MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

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.
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 30 Jan 2011 12:29

Henrik wrote:Frustrated? What's your problem? The only thing that makes me frustrated is your arrogance and lack of knowledge. I have not the time nor the will or patience to continue to argue with someone who apparently is incapable of using something as simple as Google.

I tried to respond to your incompetence nicely, but enough is enough.


Henrik,
Arrogant !! As an Indian, we represent the customer. Customers are always arrogant in choosing products from an array of products available. India will choose the product, which will suite it best. India is in the International Market looking for a Fighter which would meet its requirements militarily, technology wise and cost wise.

I am not sure if you belong to Grippen Marketing Team. Grippen as a vendor should try hard to sell their product which they probably are not good at doing :D

This deal is not just about 126 fighters but it’s about TOT as well. I again ask you the same question.

What Technology Grippen would bring to India which India doesn’t have? And what price we are about to pay for that technology in comparison to what others have to offer?

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 30 Jan 2011 12:42

PratikDas wrote:I might be an amateur, but that seems like a damn good feature to have during a war. The only strong argument I've seen against it is the missing / in-development AESA. As for the engine, we didn't seem to have a problem with choosing GE engines for the LCA Mk1 and then again for the Mk2, so this argument is flawed.


Pratik,

Imagine the situation as below :

Circa 2020 : India is in prolonged WAR with Unkil’s stooge. And India is having 150 Grippen with Unkil’s engine and 150 Tejas with Unkil’s engine. And Unkil closes the tap on GE Engine.

Approx 300, 4 th Gen fighter aircraft will be sitting duck then? Can we afford to take such risk? Risk aversion should be done by spreading the risk.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby PratikDas » 30 Jan 2011 13:04

B_Ambuj wrote:
PratikDas wrote:I might be an amateur, but that seems like a damn good feature to have during a war. The only strong argument I've seen against it is the missing / in-development AESA. As for the engine, we didn't seem to have a problem with choosing GE engines for the LCA Mk1 and then again for the Mk2, so this argument is flawed.


Pratik,

Imagine the situation as below :

Circa 2020 : India is in prolonged WAR with Unkil’s stooge. And India is having 150 Grippen with Unkil’s engine and 150 Tejas with Unkil’s engine. And Unkil closes the tap on GE Engine.

Approx 300, 4 th Gen fighter aircraft will be sitting duck then? Can we afford to take such risk? Risk aversion should be done by spreading the risk.


I will let slide the low probability of a "prolonged war" against Unkil's stooge. They're itching to press the nuclear trigger because that will normalise them with India, with both being sent back to the dark ages. The problem is that they don't care if that happens because their military, or what's left of it, will still retain power. Yayy. :roll:

Returning to the engine tap, the only "safe" fighters are the Rafale and the Mig 35 because only the French and the Russians are perceived to be "independent". The French costs a fortune. The Russian is a bargain on day 1 but will probably cost a fortune from day 2. No real strategic gains there either. If anything, we've just bolstered the notions of our age-old suppliers that we're completely reliant on them.

It would be far better to just stockpile a bunch of GE engines - whole and spares.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 30 Jan 2011 14:12

PratikDas wrote:Returning to the engine tap, the only "safe" fighters are the Rafale and the Mig 35 because only the French and the Russians are perceived to be "independent". The French costs a fortune. The Russian is a bargain on day 1 but will probably cost a fortune from day 2. No real strategic gains there either. If anything, we've just bolstered the notions of our age-old suppliers that we're completely reliant on them.


Yep your point of view is logical.

But, tell me in order that we do not put all our eggs in single basket would it be prudent enough for us to put half the egg in Unkil’s Basket?
What if Unkil thinks of crushing the eggs altogether considering it to be old or may be some other reason?

Remember Unkil has done this many a times.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby chackojoseph » 30 Jan 2011 14:44


PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby PratikDas » 30 Jan 2011 14:56

B_Ambuj wrote:....
But, tell me in order that we do not put all our eggs in single basket would it be prudent enough for us to put half the egg in Unkil’s Basket?
What if Unkil thinks of crushing the eggs altogether considering it to be old or may be some other reason?

Remember Unkil has done this many a times.

I repeat, a fighter with an American engine should only be accepted if a tripartite agreement between India, the manufacturer of the fighter, and the manufacturer of the engine be reached to include a surplus of engines and spares to be stocked in India with the ToT clause to allow for engine repair or replacement within India, by India, at a time of our choosing.

Sounds complicated, but it isn't. The offer would be a take-it-or-leave-it affair. We have choices too.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2011 15:31

The arrival of the J-20 will definitely have its effect on the MMRCA,but not in the manner that many expect...India buying the most expensive gold-plated bird.This is because we already have our own 5th-gen fighter flying,albeit in the Russian single-seat model,the PAK-FA,plus,we desire to design and build our own AMCA in the future,hopefully with our own Kaveri engine.

The need right now is to augment falling numbers firstly,as expressed by more than one former service chief buying the most "cost-effective" fighter of the lot.Tell-us has also let slip a possble vital piece of info,that the order might be split.Now this is what many of us on BR a few years ago had been advocating and still do,that numbers do matter in the context of a JV attack on India by the Sino-Pak axis.
We therefore need both numbers and tech,which the MMRCA contest could offer us.It is now very clear that the IAF is looking at the LCA as a "bonus",whatever can be built,will be accepted.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2011 15:38

Cont: The hard core of the future force will have to be the FGFA backed up with large numbers Therefore,it is not impossibe to see a split in the deal,with the MIG-35 being chosen to augment numbers (already in service and easy to operate),while one of the 3 Eurofighters chosen which will also allow us to take advantage of the TOT for the AMCA in the future.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby chackojoseph » 30 Jan 2011 15:46

FGFA might not be in numbers as stealth requires huge maintenance. The operating cost of F-22 is huge if you go by some US committee reports. There might be mix of stealth and UAV's in distant future. For now, it will be poor mans stealth and stealth.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VinodTK » 30 Jan 2011 18:50

I hope the order is not split, IAF is trying to get out the current mish mash of aircraft. Go for one type, in large numbers (360 aircraft ie 20 squadrons), and pick the best. The current need is a good fighter and ground support aircraft, not stealth fighting aircraft. India can get the 5th Gen aircraft from Russia to face off against China.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 30 Jan 2011 19:24

- If IAF looking for Air Superiority fighter then it should go directly for EF.
- If IAF selects Mig-35 or Rafael then it should also include swamping the existing Mig-29s or Mirage, possibility is less
- If it want US fighters then simply go for F-18s.
- No Gripen, since Tejas Mk2s specification almost equals it.

I don't know why GoI taking so much time in deciding

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 30 Jan 2011 19:32

GoI will take time to find who gives the best ToT and the final hour politics. Find those men carrying suite cases and keep a track on them to know more details.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 30 Jan 2011 19:50

U.S. MMRCA fighters “formidable best buys” for India

As the competition for obtaining a $10 billion contract to sell India 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) reaches its final stages, an influential think-tank in Washington has pressed the case for India selecting U.S.-made fighters.

This week a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argued that although European aircraft are “technically superb,” their U.S. competitors could be considered “formidable best buys,” so long as Washington offered New Delhi generous terms on the transfer of technology that assured India access to fifth-generation fighters and provided “strong support for India’s strategic ambitions.”

While eight countries and six companies are in the race to win the lucrative contract, India has so far not indicated any strong preferences between the competitors and some experts have noted that it may decide to carve the contract up between several vendors, partly out of political considerations.

However in the CEIP report “Dogfight! India’s MMRCA Decision,” its author Ashley Tellis argued that this may be a less than optimal outcome because “While Indian leaders may be tempted to split the purchase among vendors… doing so would needlessly saddle the Indian Air Force with multiple airframes in return for meagre political gains.

Mr. Tellis further underscored the significance of the ongoing tender process as it would help fill the “growing and dangerous hole in the IAF’s capabilities,” that the IAF’s “all-time low of 29 squadrons” represents.

In his report he argued that although this situation had arisen due to delays in defence procurement and accidents and retirements relating to older fighter aircraft, “India’s neighbours are aggressively modernising their own air forces,” and hence the MMRCA purchase decision was an imperative to reach the currently authorised force levels of 39.5 squadrons before 2017.

Mr. Tellis’ report concedes that political considerations would however be key in the selection process and “Indian policymakers will seek to minimise the country’s vulnerability to supply cut-offs in wartime, improve its larger military capacity through a substantial technology infusion, and forge new transformative geopolitical partnerships that promise to accelerate the growth of Indian power globally.”


http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 139796.ece

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 30 Jan 2011 19:59

SaiK wrote:GoI will take time to find who gives the best ToT and the final hour politics. Find those men carrying suite cases and keep a track on them to know more details.


now ToT won't matter its purely politics, points like following will be discussed
1. Full membership in NSG group
2. Permanent Security Council Membership
3. Supply of Nuclear Fuel
4. Kashmir
5. Pakistan Sponsored Terrorism
6. Growing China's threat
7. Membership for Missile Technology Control Regime
8. Membership for Wassenaar Arrangement

Pakistan threatens to undertake nuke arms race over India's NSG membership bid

Pakistan has threatened to activate a new nuclear arms race in South Asia after the United States supported a move that Islamabad claims will allow India to further expand its weapons programme.

Islamabad believes that Washington's decision to support Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group following an agreement to help India develop its civil nuclear power industry, will help New Delhi to further increase its nuclear weapon arsenal.

Pakistan's military leadership is determined to maintain the current ratio of Indian to Pakistani nuclear warheads, and is already concerned that India is pulling ahead following the 2009 launch of a domestically produced nuclear submarine, The Telegraph reports.

Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament told delegates this week that Washington's decision in this regard would "destabilise the security environment in South Asia."

"Membership of the NSG will enable our neighbour to further expand upon its nuclear co-operation agreements and enhance its nuclear weapons and delivery capability. As a consequence, Pakistan will be forced to take measures to ensure the credibility of its deterrence," Zamir Akram told the conference.

Pakistan's National Command Authority, headed by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and a retired army general, had voiced its concern on the implications of the new civil nuclear co-operation deal between India and the US for Pakistan's security, Akram added.

Pakistan also opposed Washington's decision to support Indian membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.


http://www.sify.com/news/pakistan-threa ... gaebb.html

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 30 Jan 2011 20:08

Pardon me if this has been posted (on some other thread perhaps). Here is the entire, 150 pages, of:

Ashley J. Tellis :: Dogfight! India’s MMRCA Decision

Summary wrote:The Indian air force (IAF) is entering the fi nal stages of selecting a new
medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). At a cost of about $10 billion
for 126 aircraft, the MMRCA competition is the largest Indian fi ghter tender
in years. Eight countries and six companies eagerly await the outcome of
the selection process, which has garnered high-profi le attention for its sheer
size, its international political implications, and its impact on the viability of
key aircraft manufacturers. Furthermore, the winner will obtain a long and
lucrative association with a rising power and secure a toehold into other parts
of India’s rapidly modernizing strategic industries. Once selected, the aircraft
will play an essential role in India’s military modernization as the country
transitions from a regional power to a global giant.

Th e MMRCA competition comes as challenges to India’s national security
are increasing in intensity and complexity. Ever since the 1971 war, India’s
defense strategy has relied on maintaining superior airpower relative to both
China and Pakistan. In the event of a regional confl ict, Indian air power would
serve as the country’s critical war-fi ghting instrument of fi rst resort. Due to
delays in its defense procurement process as well as accidents and retirements of
older fi ghter aircraft, however, India’s force levels have reached an all-time low
of 29 squadrons, and the IAF is not expected to reach the currently authorized
force levels of 39.5 squadrons before 2017. Th is growing and dangerous hole in
the IAF’s capabilities comes as India’s neighbors are aggressively modernizing
their own air forces, making India’s need to expand its combat aircraft
inventories all the more urgent.

In choosing an aircraft, the government of India must employ a speedy
decision process that is focused on the right metrics, taking both technical
and political considerations into account. Th e IAF has already evaluated the
six MMRCA competitors against 660 technical benchmarks and has provided
its recommendations to the Ministry of Defense. While the IAF has paid
special attention to the fi ghters’ sensors and avionics, weapons, aerodynamic
eff ectiveness, and mission performance, India’s civilian security managers are
certain to emphasize technology transfer as well as costs when making their
decision. In fact, the winning aircraft for the IAF ought to be chosen on the
triangular criteria of technical merit, relative cost, and optimal fi t within the
IAF’s evolving force architecture.

Political considerations, however, will be key in the selection process. In
choosing the winning platform, Indian policymakers will seek to: minimize the
country’s vulnerability to supply cutoff s in wartime, improve its larger military
capacity through a substantial technology infusion, and forge new transformative
geopolitical partnerships that promise to accelerate the growth of Indian power
globally. While Indian leaders may be tempted to split the purchase among
vendors to please more than one country, doing so would needlessly saddle the
IAF with multiple airframes in return for meager political gains.
Given the technical and political considerations, New Delhi should
conclude the MMRCA competition expeditiously, avoid splitting the purchase
between competitors, and buy the “best” aircraft to help India to eff ectively
prepare for possible confl ict in Southern Asia. Because of the dramatic
transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian
government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourthgeneration
fi ghter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced
stealth aircraft in the future.

Under this criterion, the European aircraft are technically superb, but
the U.S. entrants prove to be formidable “best buys.” If Washington wants
an American aircraft to win the game, however, it will need to off er generous
terms on the transfer of technology, assure India access to fi fth-generation U.S.
combat aircraft, and provide strong support for India’s strategic ambitions—to
counter the perception that the older U.S. designs in the MMRCA race are less
combat eff ective.

In making its decision, India’s government must keep the IAF’s interests
consistently front and center to ensure that its ultimate choice of aircraft is the
best one for the service. Th is will not only help India to strengthen its combat
capabilities in the coming years but position it as a rising global power worthy
of respect far into the future.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 30 Jan 2011 20:48

pardoned..
--
do we think mr tell.lies has more information than that is gathered by brite men and ddm? if so, then that would stand as qualified reasoning for CAG questioning.

split is out of question, unless it is a new requirement altogether having seen a different role a split a/c.

don't see yet arguments that evaluate local industry growth and setup. 49%FDI, ToT, and plus making us join the program like EADS or Migs have offered. France says total transfer conditional to what is in the RFP.

High tech jobs will happen with this MMRCA, now tell me how many yuppies and high pay packet expecting to work for these FDIed companies. I am sure many aspirants would be seeing their roles into such industries where it would last for 10-20 years at least and advance.

Production engineering and precision real time systems are the points of interest. GoI should know this., for us to do future combat systems.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 30 Jan 2011 22:07

I Agree with Ashley J. Tellis on most of the counts, but big to differ on the suitability of F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. In fact his conclusion on eliminating Grippen and EFT do not hold water, Rather all the points he raised favor Grippen and EFT.

And Frankly generous ToT will not do where as F-16 and F/A-18. We are not Israel which has to buy American planes even though its enemies are provided the same aircraft. It is the reliability of America which is in doubt. Even if the yanks give us 100% ToT, it would be extremly foolish to go for the teens.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 30 Jan 2011 22:44

1. Tellis is not telling anything we have discussed, except that he has a name from a powerful lobby group that influence political decisions.

2. There is no requirement for khan based peace strategists or a representative of a body to reduce conflict point a suggestive solution for IAF. This is power play politics interference in military zone selection process.

3. GoI should not handled this body releasing a 150 page document projecting a global giant process where the only suitable aircraft is the teens. He has given names and sources where he obtained information, and high ranking officials in his document. why?

4. Per 3,if tellis suspicion is the question that he has any approval from the so called "adviser panel" group where our men in uniform gets directions, then care must be taken how these suggestions will be tailored for the needs of international peace group suggesting IAF what they need. [quite some time back France made similar diktat saying IAF must purchase 40 Rafales outright].. wow!

5. Power politics have started kicking in else there is no reason to bring out that 150 pager.

6. Recently france said, MRCA selection process they feel is a professional process (check how IAF reacted to their 40 outright purchase offer). Now, that is sure feeling of heat from the khans power play.

7. GoI just formulated DPP and 49% FDI. ToT is must and we have to consider local industry growth as well. This does not mean screw drivers and CKDs.

8. We have peculiar needs in precision engineering systems and production engineering setups, that we need to advance.

Now, tell GoI should be driven by an endowment policy for international peace or go by the requirements of IAF and local security and economic needs?

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Avid » 30 Jan 2011 23:16

I just finished reading the entire report cover to cover (rather than rely on the tidbits posted or the executive summary).

Tellis makes some good points. As mentioned here none that BR folks have not mentioned. However, these are made coherently and succinctly. Yes, the report is indeed biased towards American jets.

Key points (I am being the messenger):
- None of the AESA barring those offered with F-16IN and SH, are currently in production. This is indeed true.

- AESA provides huge advantages in look-first, and since others do not have production version, it is a certain amount of risk IAF would be taking about not having this capability from get-go.

- Gripen is a superb fighter, but much risk since too many components are sourced from foreign vendors. In pretty much all aspects of flight envelope, Gripen handling is impressive and better than most. Gripen also has perhaps the best information fusion. For instance, its sensors continue to take in information from others in sky even when it is on ground. It can use targeting information from other Gripens (without even turning on its radar), and launch missiles and bombs. Thereby allowing it greater survivability through surprise.

- EF has similar capabilities as Gripen. Most expensive of the lot.

- Rafale is excellent fighter, and is the only one in the pool who can switch from A2A to A2G profile in middle of a mission. Others need configured prior to takeoff.

- F-16IN is an entirely different aircraft than one being operated by PAF. The extensive operational data from experience indicates it to be able to operate in all conditions in South Asia.

Finally, the big argument being made is that the F-16IN, and SH will be the best-buy (from $$$ point of view), with predictable life-cycle costs, lower risk because all technologies are currently operational (instead of developmental). The single biggest advantage is the operational AESA without sacrifice of any flight performance characteristics.

Tellis is more favorable to F-16IN compared to SH. This much is very clear.

To counter the advantages of Euro Canards, Tellis emphasizes that USG will have to make every effort to provide the ToT and that will tilt the balance in favor of the F-16IN/SH.

Final argument being made is -- Yes, EF may have the most potential, but @$120 million fly-away cost, is that potential worth 2 x F-16IN (@$60 million ea)?

I would highly recommend reading it before trashing it. I trust that most BR folks have the capability to negate any biased information being pushed at us. Given that, it is worth reading to gain better understanding of the role that IAF would like to use MRCA for and how.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4223
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Jan 2011 23:50

the role that IAF would like to use MRCA for and how.


Yes, like I said before it ultimately boils down to what role the people in charge (IAF?/GOI) envisage for the MRCA:

1) Interim solution, which can support (and possibly destroy) the Tejas at the low end, and the Pakfa/MKI at high end. Here cost is lower, and $ss spent can be used towards 5 gen programs. It also hedges against delays in Tejas Mk2 OR

2) Be a challenge to J20 and comfortably deal with any advanced 4.5 gen fighters in the neighborhood. Possibly counter delays in procuring Gen 5 a/c, provide tech for AMCA, and perhaps even morph into a 5- Gen a/c (e.g. silent hornet or stealthy Rafale).

Case # 1 is would favor the Gripen NG with an outside chance for the fulcrum. Case # 2 would favor the 3 western heavies. And of course geopolitical considerations might tilt the balance either which way. The Solah offers nothing v.little in terms of the above options, and only if GOI succumbs to pressure will it be chose imho.

CM

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 31 Jan 2011 00:44

SaiK wrote:2. There is no requirement for khan based peace strategists or a representative of a body to reduce conflict point a suggestive solution for IAF. This is power play politics interference in military zone selection process.

4. Per 3,if tellis suspicion is the question that he has any approval from the so called "adviser panel" group where our men in uniform gets directions, then care must be taken how these suggestions will be tailored for the needs of international peace group suggesting IAF what they need. [quite some time back France made similar diktat saying IAF must purchase 40 Rafales outright].. wow!

5. Power politics have started kicking in else there is no reason to bring out that 150 pager.



Come now lets not overstate the importance of the numerous such analyses that keep popping up periodically. Sure his article is biased towards the US but to go the extent of calling it active interference is excessive. Also, France didn't issue an 'diktat' as such. It was a suggestion and this kind of nudging is expected.

Point is the IAF doesn't really treat take such 'suggestions' seriously nor does the MoD. They have their own experts who pooled together are far more experienced and competent than the folks at Carnegie Endowment insofar as Indian issues are concerned.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 31 Jan 2011 00:48

There another thing which is not discussed by AT
The new US fighters would also reduce their over all cost of mfg and reduce their Mil grants to Pakistan.

This is a test case of the long term strategy in the region and their war games.

They will compare the traning of IAF fighters with PAF and draw their own conclusion. If both sides have similar aifcraft then they reduce any damege to image of the US planes since both have the same.

If IAF trashes using russian planes the US made fighters of PAF this will give bad publicity to US designs and products.


They want to reduce the conflict with a-similar aircrafts and tactics.
It will also fetch them India card dividend with Pakistan and Pak will be coerced to accept many terms.


For the US with their Af Pak war going on this region is in their war games strategy and they want to control the outcome and sequence of any future conflict. They will have more leverage with this kind of large export.

India is the target of a superpower regional conflict zone and is also being asked to buy armaments to fight the same war set by the superpower.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 31 Jan 2011 03:09

So, we have two requirements here: One as written by IAF, and other one written by the solo super power. Earlier we had only two supplying powers drafting the scope of IAF requirements, Now we have many.

SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SriSri » 31 Jan 2011 07:42

Released a new Focus / Timeline visualization feature on India Defence yesterday. It's a simple feature that groups reports by year and lets you see the story evolve.

Here's the Focus / Timeline for Air Force Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) Competition

Feedback welcome! :)

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 31 Jan 2011 08:52

Viv S wrote:
SaiK wrote:2. There is no requirement for khan based peace strategists or a representative of a body to reduce conflict point a suggestive solution for IAF. This is power play politics interference in military zone selection process.

4. ........hat they need. [quite some time back France made similar diktat saying IAF must purchase 40 Rafales outright].. wow!

5. Power politics..........................hat 150 pager.



Come now lets not overstate the importance of the numerous such analyses that keep popping up periodically. Sure his article is biased towards the US but to go the extent of calling it active interference is excessive. Also, France didn't issue an 'diktat' as such. It was a suggestion and this kind of nudging is expected.

Point is the IAF doesn't really treat take such 'suggestions' seriously nor does the MoD. They have their own experts who pooled together are far more experienced and competent than the folks at Carnegie Endowment insofar as Indian issues are concerned.


As India grows up and starts counting in the real world, more such reports will come out because that is what will help other nations understand us, possibly influence us, oppose us, and partner with us.

But, for us to start feeling that this is another attempt to hoodwink us, buy us, etc. etc. is probably going over the top. We are not some kids!

As I have written earlier, not even after 1962 defeat, when we were at the worst possible time in the life of our nation and had failed miserably in Higher Command, Strategy and Decision making, did the team of Nehru and Swaran Singh, agree to what US and UK (more so) wanted us to, vis-a-vis Pakistan and the issue of Jammu & Kashmir.

We need to have more confidence in ourselves and our leaders. By the way, Tellis has written a book on India's Nuclear posture (published by Rand Corporation in that case) as well, in which he argues that fears about nuclear instability in South Asia may be unfounded-and that the time has come for Washington to rethink its unyielding policy on nonproliferation. He is an American and will write on American perspectives. In the world where interests keep on converging and diverging, we need to be alive to possibilities which are good for us and those that are not and take decisions accordingly. Such articles and books will keep coming and going.

Best regards.

sohels
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 15:00

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sohels » 31 Jan 2011 09:38

It may be significant that Tellis dedicated an entire section of his report to arguing against splitting the MMRCA purchase. Given that the GE F414 has been chosen for the LCA, it seems plausible that the split being considered is between the Gripen and the SH. Perhaps that is why he makes a push for the F-16IN - as a sort of middle ground in terms of the capabilities of those two fighters?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby johnny_m » 31 Jan 2011 09:46

Avid wrote:I just finished reading the entire report cover to cover (rather than rely on the tidbits posted or the executive summary).

Tellis makes some good points. As mentioned here none that BR folks have not mentioned. However, these are made coherently and succinctly. Yes, the report is indeed biased towards American jets.

Key points (I am being the messenger):
- None of the AESA barring those offered with F-16IN and SH, are currently in production. This is indeed true.

- AESA provides huge advantages in look-first, and since others do not have production version, it is a certain amount of risk IAF would be taking about not having this capability from get-go.

- Gripen is a superb fighter, but much risk since too many components are sourced from foreign vendors. In pretty much all aspects of flight envelope, Gripen handling is impressive and better than most. Gripen also has perhaps the best information fusion. For instance, its sensors continue to take in information from others in sky even when it is on ground. It can use targeting information from other Gripens (without even turning on its radar), and launch missiles and bombs. Thereby allowing it greater survivability through surprise.

- EF has similar capabilities as Gripen. Most expensive of the lot.

- Rafale is excellent fighter, and is the only one in the pool who can switch from A2A to A2G profile in middle of a mission. Others need configured prior to takeoff.

- F-16IN is an entirely different aircraft than one being operated by PAF. The extensive operational data from experience indicates it to be able to operate in all conditions in South Asia.

Finally, the big argument being made is that the F-16IN, and SH will be the best-buy (from $$$ point of view), with predictable life-cycle costs, lower risk because all technologies are currently operational (instead of developmental). The single biggest advantage is the operational AESA without sacrifice of any flight performance characteristics.

Tellis is more favorable to F-16IN compared to SH. This much is very clear.

To counter the advantages of Euro Canards, Tellis emphasizes that USG will have to make every effort to provide the ToT and that will tilt the balance in favor of the F-16IN/SH.

Final argument being made is -- Yes, EF may have the most potential, but @$120 million fly-away cost, is that potential worth 2 x F-16IN (@$60 million ea)?

I would highly recommend reading it before trashing it. I trust that most BR folks have the capability to negate any biased information being pushed at us. Given that, it is worth reading to gain better understanding of the role that IAF would like to use MRCA for and how.


I have read the article fully and it has a lot false information when it comes to European aircraft. For example the Gripen is going to have a normal IRST based on the PIRATE. It is extremley biased towards the American side to say the least however the first part of the article where it talks about IAFs needs is rather good.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2011 11:55

One important point to bring iunto this thread.Hasan Ali's $8 billion loot,part of it mentioned in current media depatches (India Today and others) as being commissions from Boeing! An Air-India scam is hinted at.As I mentioned in other threads,the C-17 deal in particular is highly questionable,apart from the P-8 sale.This could have a significant effect in the final decison,if Boeing is viewed as Bofors was.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby johnny_m » 31 Jan 2011 12:45

They should legalise and tax commision money. What's wrong with collecting commision from private companies ? Its not government money, so legalise it and tax them for it. :mrgreen:

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 31 Jan 2011 13:50

johnny_m wrote:
Avid wrote:I just finished reading the entire report cover to cover (rather than rely on the tidbits posted or the executive summary).

Tellis makes some good points. As mentioned here none that BR folks have not mentioned. However, these are made coherently and succinctly. Yes, the report is indeed biased towards American jets.

Key points (I am being the messenger):
- None of the AESA barring those offered with F-16IN and SH, are currently in production. This is indeed true.

- AESA provides huge advantages in look-first, and since others do not have production version, it is a certain amount of risk IAF would be taking about not having this capability from get-go.

- Gripen is a superb fighter, but much risk since too many components are sourced from foreign vendors. In pretty much all aspects of flight envelope, Gripen handling is impressive and better than most. Gripen also has perhaps the best information fusion. For instance, its sensors continue to take in information from others in sky even when it is on ground. It can use targeting information from other Gripens (without even turning on its radar), and launch missiles and bombs. Thereby allowing it greater survivability through surprise.

- EF has similar capabilities as Gripen. Most expensive of the lot.

- Rafale is excellent fighter, and is the only one in the pool who can switch from A2A to A2G profile in middle of a mission. Others need configured prior to takeoff.

- F-16IN is an entirely different aircraft than one being operated by PAF. The extensive operational data from experience indicates it to be able to operate in all conditions in South Asia.

Finally, the big argument being made is that the F-16IN, and SH will be the best-buy (from $$$ point of view), with predictable life-cycle costs, lower risk because all technologies are currently operational (instead of developmental). The single biggest advantage is the operational AESA without sacrifice of any flight performance characteristics.

Tellis is more favorable to F-16IN compared to SH. This much is very clear.

To counter the advantages of Euro Canards, Tellis emphasizes that USG will have to make every effort to provide the ToT and that will tilt the balance in favor of the F-16IN/SH.

Final argument being made is -- Yes, EF may have the most potential, but @$120 million fly-away cost, is that potential worth 2 x F-16IN (@$60 million ea)?

I would highly recommend reading it before trashing it. I trust that most BR folks have the capability to negate any biased information being pushed at us. Given that, it is worth reading to gain better understanding of the role that IAF would like to use MRCA for and how.


I have read the article fully and it has a lot false information when it comes to European aircraft. For example the Gripen is going to have a normal IRST based on the PIRATE. It is extremley biased towards the American side to say the least however the first part of the article where it talks about IAFs needs is rather good.

What do the article say about Gripen's IRST?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby merlin » 31 Jan 2011 14:09

Bottom line is this - do you want to be saddled with the teens as your aircraft for the next 40 years? Or do you want something more modern. Others lacking AESA is not a problem that is insurmountable.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 31 Jan 2011 14:20

merlin wrote:Bottom line is this - do you want to be saddled with the teens as your aircraft for the next 40 years? Or do you want something more modern. Others lacking AESA is not a problem that is insurmountable.


Precisely why the EF is the best of the lot. Avionics can be upgraded. But its the best airframe available with the most room for a radar or engine upgrade.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 31 Jan 2011 17:52

The khans are equally corrupted when they step outside their jurisdiction, but they kind of operate with different names and secret organizations.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 31 Jan 2011 18:38


Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Avid » 31 Jan 2011 19:56

Capabilities provided by technologies such as AESA and information fusion are near a quantum leap at least in training and strategy. Consider the operational implications of an AESA radar, coupled with information fusion that has been described in great detail. Utilizing information derived from sensors of multiple aircrafts to launch weapons without using sensors on-board the launching aircraft. These two elements have the ability to drastically alter strategies in combat.

All such abilities and capabilities have an absorption time, and more so when you are integrating such capabilities into current force which does not have either. How to mix the MRCA into existing strategy to best leverage the capabilities would take significant time.

To say not having AESA is not insurmountable is true. However, it does prolong absence of a serious advantage when we could have it.

I will play the devil's advocate here with some points. This is not to say I am in complete support of F-16. I am opposed to summary dismissing of ideas by some folks here.

Economics:
For those rooting for the EF @ $120 million a piece (fly-away), consider this -- FGFA cost is currently projected @ $100 million in 2017/18. MRCA induction will certainly continue into 2017-18. How do you feel about paying more for EF now than for FGFA?

Numbers:
Tellis certainly makes a good point -- is capability of 2 x F-16IN with AESA worth less than 1 x EF with AESA under development? This means that with EF, IAF will not be able to begin incorporating it into its tactics/training for 2-3 years, whereas with F-16IN, it certainly can.

The cost difference also means that with F-16IN, certainly numbers can be doubled without adversely effecting economics of fly-away or life-cycle. These numbers are not meaningless, and certainly allows for rapidly plugging the hole that currently exists in IAF (through loaners from USAF, National Guard etc.). Even if F-16IN is considered to be half as capable as EF, double the numbers allows for one to be stationed in NE, and other in West. That is the physical reality.

Learning:
The number of F-16s out there along with the extensive infrastructure, also allows for more rapid training of pilots considering the existing infrastructure for training that exists for F-16. Not to mention learning from the experience of Israeli AF. For those worrying about sanctions on F-16, the Israeli experience in modifying it and using different weaponry is also a counter to such risks.

Acquiring the MRCA is great. Being able to learn to effectively wield it in shortest time possible is going to be critical to its efficacy in the IAF. How many countries have the experience of effectively deploying any of the other contenders?

As for PAF also having F-16s. Well Saudis have it and so do Israelis. Does it make Israel fear about potency of its airforce?

ToT:
The AESA radar being offered is production version (and not the latest). The inclination to undertake ToT is greater than for EF/Rafale for their radars that are their first. Same goes with the engines.

Lastly, most important -- the requirement is for lowest cost compliant aircraft (not the best compliant aircraft).

It is natural for us to champion aircraft we believe to be the best. However, this does not negate the need to carefully and respectfully consider other ideas/thoughts.

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Avid » 31 Jan 2011 20:04

Philip wrote:One important point to bring iunto this thread.Hasan Ali's $8 billion loot,part of it mentioned in current media depatches (India Today and others) as being commissions from Boeing! An Air-India scam is hinted at.As I mentioned in other threads,the C-17 deal in particular is highly questionable,apart from the P-8 sale.This could have a significant effect in the final decison,if Boeing is viewed as Bofors was.


Note - both P-8I and C-17 have been purchased through FMS route. There is no bargain/negotiation/etc.

Items procured through FMS route has subject to heavier scrutiny than non-FMS route. Also, the price being fixed by Pentagon instead of the vendor leaves little wiggle room commercially to pad the commissions in. Not to mention, FMS purchases/sales if found to be corrupt incur severe penalty and immediately so. You may want to look into history of the KC-x tanker and Boeing's harsh experience :-)

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Jan 2011 20:10

Avid wrote:Note - both P-8I and C-17 have been purchased through FMS route. There is no bargain/negotiation/etc.


Are you sure?

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 31 Jan 2011 20:15

Avid wrote:Capabilities provided by technologies such as AESA and information fusion are near a quantum leap at least in training and strategy. Consider the operational implications of an AESA radar, coupled with information fusion that has been described in great detail. Utilizing information derived from sensors of multiple aircrafts to launch weapons without using sensors on-board the launching aircraft. These two elements have the ability to drastically alter strategies in combat.

All such abilities and capabilities have an absorption time, and more so when you are integrating such capabilities into current force which does not have either. How to mix the MRCA into existing strategy to best leverage the capabilities would take significant time.

To say not having AESA is not insurmountable is true. However, it does prolong absence of a serious advantage when we could have it.

I will play the devil's advocate here with some points. This is not to say I am in complete support of F-16. I am opposed to summary dismissing of ideas by some folks here.

Economics:
For those rooting for the EF @ $120 million a piece (fly-away), consider this -- FGFA cost is currently projected @ $100 million in 2017/18. MRCA induction will certainly continue into 2017-18. How do you feel about paying more for EF now than for FGFA?

Numbers:
Tellis certainly makes a good point -- is capability of 2 x F-16IN with AESA worth less than 1 x EF with AESA under development? This means that with EF, IAF will not be able to begin incorporating it into its tactics/training for 2-3 years, whereas with F-16IN, it certainly can.

The cost difference also means that with F-16IN, certainly numbers can be doubled without adversely effecting economics of fly-away or life-cycle. These numbers are not meaningless, and certainly allows for rapidly plugging the hole that currently exists in IAF (through loaners from USAF, National Guard etc.). Even if F-16IN is considered to be half as capable as EF, double the numbers allows for one to be stationed in NE, and other in West. That is the physical reality.

Learning:
The number of F-16s out there along with the extensive infrastructure, also allows for more rapid training of pilots considering the existing infrastructure for training that exists for F-16. Not to mention learning from the experience of Israeli AF. For those worrying about sanctions on F-16, the Israeli experience in modifying it and using different weaponry is also a counter to such risks.

Acquiring the MRCA is great. Being able to learn to effectively wield it in shortest time possible is going to be critical to its efficacy in the IAF. How many countries have the experience of effectively deploying any of the other contenders?

As for PAF also having F-16s. Well Saudis have it and so do Israelis. Does it make Israel fear about potency of its airforce?

ToT:
The AESA radar being offered is production version (and not the latest). The inclination to undertake ToT is greater than for EF/Rafale for their radars that are their first. Same goes with the engines.

Lastly, most important -- the requirement is for lowest cost compliant aircraft (not the best compliant aircraft).

It is natural for us to champion aircraft we believe to be the best. However, this does not negate the need to carefully and respectfully consider other ideas/thoughts.


In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s

sohels
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 15:00

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sohels » 31 Jan 2011 20:56

kmc_chacko wrote:In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s


Did those F-16s have the APG-80 AESA?

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 552
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 31 Jan 2011 21:00

Avid wrote:The cost difference also means that with F-16IN, certainly numbers can be doubled without adversely effecting economics of fly-away or life-cycle. These numbers are not meaningless, and certainly allows for rapidly plugging the hole that currently exists in IAF (through loaners from USAF, National Guard etc.). Even if F-16IN is considered to be half as capable as EF, double the numbers allows for one to be stationed in NE, and other in West. That is the physical reality.


As for PAF also having F-16s. Well Saudis have it and so do Israelis. Does it make Israel fear about potency of its airforce?

ToT:
The inclination to undertake ToT is greater than for EF/Rafale for their radars that are their first. Same goes with the engines.


See Avid, When you say LOANERS FROM USAF....am I correct in assuming that you are pointing towards purchase of an in-use aircraft....?

One of the problem with 16s is that Pakistani do have them.....to say..as a gift...so how do you feel about a BULLET SHOOTING YOU DOWN, PURCHASED BY CONTRIBUTION FROM YOUR MONEY..?

ToTs...with I must be reading a typo.

Above all that, It is not 2012 or 2015 we are talking about...it is next 40 years of operation...we must consider. Who are going to fund an upgrade..and how readily will that be available..?

And not to forget, but Sanctions and other Arm twisting tactics....!

Americans are having more orders than they worth in form of P8I, C-130 and others...!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests