MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 25 May 2010 17:28

Further to the warnings by chief of army staff, we should not forget Kashmir shown as a part of Pak in the Boeing official slide show as was reported in LIvefist...

The opinion of king uncle on Kashmir is self evident... Perhaps now we need to opine whom we want to make strategic partners (126 jet planes deal will make any nation on the earth our strategic partner incl TSP if we buy 126 Jf 17).. Those who are with us day in and day out, or those who are more of friend of our principal rival....

Think India Think..

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 May 2010 18:01

Just a quick query as I was out of town for a while.Have the details/report in AWST May 3rd. reg. the MIG-35 using its AESA radar in a missile "shoot" for the IAF evaluation team been earlier posted?

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 25 May 2010 20:25

nrshah wrote:Further to the warnings by chief of army staff, we should not forget Kashmir shown as a part of Pak in the Boeing official slide show as was reported in LIvefist...

The opinion of king uncle on Kashmir is self evident... Perhaps now we need to opine whom we want to make strategic partners (126 jet planes deal will make any nation on the earth our strategic partner incl TSP if we buy 126 Jf 17).. Those who are with us day in and day out, or those who are more of friend of our principal rival....

Think India Think..

While I'm wary of purchases from the US that shouldn't really matter, that is how Kashmir is shown on maps outside India. There is no point whining especially when the area in question is not in our control. FYI even Israel is sometimes shown with the Palestinian territories marked off.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 May 2010 21:14

nrshah wrote:Further to the warnings by chief of army staff, we should not forget Kashmir shown as a part of Pak in the Boeing official slide show as was reported in LIvefist...

The opinion of king uncle on Kashmir is self evident... Perhaps now we need to opine whom we want to make strategic partners (126 jet planes deal will make any nation on the earth our strategic partner incl TSP if we buy 126 Jf 17).. Those who are with us day in and day out, or those who are more of friend of our principal rival....

Think India Think..


Then maybe we should kick out the Eurofighter Typhoon as well..Go to the BBC website and see the India map. What the GoI needs to do is to register protest but that won't change the fact that most of the international community considers it to be a disputed region. And India itself has in the past suggested that the LoC be made into the International Boundary, so why are you getting so upset ? We don't govern that part of Kashmir anyway.

As for this insinuation that this map shows that the US supports Pakis more than India, its not the GoTUS that forces its companies to use only one map that it prints for them..Boeing is not a US Govt. spokesperson, so quit being so paranoid. There are more pressing matters to be concerned about such as CISMOA and EUMA.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5348
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 May 2010 21:14

Philip wrote:Just a quick query as I was out of town for a while.Have the details/report in AWST May 3rd. reg. the MIG-35 using its AESA radar in a missile "shoot" for the IAF evaluation team been earlier posted?


yes I posted details on them.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 26 May 2010 15:31

Boeing's India plans... Vivek Lall's interview, (vice-president and India country head, Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems.)

The competition for the MMRCA (Medium multi-role combat aircraft) deal is very significant for all companies involved. We have completed all of the three trials. I think it is a very strategic acquisition, considering the number of competitors, but the Ministry of Defence has done a great job and done a thorough process. We want to establish a strong India footprint, regardless of the platform sales. This is a very important dimension to our company.


We want to be partners in India's mission to become self-reliant and a net exporter of defence products. As part of our F/A-18E/F campaign, we have signed 13 MoUs with Indian companies. This conglomerate has signed up with a cross section of 38 Indian companies for offsets. We have been looking at SMEs too.


Media reports indicate that the US administration is keen on the foreign military sales route for the MMRCA. Your comments.

The good thing about the FMS route, even though sometimes it is hard to understand, is that it brings with it the full support of the US government. If we get that, then we can hopefully show the Indian government the commitment of the US government. This is important....


Ya riiittee..

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/We ... in/623613/

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby bhavik » 26 May 2010 18:27

India would be foolish to buy teens -

http://www.hindustantimes.com/US-may-tu ... 48225.aspx

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4068
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 26 May 2010 22:17

bhavik wrote:India would be foolish to buy teens -

http://www.hindustantimes.com/US-may-tu ... 48225.aspx


Now didnt someone mention the MRCA deal will be based on geopolitical (sic!) interests ! As they say we live in interesting times.. US seems to be giving China the geopolitical space they demand .. and (edited) the Indians !

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 26 May 2010 23:19

An interesting news about low reliability of western suppliers. It's not about aviation but anyway can change some broadly existing pre-conceptions :

Gen Singh is believed to have pointed out to Antony Army's trouble with maintenance of a dozen weapon-locating radars bought from the US firm Raytheon. At times, up to two-thirds of the radars have been in want of maintenance, Army sources said. Gen Singh's letter to Antony is an unusual step, and was "forced by the troubles we have with maintenance of the radar systems", an Army source said.


- Can tomorrow occur the same with the western radars and engines, involved now in MMRCA tender?

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Misraji » 26 May 2010 23:55

^^^
T-90, armour, TOT ... cough, cough....

~Ashish.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Asit P » 27 May 2010 02:41

Misraji wrote:^^^
T-90, armour, TOT ... cough, cough.....

We did face few problems with the TOT of T 90. However, its been many months since Russia completed its TOT.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 May 2010 02:54

Asit P wrote:
Misraji wrote:^^^
T-90, armour, TOT ... cough, cough.....

We did face few problems with the TOT of T 90. However, its been many months since Russia completed its TOT.


Let us give the US "many months".

On supply, support, etc I find ONLY the French to be true to their words. Am I right?

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Asit P » 27 May 2010 03:08

NRao wrote:Let us give the US "many months".


Let US treat us the way Russia does. Let them give us the best of what they have with them, and let them not make us sign umpteen number of treaties/agreements. After that, why not we can give them 'many months' too.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Misraji » 27 May 2010 03:24

Asit P wrote:
Misraji wrote:^^^
T-90, armour, TOT ... cough, cough.....

We did face few problems with the TOT of T 90. However, its been many months since Russia completed its TOT.


I don't have problems with either US or Russia, only with holier-than-thou attitude.
This is off-topic anyway. Apologies for that.
~Ashish

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 27 May 2010 03:26

Asit P wrote:
NRao wrote:Let us give the US "many months".


Let US treat us the way Russia does. Let them give us the best of what they have with them, and let them not make us sign umpteen number of treaties/agreements. After that, why not we can give them 'many months' too.


Well as long as we don't give them the privilege of simply ignoring a signed agreement, and hiking up the asking rate for systems, which India has already invested money into.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4623
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 27 May 2010 03:41

If the Gripen NG does win this race; it'd be interesting indeed. In many ways, this bird fulfills both the role of an MRCA (Mirage 2000) and the LCA (Tejas). In effect it'd be a replacement of both the MiG-21 and the MiG-23/27 types in one single go. All this by 2013-14 in sqd. induction. Expect the order to be upped to 200 pretty quick.

Why in the world would the IAF now want an LCA mk2 or whatever that is still to be tested, proven, integrated etc? The NG quite easily performs all the roles that the Tejas could possibly hope to. Bye bye Tejas. Welcome Tejas Redux: AMCA - the next project for the technocrats to play with.

The IAF's biggest requirement is operational performance - quick turnaround, high uptimes, multirole/self escorting ability, hi-fi EW, ECM, Radar, data link, proven design. The single engined Gripen with a host of sensors (AESA, IRST), internal EW suite (ELS, MAWS, LWS, decoys etc), strong datalink, cheap cost of operations, integration of 3rd party weapons etc fulfills all that the IAF ever wanted including satisfying their doctrine of diversification. No wonder they gave it another shot.

Oh yes, they may order some token Tejas for show. Can't really blame them either since the Tejas program was hijacked by technocrats at the expense of operational needs quite early in its history. THis of course means a relatively steep learning curve and longer time frames/delays. Now where is that damned new engine for the Mk2; the requirement iirc was felt way back in 2008 (the good col. shukla had suggested october 2008 as the deadline decision). 2 years gone by and no decision yet. Ditto with the BVR missile. The Saab folks made a decision for the 414 over the EJ-200 real quick, offered it on the NG, and now that bird flies and clears some real tough tests 10000km from home! It seems the Meteor too has been integrated.

For the IAF as an end user, the contrast must be glaring.

CM.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19841
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 02:57

NRao wrote:I would like to suggest that the PAK-FA will also kill the MCA.


What makes you think that the PAKFA wont kill the MCA? Or that attempts have not already been made to suggest that India, does not need the MCA.

Some people like to live too far into the past.

And, in constant fear (of things that do not even exist).


What is the past? Has the LCA been ordered in sufficient number that it no longer matters!

Kindly understand what I am referring to. You may think Indian procurement is well organized/nice that your/our/everyones favorite program will continue unimpeded and everyone is reasonable/nice/thinks as we do. Unfortunately, things are not so clear cut.

The LCA MK2 procurement is around 5-6 squadrons claimed. Thats 120 aircraft. Kindly think of the commercial aspects of having that program cancelled, and another wild goose chase launched for the MCA without the previous one being taken to the logical conclusion.
Last edited by Karan M on 28 May 2010 03:23, edited 3 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19841
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 03:02

Carl_T wrote:Thanks for the response. Would you say the same if the IAF made a commitment to buying a significant number of LCAs?


No, I would not say this if the IAF made a commitment to buying a significant number of LCAs. So far the IAF attitude has been to have the developers and test crew dance on the head of a pin, whilst awarding out piecemeal contracts.

IMVHO, the LCA is a long term strategic as well as military investment whereas this is MRCA seems to me a "s**t we need some new planes!". Hence I think we should pursue the most economical program rather than gunning for the plane with the most goodies. I think the issue of numbers ensures that we need a low cost plane considering I think the PLAAF has 300 more fighter aircraft than we do.


I am afraid, if we look deeply into the MRCA imbroglio, one of the conclusions is that the MRCA procurement could have been sidestepped.

Furthermore we can probably integrate some of the Gripen tech into the LCA.


Please dont fall prey to marketing spin.

Tech cannot be integrated from one platform to another as easily as PR claims. It is a painstaking process to even qualify off the shelf items, let alone purpose developed ones, into third party platforms. Yes, the XXX team will promise the moon but please apply your own reasoning to this, about why any nation would support a possible peer competitor, initial claims apart

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19841
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 03:08

Wickberg wrote:mRinal. You seem like a smart guy who knows all cons and pros.
What is your advice to the Indian MoD? Pretend you were king of the Indian MoD and you could do whatever you wanted (within a reasonable amount) . What would the future of IAF look like?


I would focus on:

1. Upgrades of the extant fleet (this is already being done to some extent)
2. Ramping up extant fleets of 4G aircraft with additional procurement of existing platforms (means a few more squadrons of upgraded Mirage 2000's and MiG-29s)
3. Acquire a few more squadrons of MKIs.
4. Use the remaining huge surplus gained (remember the amount saved on not having to invest in brand new infrastructure for 126-189 aircraft) on:
- The LCA program (and also build more squadrons than currently planned)
- High end force multipliers & communication assets
- Substantial stocks of PG munitions and advanced air to air armament
- For future procurement, the MCA program (this could be the IAF contribution to the program, and keep it sufficiently involved, and also follows the reccomendations of prior defence procurement authorities)

Separately funded programs would continue as is (PAK FA etc).
Last edited by Karan M on 28 May 2010 03:27, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19841
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2010 03:22

Cain Marko wrote:If the Gripen NG does win this race; it'd be interesting indeed. In many ways, this bird fulfills both the role of an MRCA (Mirage 2000) and the LCA (Tejas). In effect it'd be a replacement of both the MiG-21 and the MiG-23/27 types in one single go. All this by 2013-14 in sqd. induction. Expect the order to be upped to 200 pretty quick.

Why in the world would the IAF now want an LCA mk2 or whatever that is still to be tested, proven, integrated etc? The NG quite easily performs all the roles that the Tejas could possibly hope to. Bye bye Tejas. Welcome Tejas Redux: AMCA - the next project for the technocrats to play with.

The IAF's biggest requirement is operational performance - quick turnaround, high uptimes, multirole/self escorting ability, hi-fi EW, ECM, Radar, data link, proven design. The single engined Gripen with a host of sensors (AESA, IRST), internal EW suite (ELS, MAWS, LWS, decoys etc), strong datalink, cheap cost of operations, integration of 3rd party weapons etc fulfills all that the IAF ever wanted including satisfying their doctrine of diversification. No wonder they gave it another shot.

Oh yes, they may order some token Tejas for show. Can't really blame them either since the Tejas program was hijacked by technocrats at the expense of operational needs quite early in its history. THis of course means a relatively steep learning curve and longer time frames/delays. Now where is that damned new engine for the Mk2; the requirement iirc was felt way back in 2008 (the good col. shukla had suggested october 2008 as the deadline decision). 2 years gone by and no decision yet. Ditto with the BVR missile. The Saab folks made a decision for the 414 over the EJ-200 real quick, offered it on the NG, and now that bird flies and clears some real tough tests 10000km from home! It seems the Meteor too has been integrated.

For the IAF as an end user, the contrast must be glaring.

CM.


Yes, the contrast is glaring because the SAAB folks dont have to suffer sanctions, have the best of both worlds, Europe and the US, and enjoy the support of a local AF, which unlike the IAF, is a risk taker and actively participates in development (eg Meteor) with the attendant push for export sales.

Those technocrats who hijacked the LCA included several from the IAF itself, who as recent as 2006-8, made more demands of the LCA because of which its weight rose.

The Gripen is full of American and European (non Swedish) items sourced from OEMs who specialize in these items. It makes sense from both the economic and technology point of view for SAAB. In contrast, do the LCA team have this luxury, with their mandate to source ~70% parts locally?

It will always be easier, more convenient to buy a weapons systems off the shelf. Whether it manages in wartime is a different question, with a host of nations quick to point the sanctions trigger (see the recent fracas over the Canadian claims over BSF etc and then consider what will happen in a real war when "war crimes" etc are alleged, never mind the tendency of many to pontificate about arms control).

The Chinese understood the game early on, and persevered with the J-10 program or whatever it is called. The first fighter, by several accounts is not anything great, and compares best to a mid market Russian fighter. The Chinese ordered some 150-200 of them. Not caring where the radar, engines, systems were from. And now they are working on a B version.

If India continues to have a fascination for fancy imported toys without understanding the product development process, it will never amount to anything worthwhile. Those local developers who are currently persevering, will eventually switch their allegiances to the umpteen labor arbitrage set ups being started in India, under industrial cooperation programs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 06:16

Why in the world would the IAF now want an LCA mk2


THAT is true for the PAK-FA too!!!!! Small thinking.

It is actually true for every system that Indian forces want. Foreigners have invested in R&D since WWII and have a brain trust. They will always be able to generate a newer (better) version than India can produce. They will always release only "dumbed down" versions to India (and for good reasonS). Not even Russia will part with the best and France is not doing that even with the Kaveri as far as I can see (they will provide a core, but not the details of R&D).

I am fairly confident that even China is in the same boat, just that the boat is some miles long and they are at the front end and we are the tail.

The "LCA" can be looked upon as a tech-demo - something we had touched upon a year or so ago out here. I am not too concerned about the "LCA". I would be concerned IF the "MCA" (and associated technologies - engine and radar, etc) stalls and takes a dive.

We can see with the situation WRT IDEs - India faced them some 20 years ago and still relies on outside help to solve some issues, while the US (only as an example) has invested substantially to start making a difference.

On the topic of "upgrading" - that is a disaster waiting to happen. Technologies are moving too fast to be happy with upgrades as an option. (of course it also begs the question, upgrade what within the systems.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 06:22

I found a rather interesting article in the latest issue of "Military and Aerospace Electronics":

Anti-tamper technologies seek to keep critical military systems data in the right hands

Recall discussion about Trojan and backdoor software? This is a very interesting article with substantial details related to that issue and the topic in the title:

Part of the anti-tamper game is preventing allies from using U.S.-developed military technology in unauthorized ways. Trap doors or other hidden code, for example, can be inserted into U.S. technology sold overseas to prevent its use in case of a hostile regime change. U.S. officials do not want those trap doors deactivated.


(Fire away.)

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby merlin » 28 May 2010 06:57

NRao wrote:The "LCA" can be looked upon as a tech-demo - something we had touched upon a year or so ago out here. I am not too concerned about the "LCA". I would be concerned IF the "MCA" (and associated technologies - engine and radar, etc) stalls and takes a dive.


This is a very short sighted attitude to have. And it looks like the IAF has this attitude as well with token buys of LCA Mk1 and a carrot held out for LCA Mk2.

Arre bacchon why bother about LCA Mk1, LCA Mk2 hain na?
Arre bacchon why bother about the LCA Mk2, MCA hain na?
Arre bacchon, MCA toh koi kaam ka nahin, PAC-FA here I come. :mrgreen:

All in jest.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 07:26

merlin wrote:
NRao wrote:The "LCA" can be looked upon as a tech-demo - something we had touched upon a year or so ago out here. I am not too concerned about the "LCA". I would be concerned IF the "MCA" (and associated technologies - engine and radar, etc) stalls and takes a dive.


This is a very short sighted attitude to have. And it looks like the IAF has this attitude as well with token buys of LCA Mk1 and a carrot held out for LCA Mk2.

Arre bacchon why bother about LCA Mk1, LCA Mk2 hain na?
Arre bacchon why bother about the LCA Mk2, MCA hain na?
Arre bacchon, MCA toh koi kaam ka nahin, PAC-FA here I come. :mrgreen:

All in jest.


:).

Correctable with appropriate glasses I am sure.

But ................ as I have said along, the economy, by itself will compel IndianS to change their thinking and therefore other aspects of life. Them "labor arbitrage" should be held by Indians - IMHO of course - by about 2025-35. I do not see a problem, even this late in the game, IF India starts investing now. And, I see that happening (in non-military areas). There is no choice.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul Shukla » 28 May 2010 11:41

NRao wrote:I found a rather interesting article in the latest issue of "Military and Aerospace Electronics": Anti-tamper technologies seek to keep critical military systems data in the right hands Recall discussion about Trojan and backdoor software? This is a very interesting article with substantial details related to that issue and the topic in the title:
Part of the anti-tamper game is preventing allies from using U.S.-developed military technology in unauthorized ways. Trap doors or other hidden code, for example, can be inserted into U.S. technology sold overseas to prevent its use in case of a hostile regime change. U.S. officials do not want those trap doors deactivated.
(Fire away.)

One of the declassified papers I read recently explained in detail the workings of a system designed to control the use of various strategic/tactical weapons by US forces and other countries. Receiver modules coupled to the arming and guidance circuitry of weapons receive signals transmitted continuously by the National Command Authority (NCA). In peacetime, "Disable" command is transmitted and any weapon system (e.g. SLBM) launched will abort its flight and self-destruct. During/preceeding wartime, "Enable" command is transmitted to select weapons/regions allowing the weapon(s) to function. Primary objective of this system was to prevent a nuclear first-strike by a rogue submarine commander but it was later expanded to include all major weapons systems by US/foreign land, air and naval forces.

So Paki F-16's and associated weapons systems will fly and fire today/tomorrow as desired by Fizzle-ya because of the "Enable" command being transmitted by the NCA in the region and received by various modules in the aircraft/missiles. If Pakis try to get creative, a simple flick of a switch at the Pentagon will ensure that the F-16's fly but funny things happen once in the air, or even worse. It may sound silly, but the fact remains that if the US wanted, no Paki F-16 would even start much less fly low-low-low and do a JDAM on New Delhi. Yes, I know about the landing gear retraction restriction below 2,000 feet on Paki F-16's but that's besides the point. Unfortunately, this also means that any MRCA's sourced from Uncle come with the exact same handicap. Uncle will always have the power to make a radar malfunction, engine fail and/or AIM-9's and AMRAAM's to go beserk and blow up the nearest flock of migrating birds instead of a Paki JF-17 or a Chinese SU30MK.

This is the 21st century saar. Uncle pushes a button and Rovers on Mars move and stop. Remote control of a major weapons system and/or an aircraft is a piece of cake. Btw, our Russian friends are no better than Uncle. Only problem is their military papers are never declassified so I can't quote.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 28 May 2010 15:12

While I'm wary of purchases from the US that shouldn't really matter, that is how Kashmir is shown on maps outside India. There is no point whining especially when the area in question is not in our control. FYI even Israel is sometimes shown with the Palestinian territories marked off.


Can you compare Israel with us...we are not hijacking any bodies territories... Dammit it is my land and i pay you 12 bn usd (a great portion of my strike force for next 2 decades) and u continue to show me middle finger.... Because israel is shown in that fashion, it is justified...
U may not agree, but this is reflection of unkil's long term foreign policy... Not an issue... let us disagree on this...

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 28 May 2010 15:58

Then maybe we should kick out the Eurofighter Typhoon as well..Go to the BBC website and see the India map. What the GoI needs to do is to register protest but that won't change the fact that most of the international community considers it to be a disputed region. And India itself has in the past suggested that the LoC be made into the International Boundary, so why are you getting so upset ? We don't govern that part of Kashmir anyway.

As for this insinuation that this map shows that the US supports Pakis more than India, its not the GoTUS that forces its companies to use only one map that it prints for them..Boeing is not a US Govt. spokesperson, so quit being so paranoid. There are more pressing matters to be concerned about such as CISMOA and EUMA.


Just because one AFSAL has did it, Kasab is justified.... OK so because international community considers it as disputed reason, we should be ok with it... will be delighted to have a link showing we are ok with loc as international boundry... tried googling but not successful.

Right there are more pressing matters like CISMOA and EUMA... But even this has to be considered. Even if you say it is view of boeing not US gov, it is still the same question that are we ready paying 12 bn to boeing who is more supportive of paks claim of pok rather than india not to mention all strings will continue to come... And u know what it is attitude that is more important.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 28 May 2010 16:02

Not even Russia will part with the best


can any one help me in understanding which Russian aircraft (in operation) is better than MKI...

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 28 May 2010 16:04

Viv S wrote:Well as long as we don't give them the privilege of simply ignoring a signed agreement, and hiking up the asking rate for systems, which India has already invested money into.


Ya and also nuke submarnies to ward off the threat by USn 7th fleet led by enterprises... How conveniently it is forgotten

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nrshah » 28 May 2010 16:18

NRao wrote:Let us give the US "many months".


Ya, but it has to be two way... right.... Let them help us in building our nuke submarine,,, lease us sea wolf class submarine...Do we see that happening?? Even help for NLCA was not approved.... NLCA is now where compared to F 35 or F 18 SH that they operate

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 28 May 2010 16:27

Can Saab Gripen NG fly with EJ200 or any other engine other than American engine?

Indians and Americans are naturally close due to shared values but American foreign policy is governed by american interests only. Therefore to keep Indian foreign policy neutral, we need technology independent of american influence.

So any of the fighters such as Typhoon / Saab Gripen (with EJ200 or something else) / Rafale / Mig35 will do, which will not cause humiliation such as EUMA etc etc....

But Congress (Singh) is bending over backwards to appease American foreign policy hawks, who undermine India whenever they chose to ...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4068
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 28 May 2010 16:46

NRao wrote:I found a rather interesting article in the latest issue of "Military and Aerospace Electronics": Anti-tamper technologies seek to keep critical military systems data in the right hands[/url] Recall discussion about Trojan and backdoor software? This is a very interesting article with substantial details related to that issue and the topic in the title:
Part of the anti-tamper game is preventing allies from using U.S.-developed military technology in unauthorized ways. Trap doors or other hidden code, for example, can be inserted into U.S. technology sold overseas to prevent its use in case of a hostile regime change. U.S. officials do not want those trap doors deactivated.
(Fire away.)

One of the declassified papers I read recently explained in detail the workings of a system designed to control the use of various strategic/tactical weapons by US forces and other countries. Receiver modules coupled to the arming and guidance circuitry of weapons receive signals transmitted continuously by the National Command Authority (NCA). In peacetime, "Disable" command is transmitted and any weapon system (e.g. SLBM) launched will abort its flight and self-destruct. During/preceeding wartime, "Enable" command is transmitted to select weapons/regions allowing the weapon(s) to function. Primary objective of this system was to prevent a nuclear first-strike by a rogue submarine commander but it was later expanded to include all major weapons systems by US/foreign land, air and naval forces.

So Paki F-16's and associated weapons systems will fly and fire today/tomorrow as desired by Fizzle-ya because of the "Enable" command being transmitted by the NCA in the region and received by various modules in the aircraft/missiles. If Pakis try to get creative, a simple flick of a switch at the Pentagon will ensure that the F-16's fly but funny things happen once in the air, or even worse. It may sound silly, but the fact remains that if the US wanted, no Paki F-16 would even start much less fly low-low-low and do a JDAM on New Delhi. Yes, I know about the landing gear retraction restriction below 2,000 feet on Paki F-16's but that's besides the point. Unfortunately, this also means that any MRCA's sourced from Uncle come with the exact same handicap. Uncle will always have the power to make a radar malfunction, engine fail and/or AIM-9's and AMRAAM's to go beserk and blow up the nearest flock of migrating birds instead of a Paki JF-17 or a Chinese SU30MK.

This is the 21st century saar. Uncle pushes a button and Rovers on Mars move and stop. Remote control of a major weapons system and/or an aircraft is a piece of cake. Btw, our Russian friends are no better than Uncle. Only problem is their military papers are never declassified so I can't quote.[/quote]

Cant agree with you more .. maybe some one wants to sell off Mother India herself or do a japan / germany .. neutered of course.Does washington really need something like CISMOA to pull off this jig ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 17:03

Rahul Shukla wrote:One of the declassified papers I read recently explained in detail the workings of a system designed to control the use of various strategic/tactical weapons by US forces and other countries.

.........................................

This is the 21st century saar. Uncle pushes a button and Rovers on Mars move and stop. Remote control of a major weapons system and/or an aircraft is a piece of cake. Btw, our Russian friends are no better than Uncle. Only problem is their military papers are never declassified so I can't quote.


The same publication has a blurp about US GPS based artillery ammo that will not explode if the GPS Sats are not reachable during the terminal phase of its flight!!!! Programmed to do so. At the same time, if it such devices do not explode they will self destruct in some form so that the technologies do not fall into the wrong hands.

However, the point I want to make is that India (in specific) has some great strengths - as in the case of Brahmos. India needs to use those strengths to build out (at a faster rate). Point being there is just too much hee-hawing among Indians - we complain too much and do very little (as compared to what we can do).

Does washington really need something like CISMOA to pull off this jig ?


Perhaps you did not read that article? IF you did this question should not arise. Washington needing is not an issue - it is there and other nationS (NOT just India) are aware of it. It has been there for eons. Sign it and you get the non-dumbed down version, don't sign it and you get the dumbed down version. Simple. No use posting pages and pages of pros or cons about it.

Having said that my guess is that India is trying to extract a LOT more from the US than these agreements. There is a huge political game going on that we are not privy to, which has nothing to do with these purchases.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 28 May 2010 17:20

nrshah wrote:
While I'm wary of purchases from the US that shouldn't really matter, that is how Kashmir is shown on maps outside India. There is no point whining especially when the area in question is not in our control. FYI even Israel is sometimes shown with the Palestinian territories marked off.


Can you compare Israel with us...we are not hijacking any bodies territories... Dammit it is my land and i pay you 12 bn usd (a great portion of my strike force for next 2 decades) and u continue to show me middle finger.... Because israel is shown in that fashion, it is justified...
U may not agree, but this is reflection of unkil's long term foreign policy... Not an issue... let us disagree on this...

I was using Israel as an example as a Western-backed ally they still get the same treatment even though Palestinian territories are not recognized nations. We can disagree on this, but it is pertinent to realize that it is how the map of India is drawn outside, and I don't think we're really powerful enough as a nation to get our way on this matter, furthermore they are quite correct, PoJK is a region that has never been under control of GOI.

But anyways, I'm not really in favor of awarding the most critical contracts to the US.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 28 May 2010 19:50

Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman briefing on F-16IN Super Viper AESA radar

Promises TOT, setting up production lines in India,...

[youtube]9tX5KTRID3c&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2010 21:06

^^^^

Accompanying article:

Northrop Grumman AESA radar - A Technological Marvel

Claiming that the AESA radar is the best, Northrop Grumman officials said, “Our technology is the latest and it will take another 5-7 years for others to catch up with us. With time, we have been bringing technological changes in the radar.”


About we have been saying here.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2010 21:45

nrshah wrote:
Viv S wrote:Well as long as we don't give them the privilege of simply ignoring a signed agreement, and hiking up the asking rate for systems, which India has already invested money into.


Ya and also nuke submarnies to ward off the threat by USn 7th fleet led by enterprises... How conveniently it is forgotten


Its conveniently forgotten because it happened almost 40 years back. The Gorshkov fiasco on the other hand was settled just a few weeks ago.

Times have changed. Any acquisition has to be dealt with from a business perspective and the Russians have been less than upfront on that score.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1269
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Nihat » 28 May 2010 22:06

If this is going to be a political decision , even then we have pretty significant issues with every contender. What has be taken into consideration is which set of drawbacks are we most comfortable with.

Mig -35 = Won't enter RuAF in big numbers and we're likely to be first users of a foreign jet so expect plenty of issues related to technical support.

F-16 IN = Long serving with PAF and expect Unkil to do a massive = = act wrt to TSP F-16

F-18 = Very expensive, unkil likely to water down the Tech. and unstable technical support to keep us on edge.

Gripen NG = Some vital US components but that can be secured via water tight agreement with SAAB

Rafale = Mighty expensive and expected to be even more expensive given French cost wrt Mirage upgrade and Scorpine issues.

Eurofighter = Issues with Multiple vendors.


So , out of all 6 , I reckon EF and Gripen have the least ammount of issues

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8103
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 29 May 2010 00:06

Nihat wrote:F-18 = Very expensive, ....

Rafale = Mighty expensive ...

Eurofighter = Issues with Multiple vendors.


So , out of all 6 , I reckon EF and Gripen have the least ammount of issues


I would expect the EF to be just as expensive as the other two. So realistically Gripen is the only one with easily solvable issues. But then Gripen == LCA Mk2 onlee. So what is to be done? :((

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 29 May 2010 00:17

This whole program seems to be a stop gap measure, Gripen may be similar to LCA 2, but that's just the consequence of our planning, and there are going to be drawbacks to every plane, and it doesn't seem like a big drawback as long as we make a commitment to LCA.

I would have preferred they just order more Mig-29s, but w/e.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests