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.
johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 30 Jul 2010 10:06

Marten wrote:"quote from another forum"
"It is claimed"
"Sources have unofficially said"
"Anonymous Internet expert's report"
"Mickey Mouse firmly avowed"

Seriously, stop it! This is sophisticated trolling, nothing more. Unless we have an official study with figures, don't bother posting what mickey mouse or his uncle posted on Wikipedia (and Donald Duck edited out the next day). What a poster said on a different forum is no different from what you say here. There is a reason the stuff is classified and that folks cannot guesstimate it. Internet Air Force Air Marshals don't count.

Please, pretty please do NOT give credence to BS by posting it in the MRCA thread. It doesn't befit BRF.


1. Yes its from another forum but the poster there has given source links to all the info in that post, some of the presentations shown are from SAAB itself.

2. Wikipedia is not a bad source when substantiated by good citations.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 10:46

Marten wrote:In short:
Post your opinion as opinion, not as fact.
Post guesses clearly marked as that.

Prastor: Do Wiki sources mention any calculation of RCS? Do you have any clue how it is calculated?
Like I said, don't break the law by all means -- just please don't share nonsense posing as educated guesses.

johnny_m: I get your point, but how about the others? Forget C/D; how about NG? How does the increased control surface area affect calculations? Are we only looking at frontal, not ventral or dorsal or etc.? You see my point?



Sir ji,

You obviously missed the line where the poster said something on the lines of "citations are included in the wiki page." maybe you should check the authenticity of that source material first before ranting off on cartoon character writing wiki BS.

Also, I do not know how to calculate RCS. But again, I di dnot post any RCS stuff either. Pose that question to the original poster. He himself gave a non-wiki source link. I have no idea if that source itself is credible.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 10:54

Marten wrote:
prastor wrote:
WOW! Ok. Let me get this straight.

1. Wikipedia info is authentic if the sources cited with the shared information can be confirmed as credible. So, generalizing all information on that site as BS written by cartoon characters is not correct on your part.
Show me one Wiki source that clearly mentions an official study or position with the RCS of any MMRCA contendor clearly mentioned. (No unofficial sources or chaiwallas please). Isn't there a reason Wiki is not reliable on this front? :)

2. What if the source blog or forum belongs to a known defense analyst or a journalist or a retired or serving officer? Are you saying his/her posts are just as unreliable as any post on BRF?
If he represents an official body on his blog, yes, by all means. How does a defence analyst or officer go about measuring RCS? Unless they have held a position in which they have handled responsibility for the topic they are pontificating, their opinion is opinion, and cannot stand as generally held fact. Get the difference? Respect the opinion by all means, and the man, but do not pose it as fact.

3. Do you think any of us would have first hand official classified information (like you put it) on the MMRCA competition? Even if we do, who in their right mind would break the law and share it on BRF for your reading pleasure?
Like I said, there is a reason it is classified, and all you can do is guess. The fiction posed as fact does not constitute a fair source. Golfball, orange, cherry, elephant etc are fine when officials state them, not when you state them as authoritatively as the price of the F-16 (didn't you post it as 30mn earlier?)

4. Given the above condition, what else are we left with to discuss? Discussions based only on officially disclosed details of the planes in MMRCA... hmmm... Interesting! That'll filter out 90% of this thread... And it would just be a series of news articles pasted one after the other.
Not if you are clear in stating your opinion is opinion and not to be held as the great almighty truth regarding MMRCA. Notice not many post their opinion as otherwise unless they have a clear source for the basis. That's credibility 101 for you.

In short:
Post your opinion as opinion, not as fact.
Post guesses clearly marked as that.

Prastor: Do Wiki sources mention any calculation of RCS? Do you have any clue how it is calculated?
Like I said, don't break the law by all means -- just please don't share nonsense posing as educated guesses.

johnny_m: I get your point, but how about the others? Forget C/D; how about NG? How does the increased control surface area affect calculations? Are we only looking at frontal, not ventral or dorsal or etc.? You see my point?



Ok, this is going way off topic here. I do not intend to pick an argument here. Just inform the original poster to edit his post and add a line stating that it is just a casual and opinionated analysis of RCS of various planes. My beef with you was your tone in which you ranted out. It is just uncalled for. You can show some restraint in your fits.

As far as my post goes, the $30 Million figure was quoted by Shiv Aroor on his blog while he himself was quoting an official from MoD. I'll search for the exact link and share it with you for your clarification that I did not pull that $30 Million figure out of my shiny musharraf.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 11:00

Marten wrote:Prastor:
Boeing F/A-18 Hornet (WarbirdTech, Vol. 31). Specialty Press, 2001. ISBN 1-58007-041-8

While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal RCS an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters

Where did we see any comparison with other similar gen fighters or even a simple figure?



http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/06/mmrca.html

This blog by Shiv Aroor had the $30 Million figure you are so concerned about. And moreover, my table clearly mentioned "casual comparison" with a specific intention to not get policed like this.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 11:17

Marten wrote:OT
Prastor: If Johnny_m got my point, why would you be riled? My tone is none of your business, especially for a post you did not believe was directed at you. As for Aroor's post, read the comments as well.



Now why would I read unsubstantiated anonymous comments for alternate info while a defense analyst of a major news agency said something specifically as the IAF's opinion/understanding? Practice what you preach!

By the way, your tone is as much my business as the RCS posts are your business.

Now, what officially credible figures have you contributed to this thread in the past 30 minutes?

Also, your post was not directed to Johnny_m alone. If you intended it to be a one-on-one, then you should have taken the trouble to quote him or address him in your rant. You did not. You directed it to the whole community contributing to the MMRCA thread. So, it was my business to respond to the tone.
Last edited by prastor on 30 Jul 2010 11:22, edited 1 time in total.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 11:25

Marten wrote:Where is the celebrated defence analyst's source that you promised? I'd gladly wait to see an MoD paper listing the F-16 IN as being $30 mn. See, this by itself is a good reason to not post. Just as you have one right now, and have had one all long.
Rather than posting rubbish, I'd rather not. :)



I already clarified my post in my prior response. Go back to my table and read the TITLE and come back to rant some more if you have something to rant about. Until then, stop making a fool of yourself by trying to prolong this pointless argument.
Last edited by archan on 01 Aug 2010 08:20, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Arguments happen but sometimes the tone gets too harsh. I believe you are a good postor, so this time I'll let it pass. Please don't indulge in this kind of behavior in the future.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 11:39

Kartik wrote:This table has some wrong data.

For instance, the Rafale and Gripen are both 9G fighters, not 8.5G. The Super Hornet for the USN OTOH is an 8G fighter (FBW software limits it to this, but airframe is designed for higher load factor) but for the IAF, Boeing is offering a 9G variant.
The MiG-35 is 9G only, not 10G. Keep in mind that there are different load factors for the airframe and the pilot. The pilot can at most pull 9Gs without blacking out and hence most fighters have this as the limit.

Also, Gripen NG's wing is NOT going to be the same as that of the Gripen Demo, implying larger surface area. It's radar is not a Selex Vixen 500 (which has only 500 T/R modules and was meant for smaller fighters) but the Selex Ericsson ES-05A Raven with 1000 T/R modules and swashplate mounting.

The Typhoon's radar for the MRCA is not the Captor only since there is a Captor M on the Typhoon now- it’s the E-Captor which is AESA. This too is likely to be swashplate mounted instead of fixed. APG-80, APG-79, Zhuk-AE as well RBE-2 AESA are all fixed antennas.

Would also be interesting to note what passive detection features these fighters possess since this is the best way to detect LO aircraft as well as keeping from advertising your own presence
.
for the MiG-35 they have OLS-UEM electro-optical sight in front of the canopy and an air-to-ground OLS-K targeting recon el-op sensor in an under-fuselage pod. Gripen NG will get Selex's Skyward-NG IRST on a nose fairing. Rafale has the OSF (although some reports indicate that the FLIR channel will be removed and only TV channel kept- the pilot will use MICA missile's IR sensor instead) and the Typhoon has the PIRATE. Even the F-16 has an IRST and here the Super Hornet is currently lagging behind with no IRST. The current solution is to fit it in a center-line pod but as is obvious (and I ridiculed that location when I first heard about it) the centerline pod is hardly a smart location for a multi-million $ sensor since the pilot may need to jettison it in flight if he runs into opposition. And now, as seen at Farnborough, common sense prevailed and the plan is to integrate a nose mounted IRST as part of an "International" Super Hornet. So it will eventually get a proper IRST.


Thanks for the feedback on my table Kartik. I will update it today with the recommended changes. I just did it for an easy way to compare the contenders to guess which ones are likely to make it into the Short-list.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 12:46

Marten wrote:OT

Where is the celebrated defence analyst's source that you promised? I'd gladly wait to see an MoD paper listing the F-16 IN as being $30 mn. See, this by itself is a good reason to not post. Just as you have one right now, and have had one all long.
Rather than posting rubbish, I'd rather not. :)

PS: Prastor: I'll give you credit for two things. a) You don't fear making a fool of yourself (either on BRF or other forums). b) You are willing to take criticism well for any rubbish that you post. Thanks for editing your table and making the MMRCA thread so much more valuable. Meanwhile, I will await your link to the MoD statement for $30 mn per F-16 IN. Don't forget to add the Opinion tag for any RCS values you decide to add to your table.
PPS: Hopefully, this ends the "inane conversation where I make a fool of myself" and you make a scholar of yourself. :)



Again, check the bottom of the post where you saw my table. Check the last date and time when the table was edited. That shows who is the fool here Marten. Clap clap!!! Also, check Kartik's response to my table and learn how corrections can be made constructively and without sounding like an ******

The title of the table clearly states that it is a "CASUAL" comparison only. And, like I said, check when it was edited, though even that edit was for the F-16IN price tag updated to match another source I found and not the title of the table.

I find your comments amusing where you talk about my posts in "other forums" :roll:

And, since you just established your lack of proper understanding of the English language, I will highlight the part of Shiv Aroor's blog entry that re-enforces my claims about the F-16 price tag. Feel free to go back to his blog and clarify again.

"Based on my personal discussions with pilots, Defence Ministry officials and others familiar with the aircraft, here's a run down of the F-16's strengths and weaknesses in the current MMRCA competition. Remember, this is an overview of the opinion in establishment circles on the aircraft, and not merely a reiteration of facts already in the public domain."

Common sense tells that his comments that followed (that include the price of the F-16) fall under the umbrella of the above quote. Are you in mood for some more humiliation Marten?
Last edited by prastor on 30 Jul 2010 12:54, edited 1 time in total.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 13:01

Marten wrote:OT: Humiliation? :) Oh awesome Youtube warrior and Internet messiah, I am so thoroughly ashamed of being shown as the fool.
Unfortunately, we do not all have your common sense. We use facts. Try getting some facts or post the prices as well as YOUR OPINION. Get?


OT galore.

What I write on youtube has no bearings on what we are discussing about here. Looks like you are now scrambling for something to hit me back with. That's desperation. Now that I proved that I clearly labeled my table as "casual" and hence not "completely factual" and also shown you that the $30 million figure was from an authenticated source, what other BRF related factual errors are bothering you? If there are none, I recommend you stop this madness before we both get censored out for OTing.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1085
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Hiten » 30 Jul 2010 20:21

This thread moves too fast for me to keep track of all post :)

This blog keeps track of Gripen related news - http://www.gripenindia.com/

Apologies if already posted

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shaunb » 31 Jul 2010 03:53

A video that explains what the weird looking helmet in the Typhoon is meant for.

Typhoon Helmet

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 31 Jul 2010 21:32

Geez, look what the mohotar-mouth is up to: (link)

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 305
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ManuJ » 01 Aug 2010 02:33

Hmmm...the signing of the reprocessing pact with US has been done. Now if US would only agree to transfer of dual-use technology (not likely) or officially endorse India for permanent U.N. seat (more likely), it would be in a good position to bag the MRCA deal as pay-back.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 01 Aug 2010 06:36

ManuJ wrote: Now if US would only agree to transfer of dual-use technology (not likely)


On that note.... (X-post from India-US news and discussion)

Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process

Move Aimed to boost defense exports to India.

The administration's stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama's drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.


India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.


Obama's plan, according to top officials, is to ask Congress to streamline the bureaucratic process for approving arms sales by setting up a single new agency to oversee one list of exportable weapons, "tiered" according to the sensitivity of the technology. Currently the State and Commerce Departments maintain separate lists, and the State Department list contains many restrictions.

"Our aim is to make the system more transparent, efficient, and effective," said Ben Chang, a White House spokesman. "This means we are improving our ability to administer our controls, which improves our ability to enforce them, and equally important, improves the ability of companies to comply."


The new system would allow older technology such as Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter to fall to a lower tier as newer, more advanced technology emerges. The staffer said that some versions of the plan currently circulating don't include the F-16 in the top tier of the secured list.

The F-16 may no longer be top technology for the U.S. Members of the Obama administration say that changes will enhance national security."In fact, our system itself poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much," United States National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a speech introducing the plans.

The administration hopes that by streamlining the process, allies will be able to receive more weapons and technology faster, making their equipment more compatible with that of the United States, and making it easier to complete joint operations.

"It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces," said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing. "We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls," Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby archan » 01 Aug 2010 08:21

prastor and Marten, take it easy guys.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Aug 2010 12:15

The US will offer the F-16 at bargain prices because India will be the last country in the world (US allies and friends) who will buy the aircraft which no one else wants (Other than Pakis)! This is aimed at scuppering the chances of the Gripen and MIG-35 which will come in at the bottom end fo the price range of the contestants,if price is the key factor.It still wants us to buy the F-18SH as first choice,so that it can integrate the IAF into the US-OZ-other F-18 users cooperative engagement network,and the USN.The F-16 is planned for relacement wiht the JSF by the US's major allies and this is a cheap method of also keeping India's capabilities below that of the US's allies and rent-boys like Pak.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 01 Aug 2010 12:50

I think we have discussed the MRCA for so long that we should now put our money down and start betting.. :mrgreen:

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 01 Aug 2010 15:12

Philip your theory is flawed mainly because.

a. The MRCA will not be the top of the food chain in the IAF. The FGFA and upgraded MKIs will come above it. F 16/18 are still excellent strike fighters, F/A 18 is in many terms better than F 35 in that role.

b. If the aim is to keep India below its allies level then Lockheed will not show interest in selling F 35 to the Navy. Secondly India is the launch foreign customer of a sophisticated system like P 8 I.

c. If an F 16 Block 70 is offered at Bargain prizes, we should snap their hand off, because it can be our future MIG 21 forming the back bone of the Air Force. As old as the design is its still better than anything in the PAF arsenal and should be equal if not better than J 10 B.

I am not saying we should buy American, we should go for the best deal we get.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Aug 2010 16:40

Well i would any day buy a customised Mig-35 which still retains a good flight performance then some heavy F-16 Block70 which come with strings attached depending on some senator who wakes up on the wrong side of the bed one fine morning and decides spares and weapons can be supplied if we do x or y.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 01 Aug 2010 17:04

If MiG gives the most value then we should go for that.

It hardly adds anything new to our inventory or increase our capability in anyway. The Russian A2G kit is not as comprehensive as the American one, the latest AMRAAMs outrange the R77 and in case of the Meteor (for European birds) thats totally in another class. Now i know Russians will come up with longer range AAMs, but in what time frame ?

On the other hand because of its commonality with the MIG 29UPG we can always buy some 35s out of the MRCA deal there by keeping a good Fulcrum fleet of 100-120.

This will make sense if we go for a European heavy in the MRCA like the Typhoon which will exhaust if not over-run the budget allocated for the MRCA with the 126 Airframes. Now the MIG can be ordered to fill the gaps instead of 200 Typhoons.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Aug 2010 17:13

F-16-block70 may not match the Mig35 in raw airframe performance for a2a but problem is it comes wrapped in aim120+apg80+world class sensors and avoinics pkg. if we got to Russia and ask for integrating el2052 radar and a mix of aam's they will likely force the Zhuk down our throats and ask us to wait 5 yrs until next gen of Ru aam's come online.

to me the Mig35 doesnt offer the instant coffee we want for money paid. the Gripen can do that...perhaps in same price range.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2583
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Chinmayanand » 01 Aug 2010 17:24

shiv wrote:I think we have discussed the MRCA for so long that we should now put our money down and start betting.. :mrgreen:


100 rupees on F-18 ... :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Aug 2010 17:28

+1 on F-18 but with atflir replaced by LiteningG4 + new above nose IRST borrowed from somewhere else.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 01 Aug 2010 17:50


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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Aug 2010 18:10

BTW does Elta 2052 radar exist and is known to be tested ?

Gripen is a good deal as long as people do not consider it to be a kill switch for Tejas ;)
Last edited by Austin on 01 Aug 2010 18:47, edited 1 time in total.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3272
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Tanaji » 01 Aug 2010 18:21

shiv wrote:I think we have discussed the MRCA for so long that we should now put our money down and start betting.. :mrgreen:


Actually, people should put up money on their plane, and the pool collected gets donated to a charity like IDRF

The moD will keep the cheapest plane in the running just to drive a bargain with the others. The correct choice here is the Gripen. Infinitely customizable, not that expensive and great learning opportunity.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 01 Aug 2010 19:32

Rs 100 on F/A-18

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 01 Aug 2010 20:07

Image200 on Typhoon

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2272
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 01 Aug 2010 20:21

shiv wrote:Rs 100 on F/A-18


jaladipc wrote:Image200 on Typhoon


Image1001.00 on F/A 18

kittoo
BRFite
Posts: 969
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kittoo » 01 Aug 2010 20:36

1000 on F/A-18 from me too.
My bet is on that cause I believe its as much a political deal as much its a military one.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 01 Aug 2010 20:59

Rs. 100 on the Grippy.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby A Sharma » 01 Aug 2010 22:10

1000 Paki rupee on F-18

amdavadi
BRFite
Posts: 1470
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby amdavadi » 01 Aug 2010 22:26

5 Rupee on F-18
2 Rupee on f-16
50 paise on MIG

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7304
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 01 Aug 2010 22:35

No matter how much the IAF :((, the cheapest bid will be accepted just like old times. All this talk of political decision and lifetime costs is hogwash onlee.
So Rs. 999999999 on the Mig-35. AoA!

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Katare » 01 Aug 2010 22:48

Philp is going to get sever heartburn when MRCA winner is annonced :lol:

I bet all my monopoly money on that (~$400% Trillion in total)

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 01 Aug 2010 23:10

Rs 100 on F 16.

Its the underdog, but should give good returns if it wins.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby manum » 01 Aug 2010 23:21

my 40 on shornet 60 on typhoon...

palash_kol
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:07

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby palash_kol » 01 Aug 2010 23:47

Image10001 on FA-18SH Light Growler. :mrgreen:

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 299
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Bharadwaj » 01 Aug 2010 23:56

RS 101 on "pre-owned" mirages ..... and re-tendering for mmrca....followed by a quiet burial of the whole process when the first single seat pak-fa arrives...

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby chiragAS » 02 Aug 2010 00:09

This Deal if it is not scrapped then
Rs 2 for F-18 (BO and our stupid govt Policy will shove it through IAF throats. whether IAF likes it or not)
Rs 1 for Typhoon (If they buy 2 dozen worthless 17 series Heavy lifters then yeah typhoon has a chance)

anything else would be a shocker :eek:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests