evaluation. There is plenty at stake and many new processes that are going to be put to the test and yet there is very little spotlight on them (such as DPP 2009 and DPP 2010).
When one reads AW&ST or Flight International one would be amazed at how much details (and technical as well as business information) are available on much much smaller deals or programs due to the very advanced nature of their journalism as well as the spread of their aerospace industry. Those who talk about aviation there have more than just a basic idea of aerospace matters. Not so in India. Most desi journos seem to prefer sensationalism (maybe because it takes a lot less effort and brains) but few ever delve into the details that really matter. Maybe its because they don't understand the subject matter (just as I would make a hopeless journo if I wrote about software) or maybe they don't want to invest that much effort because our aerospace industry is very limited and the circulation of pure aerospace or defence magazines is extremely small for the size of India..and maybe its also because of the secretiveness of our military and bureaucracy. I hope things improve as blogs like livefist, tarmak007 take root and grow. I have always hoped that BRF itself would grow into a defence magazine as well, kind of like Vayu..easier said than done though and would require tremendous dedicated efforts.
Which brings me to another of my perennial gripes- the general dumbing down of BRF discussion levels. It apalls me when some numbskulls on this forum talk nonsense about "knowing" that a particular fighter will win regardless of the complexity of this process just because he likes the US or Russia. IMO, the average posts on BRF nowadays are on a level that a child in 10th grade would write. All they seem to understand is a bit of strategy that anyone can pick up and they feel that having a large post count matters. What matters is the quality of their posts. Where is the industry experience seen on BRF that would lend the kind of posts that actually deal with real-world issues instead of fantasizing about a particular strategic relationship or having nightmares about another ? Which is why every time I meet or see someone remotely associated with Indian industry and armed forces I ask them to visit BRF and hope that they become regulars. I guess that just doesn't work. Just look at BRF archives from 3-4 years ago and see the level of discussion that went on then. If you didn't know something you didn't open your mouth lest you end up looking like a fool. I lurked on BRF for 3 years from 1999 when I finished 12th to 2003 when I graduated and only in 2004 even registered because I thought I could contribute.
Anyway, this post isn't going anywhere. Sorry for going so OT.