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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 12 Jun 2010 01:12

narayana wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^These are all false claims. There is no know purchase or deployment of S-300X in IA Service.


Sorry for OT,but i have seen pic of S300 being transported somewhere in maharashtra.
S-300?


Hey mere bhagwaan, a website calling itself as India Defence Research Wing does not know what that missile is? :shock: But then, what can you expect from these windbags? Those are Styx Coastal Battrey vehicles - based out INS Trata - based in Worli in Mumbai.

This is the location of INS Trata -
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=19.0155664&lon=72.8169644&z=18&l=0&m=h&search=mumbai

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 12 Jun 2010 01:47

^^^^^^^^
Small nitpick. INS Trata is the tower like thing on the hill on the opposite side of the road. It is rumoured that the hill is actually hollowed out for storage of AAD batteries, part of the 6 batteries which cover the 360 arc around Mumbai.

The location you are pointing to, is a Coast Guard installation. It however does appear that the actual Styx battery is based in this base (am I seeing things or does Wikimapia actually show the same trucks in the compound???)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2010 02:20

dorai wrote:A complete lie.

British Aerospace has not been part of any design activities on Gripen. The only work they did was limited to sub-contractor composite work on the prototype jets while SAAB was still setting up their larger composite construction hall. Saab had previsously used composites on the Saab 105 (rudder) but needed larger pieces and thus contracted British Aerospace in the mean time. The much later BAE partnership was limited to marketing efforts. Other British companies has also been tasked with sub contractor roles such as Cobham for the refueling probe and APPH for the landing gear.


Dorai, sure thing - which is why when I looked through my archived emails, the last time I looked up the Gripen, I found this:

"British Aerospace was given responsibility for designing the wing after shaking off competition from MBB and Rockwell"

The Rockwell wing design was better performing but 50% more expensive.

Gerard Keijsper, Saab Gripen: Sweden's 21st Century Multirole Aircraft"


But let us take what you are saying as true. And then what happened to the P.106 canard single seat concept single seat design from British Aerospace? It was hawked to both India & Sweden for their light fighter programs & reportedly acquired by the latter.

Ok, even that is not true. Lets assume this similar looking concept had nothing to do with the Gripen. Does that end the UK's contribution to Gripen?

Then what of the extensive cooperation between GEC Marconi & Ericcson Ferranti over the all important PS-05 radar?
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avi ... weden.html

I mean, folks here burst a capillary over the LCA taking some signal processing help from Elta but then look here at the Gripen.

Saab (formerly Ericsson) Microwave Systems AB produces the multimode, multimission, I/J-band (8-18/20 GHz), pulse Doppler radar for the JAS 39 Gripen. The then Ericsson collaborated with GEC-Marconi for the development of the PS-05/A, which, in original configuration, shared some elements with the Blue Vixen radar which was installed in the Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I no longer keep my copies of earlier aviation magazines, but unlike today, several aviation magazines in the early 90's had reportage on how many companies Sweden had links to for the Gripen program. In many ways, it was the first Eurofighter.

The issue is fairly straightforward, irrespective of the jingoistic manner in which some Swedish supporters of the Gripen play up its Swedishness, while running down comparable programs the world over as being inferior (note Wickberg for instance) it does have extensive hand holding and coaching from the who's who of the world aerospace industry in it. While still a susbtantial achievement for Sweden, it bears remarking that the Gripen had much more assistance without strings attached, vis a vis a program such as the LCA.

In fact, this is the typical difference between a western program and that run by a "country of interest" such as India, wherein everything the latter does is subject to dozens of international regulations, political problems and the program managers have to spend much of their precious time sorting out these issues, rather than just design and development. Meanwhile, the Gripen et's PM's have a free pass on picking and choosing whomsover they want from Europe and US.

And it is constantly amusing to hear the refrain that Sweden has deals etc which permit the transfer of technology. Where are these deals exactly that trump the sovereign laws of states, such as ITAR.

I am sure there are enough folks credulous enough to believe that Volvo Flygmotor can export its upgraded Ge basis engines on its own (while cursing GTRE for exploring a similar option for its much more inhouse developed Kaveri) but the fact of life is the NG is even more full of non Swedish, non European items.

After all, is it not the truth that Brazilian politicians remarked about how the issue was that Sweden could simply not even guarantee the TOT unlike France (and the US, which may not choose to transfer but thats a different thing).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2010 02:27

NRao wrote:The dynamics have changed - specially in the past few years. Now that the "MoD" has realized that ToT does not help things will turn for the better. Does not mean that there will not be teething problems, among others.


The MMRCA still contains a substantial TOT requirement (of the order of 60% reportedly) and the MOD would not include this unless it was regarded as important. TOT is required for spares and lifecycle support being established locally, whereas it is of limited use to develop own capabilities, these issues are separate but are often treated as the same.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby tejas » 12 Jun 2010 03:54

What does 60% ToT mean ? And after having tech. transferred for the last 60 years how come we still import 70% of our weapons?
Hint: we need our signifocant domestic R & D something parasitic state undertakings will never do as well as private companies. A fact borne out by EVERY country in the world.

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Juggi G » 12 Jun 2010 05:11


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2010 05:29

What does 60% ToT mean ?


It should be fairly self evident. 60% of the requisite production processes allowing us to manufacture the bulk of the item & critical spares and consumables locally. The detailed breakup of what items and manufacturing processes that constitute TOT are available in DPP 2008.

And after having tech. transferred for the last 60 years how come we still import 70% of our weapons?


A serious topic deserves better rather than ideology driven 2-3 liners. The fact is that most of the so called tech transfer agreements viz most of our programs were rudimentary, and included restrictive clauses on what we could and could not manufacture locally. As late as a few years back, India had IP clauses to honor which prevented it from manufacturing over 70% of the Milan 2 ATGM locally. The same restriction exists on many systems.

However, license manufacturing has played a huge role in exposing our manufacturing & R&D systems to developments worldwide, and allowed us to leverage those in multiple local programs. For obvious reasons, nobody is going to tom tom those.

In recent days, with the growth of the Indian economy & the MOD willing to spend and play hardball, TOT restrictions have been relaxed but are still vulnerable to political issues, but still significantly better than yesteryears.

Hint: we need our signifocant domestic R & D something parasitic state undertakings will never do as well as private companies. A fact borne out by EVERY country in the world.


The hint isn't worth diddly squat, especially when one sees the last line which shows a lack of serious investigation on the topic.

The leading arms manufacturers in the world include a fair sprinkling of state owned and run enterprises, many of whose critical achievements were during a period of Govt control and sponsorship. These include companies in Israel, South Africa & Europe. As regards private companies, they are driven by the profit motive & unless the Indian Armed Forces place bulk orders, rather than the current system of LSP & then trickle piece orders till the final production is cleared, many firms will simply not find it viable to compete or even invest in own R&D for orders that take far too long to fructify.

Leading organizations worldwide continue to have significant Gov ownership and support. SOGEADE owns 30% of EADS, and in itself is half owned by the French Government. While Daimler is the other key stakeholder, its a well known fact that the French & German Govt's both have a key interest in EADS. The firm in turn holds a 37.5% stake in MBDA, with corresponding equal stakes held by Finmeccanica & BAE Systems.

It is a fact of life that while defence was a priority during the Cold War, most Governments owned many key firms directly and spent prodigiously in developing the infrastructure and R&D that constituted successful programs. Post Cold War, with shrinking budgets, the support has been indirect but substantial, in terms of ensuring these firms remain private in but name, and remain in national ownership and significant local programs are launched and continue to be launched with huge leeway given towards local procurement and Govt funding.

India's key defence partner, Israel Aerospace Industries, is Govt owned. The Israeli Knesset has been firm about its ownership being in Govt hands all this while, despite the problems it engenders in making acquisitions of the size Finmeccanica made with DRS to gain a stake in the lucrative US market. As with Indian PSU's, IAI leaders are public about the issues posed by Govt ownership including the need to pay large dividends which limit their allocation to other expense accounts such as R&D & infrastructure, but the company has the unequivocal backing of the Israeli Govt. in turn & still manages to outspend all its peers on R&D even while it relies on exports for 81% of its revenue base.

In the Indian context, the key challenge is that private firms need significant hand holding - this is something which takes time & effort and does not translate to rapid advances overnight.

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/DR ... es/631146/

Note: PS Subramanyams comments - the point is not all programs & program budgets have the leeway in terms of cost & time to allow for this handholding approach...

But let me tell you one thing. There is a thinking that these government people are hesitant to take the private industry into confidence. But there are so many gaps in the way they understand airworthy requirements.

When we started with a private company for total software development of an electronic equipment, the multifunctional display, in the first phase my people did 80% of the job. Every time the work was given to them, it was brought back with mistakes. Our team was fed up. In phase two, for the development of software for a higher version, it was 50-50. Today, it is almost 10-90. We have to go through this.


..and this is software.

The issue is more critical at the airframer & integration level.

http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/1500252 ... -firs.html

State-run military plane maker Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, or HAL, will produce India’s first passenger aircraft, after the Indian Air Force, or IAF, chose HAL over private sector companies such as Mahindra Aerospace and Larsen and Toubro Ltd (L&T).

IAF will be the first customer for the 14-seater, multi-role aircraft called Saras, which will be the first passenger plane to be designed and manufactured in the country.....

“IAF felt that the (private) industry partners (still) do not have the skills and infrastructure to integrate a full plane,” said one scientist at NAL, who did not want to be identified. “They wanted one (manufacturing partner) who they were already comfortable with.”


These are not issues that can be merely wished away by raving & ranting. The private organizations have their place & chance to be in the limelight but they will need to invest time & effort to acquire the skills that already exist elsewhere.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2010 07:19

Mrinal wrote:
NRao wrote:The dynamics have changed - specially in the past few years. Now that the "MoD" has realized that ToT does not help things will turn for the better. Does not mean that there will not be teething problems, among others.


The MMRCA still contains a substantial TOT requirement (of the order of 60% reportedly) and the MOD would not include this unless it was regarded as important. TOT is required for spares and lifecycle support being established locally, whereas it is of limited use to develop own capabilities, these issues are separate but are often treated as the same.


Sorry for the confusion.

MoD has realized (per an article in the past week) that ToT does not help WRT transfer of knowledge - thus their emphasis moving forward on nurturing Indian industries (funding two sources and selecting one - as the US does).

Also, the dynamics I was referring to is funds. India should have plenty of it here on out (a position China was in about a decade or so ago - which is why they could take the risks then and India could not then).

I strongly believe that the M/MRCA is passe. When decisions related to the M/MRCA were made the situationS were dramatically different and so was the thinking. IF India had a chance to seriously rethink it in todays environment we would have a substantially different M/MRCA set of recs. It is in this light that I see the EADS offer and I am confident that all other nations will move in this direction. We should see similar compromises on the political front too. However, as I have posted earlier, I am fairly sure than Indians will not be ready when the change comes. even strategic thinkers will be very slow to move.

So, while I agree with your post, it is old fashioned.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19147
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Jun 2010 17:27

NRao wrote:Sorry for the confusion.

MoD has realized (per an article in the past week) that ToT does not help WRT transfer of knowledge - thus their emphasis moving forward on nurturing Indian industries (funding two sources and selecting one - as the US does


I would not say MOD has realized or anyone has realized anything till actual change occurs. If you'd recall the hype around a concept known as the Raksha Udyog Ratnas - which too was held up as an example of the MOD realizing things, things being drastically different etc. It was ultimately shot down by several stakeholders, not just the unions that hold the keys to political power, but the Army itself which felt it gave far too much power to a handful of "first comer" companies which would dwarf the rest.


Also, the dynamics I was referring to is funds. India should have plenty of it here on out (a position China was in about a decade or so ago - which is why they could take the risks then and India could not then).


Yes, India has money to spend, but the point is also that many Indian procurement officials are enamoured of short term gains over long term advantage. People may point to the occasional visionary "Chief" who says long term, build locally, but there are enough who off the record admit they will procure the shiniest toys as they are now available and werent earlier. Now, why do I say "toys", the reason being many of these products are as fit for warfighting as the local projections, whereas the foibles in the latter are known to the stakeholders, the ones in the others are not! As such toys they are, and toys they remain, until enough Indian money is sunk into them to convert them into actual items. And the shame is they divert crucial funds from local programs.


I strongly believe that the M/MRCA is passe. When decisions related to the M/MRCA were made the situationS were dramatically different and so was the thinking. IF India had a chance to seriously rethink it in todays environment we would have a substantially different M/MRCA set of recs. It is in this light that I see the EADS offer and I am confident that all other nations will move in this direction. We should see similar compromises on the political front too. However, as I have posted earlier, I am fairly sure than Indians will not be ready when the change comes. even strategic thinkers will be very slow to move.

So, while I agree with your post, it is old fashioned.


I dont get what your post is saying. Are you saying that things were very different when M/MRCA was chosen and now things/thinking has changed? Where is the evidence for this! As things stand, we are much in the same boat, and the actual MMRCA process just began a couple of years old. Offers like the one you mentioned have been long around, couched in different terms, with different compromises built in.

No country or manufacturer likes to give away critical IP and TOT. Hence they offer such sweeteners instead or to sweeten their larger deals.

In terms of TOT, not only does this TOT have a critical advantage in allowing countries like India to fill in the gaps with regards to manufacturing knowledge but they also local-ize the huge recurring revenue stream that would otherwise be the manufacturers alone!

Upfront acquisition to lifecycle support costs are typically in the ratio of 40:60. Even factoring in higher acquisition costs thanks to TOT, and the spread becoming 50:50, thats still half the projected revenue lost, in case of 100% TOT, or a substantial percentage otherwise!

Your statement about "old fashioned" just shows how misunderstood the importance of TOT is as the debate concentrates only on the aspect of it being critical to the development of a new generation of systems. TOT is not just about making the next gen gee whiz weapons or systems or software, it is about making the overall acquisition affordable despite the higher upfront costs, by giving the local system integrator and airframer control over the procurement process and reducing the possible impact of disruption in the supply chain.

If this is chosen, out go the new gen. supply chain offers of "power by the hour" and so forth, taken on by the original airframer and partner OEMs to keep the AF fleet at a certain level of capability, with the spares and supply chain being monitored by the former. After all, if you have invested in local capabilities, why would you go for this option from abroad and not rely on local producers who now act as the center of authority.

Please look at recent EF contract awards to see the sheer size.

Some things are not "old fashioned" or "new fangled" - when HAL says that it makes ~80% of the MiG-21 or whatever aircraft, thats 80% supply chain risk avoided and 80% of revenue directed locally, and 80% of leverage in local hands.

Hence, TOT is an important requirement for specific reasons and should not be disregarded for any procurement the size of the MRCA.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 12 Jun 2010 17:51

India has 6 s-300pmu-2 batteries, each battery consists of 48 missiles, these missiles have range of 200km.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YniKlbPh29k/S ... attery.gif

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jun 2010 18:13

Brahmananda wrote:India has 6 s-300pmu-2 batteries, each battery consists of 48 missiles, these missiles have range of 200km.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YniKlbPh29k/S ... attery.gif

source ? or are we to take this as GOD speaking on the interwebs ?

marimuthu
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 09:17
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby marimuthu » 12 Jun 2010 18:30

^^ Possibly wiki. I have seen the news of india having 6*S-300PMU2 only in wiki.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 12 Jun 2010 20:04

Why are we even discussion S-300 in MRCA thread? And that too without substantiating claims?

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby KrishG » 12 Jun 2010 20:08

[OT]
Link

India
Since 1995 India has been negotiating with Russia regarding purchase of the S-300, in response to Pakistan's deployment of M-11 missiles from China. In 1995 Russian Defense Deputy Minister Kokoshin offered to sell S-300 missiles during his trip to India. Following this offer Indian officials started negotiations with the Russian manufacturers, and in August 1995 the Indian Defense Secretary Nambiar went to Russia to observe tests of the missiles near Moscow. The $1 billion purchase is said to include six S-300 systems, with each combat system consisting of 48 missiles. Reportedly in June 1996 27 S-300 missiles were delivered to India.


The actual acquisition of the system is still unclear.
[/OT]

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2010 20:51

Mrinal ji,

Let it slide, we are not on the same page.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nits » 14 Jun 2010 16:10

Pictures of JAS 39 Gripen jet fighters perform during the Day of the Airforce in Linkoping, Sweden on June 13, 2010. The aerial shows celebrated the first centennial of flying airplanes in Sweden

Image



Image



Image

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 14 Jun 2010 16:13

Wow ,they are too beautiful to fight

the PR exercise from SAAB had already exposed whatever SoA was there ,not to mention that pakis will order 4 more awacs from saab if we give them the contract.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3795
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 14 Jun 2010 16:42

A question to the Gurulog here ., what is the opinion about Eurofighter claim that it is more of a 5th Gen fighter than the F35 Lightning ? (except the VLO capability) If so how would you compare the Gripen NG vs Eurofighter in the same capabilities as mentioned in the claim ? The article is there in flightglobal.com as well as Aroor's blog.

kash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 17:28

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kash » 14 Jun 2010 17:19

kit wrote:what is the opinion about Eurofighter claim that it is more of a 5th Gen fighter than the F35 Lightning ? (except the VLO capability)


A fighter need not have vtol capabilities to be a 5th gen fighter..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 17:46

The original "Typhoon as 5th gen" document from EADS:

EF, the 5th Generation Fighter

A good read - deals with more than just the plane.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 17:49

FYI, what elements they use to compare a 5th gen fighter:

Image

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 14 Jun 2010 18:21

NRao wrote:FYI, what elements they use to compare a 5th gen fighter:

Image


- If taking into the consideration, that EF currently has no AESA (i.e. lack LPI mode), has got only a partially sensors fusion, and its super-cruise is not available with significant load, MiG-35 becomes to be a 5th gen fighter even more :mrgreen:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11204
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gagan » 14 Jun 2010 18:33

I have to admit here that, just about the only criticism of the Mig-35 seems to be that it is a Russian aircraft.
But the positives are hard to ignore:
1. Cost effective
2. Technologically it has everything the others have.
3. Very reliable supplier, and high commonality with the Mig-29s that IAF already operates.

The europeans fighters are not cost effective, with the exception of the Grippen, and the grippen comes with the US sanctionable baggage.

The IAF has a tough set of choices to make.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jun 2010 18:50

Are we assured that Mig-35 will come cheap? Especially with AESA etc.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 14 Jun 2010 19:19

chackojoseph wrote:Are we assured that Mig-35 will come cheap? Especially with AESA etc.
You must remember, any totally new aircraft will need a new infrastructure of training, maintenance, supply and warfare too. It will rise the cost of any EU\US fighter for IAF even more, may be with partially exception of Rafale due to M2K & Rafale proximity. But Rafale is overpriced by itself. Probably M2K was then the best candidate for MRCA , but you know those French, hiking modernization cost etc...

kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kapilrdave » 14 Jun 2010 19:29

One more thing... IAF may want western weapons this time.
If so, that factor also goes against Mig.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 14 Jun 2010 19:40


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 19:52



Samay ji,

It is very easy to post this in the right format:

[url=http://www.stratpost.com/mmrca-to-be-political-decision-eurofighter]MMRCA to be political decision:
Eurofighter[/url]

I have deliberately placed a carriage return (CR) after the ":". Remove the "return" and you should get:

MMRCA to be political decision: Eurofighter
Last edited by NRao on 14 Jun 2010 19:54, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jun 2010 19:53

Igorr wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Are we assured that Mig-35 will come cheap? Especially with AESA etc.
You must remember, any totally new aircraft will need a new infrastructure of training, maintenance, supply and warfare too. It will rise the cost of any EU\US fighter for IAF even more, may be with partially exception of Rafale due to M2K & Rafale proximity. But Rafale is overpriced by itself. Probably M2K was then the best candidate for MRCA , but you know those French, hiking modernization cost etc...


True in a sense. But, we really have not seen the figures. See the experience with T-90 tanks, prices shot up after we signed on the dotted line and resulted in a re-negotiation.

To be fair the argument of commonality doesn't work everytime.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 20:00

chackojoseph wrote:
Igorr wrote:
You must remember, any totally new aircraft will need a new infrastructure of training, maintenance, supply and warfare too. It will rise the cost of any EU\US fighter for IAF even more, may be with partially exception of Rafale due to M2K & Rafale proximity. But Rafale is overpriced by itself. Probably M2K was then the best candidate for MRCA , but you know those French, hiking modernization cost etc...


True in a sense. But, we really have not seen the figures. See the experience with T-90 tanks, prices shot up after we signed on the dotted line and resulted in a re-negotiation.

To be fair the argument of commonality doesn't work everytime.


It will not work here on out. The USSR era was very different. The cost of military items from the USSR were rather low for another reason: barter. India "paid" with other items in trade form. (Which is why I tend not to include what happened in the USSR era.)

"Russia" as far as we are concerned started around 1990 and things since then have not been as peachy. And, we should not expect it to be either. Things have changed in both nations and we will continue to witness even greater change here on out. Expectations based on projection of older times will, IMHO, lead to dejection.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 14 Jun 2010 20:02

NRao wrote:


Samay ji,

It is very easy to post this in the right format:

[url=http://www.stratpost.com/mmrca-to-be-political-decision-eurofighter]MMRCA to be political decision:
Eurofighter[/url]

I have deliberately placed a carriage return (CR) after the ":". Remove the "return" and you should get:

MMRCA to be political decision: Eurofighter


No offence guys..but what is the point of re-posting (posted here, a few days after this article was originally appeared almost 3 months ago now) which has already been extensively discussed on this very thread, unless it has something new to add..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 14 Jun 2010 21:43

kash wrote:
kit wrote:what is the opinion about Eurofighter claim that it is more of a 5th Gen fighter than the F35 Lightning ? (except the VLO capability)


A fighter need not have vtol capabilities to be a 5th gen fighter..


he said VLO not VTOL. VLO means Very Low Observable and VTOL means Vertical Take-off and Landing. They're very different things.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Jun 2010 22:08

Not sure if this has been posted but this small little Gripen NG capability is quite impressive ( via Keypubs/Loke)

Gripen-NG

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 14 Jun 2010 22:15

kapilrdave wrote:One more thing... IAF may want western weapons this time.
If so, that factor also goes against Mig.
If was so, such a wish would be already reflected in MiG-29K contract. Seems to me IAF is satisfated with Russian weaponry. Anyway the western one can be integrated on MiG-35 if they are not against this.

chackojoseph wrote: See the experience with T-90 tanks, prices shot up after we signed on the dotted line and resulted in a re-negotiation.

To be fair the argument of commonality doesn't work everytime.
I see after Gorshkov problems they went to generalization. To be fair I never heard about T-90 price renegotiation. On the contrary I'm educated very well about the Hawk delivery and ToT problems, American radar tech support and Scorpena manufacturing delay.

Personally I can expect MiG-35 with AESA and TVS $2-5 millions higher then MiG-29K, not more.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 23:05

Oh boy. Back to square 0.

Why does the GoI take so long to resolve a BR problem?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 23:08

such a wish would be already reflected in MiG-29K contract. Seems to me IAF is satisfated with Russian weaponry


29K = IN! And, there was no option there?

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 14 Jun 2010 23:18

NRao wrote:
such a wish would be already reflected in MiG-29K contract. Seems to me IAF is satisfated with Russian weaponry


20K = IN! And, there was no option there?
I'm sure there is a consolidated weaponry politics between IN and IAF regarding the planes. If the Russian weaponry were so unwanted they always could choice Rafales for both IN and IAF. WHy not? In such a case the final Gorshi price would not be even changed for worse :lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2010 23:23

Igorr wrote:I'm sure there is a consolidated weaponry politics between IN and IAF regarding the planes. If the Russian weaponry were so unwanted they always could choice Rafales for both IN and IAF. WHy not? In such a case the final Gorshi price would not be even changed for worse :lol:


Sure we ALL can hide behind "I'm sure", "Why not?" and emoticons. But we need to move on beyond such childish thinking.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 14 Jun 2010 23:50

NRao wrote:Sure we ALL can hide behind "I'm sure", "Why not?" and emoticons. But we need to move on beyond such childish thinking.
I'm still waiting for your a 'non childish' counter argument why India didnt buy Rafales for the carriers if IN so dislikes the Russian weaponry...

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Raveen » 15 Jun 2010 00:24

Igorr wrote:
NRao wrote:Sure we ALL can hide behind "I'm sure", "Why not?" and emoticons. But we need to move on beyond such childish thinking.
I'm still waiting for your a 'non childish' counter argument why India didnt buy Rafales for the carriers if IN so dislikes the Russian weaponry...


Because the Rafale is catapult launched whereas the rust bucket doesn't have a catapult


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests