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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2011 00:52

not being there is like nothing to show anything new. so.. they had nothing to show.

now those who participated always wanted to show. some really showed off!

last impressions can be lasting impressions. /this may be the last one to show off btw.

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sancho » 12 Feb 2011 01:19

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Sancho wrote:The Eurocanards are more costly, but also offers more techs that are on offer on the F18SH only as options, or not at all.


Such as?


- integrated IRST
- enhanced SA with 360° MAWS and LWR
- modern cockpit designs

You just need to look at the upgrade options Boeing now came up with and you see where it lacks behind.

Drishyaman wrote:Opps !! That Gripen in AeroIndia 2011 doesn't seem to be Gripen NG (IN). What is the reason SAAB has not sent Gripen NG ? The conclusion that people arrived not seeing the Mig – 35 in AeroIndia 2011 is that Mig has smelled they have lost the race for MCRA. Now what should we conclude that SAAB has smelled the same ?


I mentioned this in the Aero India thread as well and asked if it just there for static display, because Saabs PR before the start was, we send 3 Gripens to India, but even that one is not the NG. I guess they just played a bit with words, by leaving aside that the NG won't be part of the trio.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18667
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Karan M » 12 Feb 2011 01:26

SAABs PR apart, the Gripen is clearly not the aircraft for India, what with the conservative, and entirely achievable LCA Mk2 design shown. Best India goes for either the Hornet, the EF or the Rafale. Probably one of the latter two as the AF seems to have not liked the Hornet aero performance. (BSt article)

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 12 Feb 2011 01:54

Indian MMRCA tender RFP favours single engine aircraft
Defenseworld

As the life cycle costs of a single engine fighter are substantially lower than that of twin engine fighter, the former will have a clear edge over the latter in technical evaluation, said Orville Prinz, VP Business Development, India of Lockheed Martin.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Feb 2011 01:58

Sancho wrote:- integrated IRST
- enhanced SA with 360° MAWS and LWR


Rafale doesn't come with integrated IRST or MAWS either.

Sancho wrote:- modern cockpit designs


What exactly makes their cockpit designs more 'modern'?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nachiket » 12 Feb 2011 02:01

Karan M wrote:SAABs PR apart, the Gripen is clearly not the aircraft for India, what with the conservative, and entirely achievable LCA Mk2 design shown. Best India goes for either the Hornet, the EF or the Rafale. Probably one of the latter two as the AF seems to have not liked the Hornet aero performance. (BSt article)

The Gripen NG will still have more hardpoints and a greater payload than the Mk2. I don't see why one should cancel out the other. Besides, the MoF will have the last say in this matter, just like the refuelers tender and the Rafale and Typhoon might be nearly twice as expensive. That is why I'm putting my money on the Gripen.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 12 Feb 2011 03:34

Just thought I did put this nugget on the table:

DRDO, US working on 30 high-tech projects

Controversially, Saraswat also revealed DRDO was permitting American inspectors to examine equipment that was being imported from the US for use in DRDO projects. “We already have some agreements with them… what is called post-delivery inspection. Suppose they give some equipment, they can verify… they are at liberty to come and check whether we have used this equipment in the place that I have indicated in my order. It is something like the End User Monitoring Agreement.”


Granted that this is the DRDO and NOT the IAF. However, .......................

On another note, the title of the article is in fact very interesting.

GaganD
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Feb 2011 02:09

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GaganD » 12 Feb 2011 04:42

Uncle Sam likes keep an eye on everything you do. Rely on them too much is equal to self destruction.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 12 Feb 2011 06:03

strikernr wrote:Uncle Sam likes keep an eye on everything you do. Rely on them too much is equal to self destruction.


This thinking does not seem to have changed since 1996 (on BR at least)!!!

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Arya Sumantra » 12 Feb 2011 08:05

NRao wrote:
strikernr wrote:Uncle Sam likes keep an eye on everything you do. Rely on them too much is equal to self destruction.


This thinking does not seem to have changed since 1996 (on BR at least)!!!


Because they probably don’t need to. Has the country changed its meddlesome ways to deserve a fresh perspective? Who trusts an interfering monopolist? Faking ignorance is a way to appear open. Beyond an age, naivete is stupidity and its pretense, a treason.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 12 Feb 2011 08:49

Because they probably don’t need to. Has the country changed its meddlesome ways to deserve a fresh perspective? Who trusts an interfering monopolist? Faking ignorance is a way to appear open. Beyond an age, naivete is stupidity and its pretense, a treason.


Why does the other person have to change to make the equation work? Change in you can make it work too.

India is not a country of the 80s or even the 90s any more. She has enough power to enforce such a change - unless she displays an old weakness. IMHO India needs to shed that weakness. What is there to fear?

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2251
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VinodTK » 12 Feb 2011 09:39

NRao wrote:
strikernr wrote:Uncle Sam likes keep an eye on everything you do. Rely on them too much is equal to self destruction.


This thinking does not seem to have changed since 1996 (on BR at least)!!!


Good point NRao, agree with you completely.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 12 Feb 2011 10:10

MMRCA deal: EADS ups ante
Deccan Chronicle

European consortium believes in flaunting its political connections along with technological superiority to clinch the deal.

the pavilion of EADS at Aero India 2011 along with air force chiefs and diplomats, a move described by Yves Guillaume, Chief Executive Officer-EADS (India) as “show of unity” in support of Eurofighter Typhoon, one of the six contenders for the mega bucks acquisition. “We know it is always a combination of choice of technology and political decisions that guide such purchases, not only for Eurofighter but others”, he told Deccan Chronicle.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 12 Feb 2011 10:21

In Russia's defense, explaining Mig-35's absence (and the PAK-FA project)..

India flying back into Russia’s arms?
DNA NEWS

Globally, defence experts and critics are reading too much into the absence of MiG-35 at Aero India 2011 from which it pulled out just a week ahead of the commencement of the event on February 9.

But the Russian delegations visiting Aero India 2011 in Bangalore have confirmed that though their contender for the MMRCA deal, MiG-35, was the only one from the six contenders to have pulled out from the air show, the MMRCA selection committee members as well as defence experts were witness to a series of demonstrations by MiG-35 which also carried out extreme manoeuvres in Indian as well as Russian conditions. Sources said the aerial manoeuvres demonstrated also involved “some which would not have been allowed to be carried out at any of the air shows” and that the Indian side were “thoroughly impressed”.

According to Mikhail Pogosyan, general director of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), MiG-35 has already conducted modifications as per requirement of the Indian Air Force (IAF), and Russia is ready for technology transfer as per Indian wishes.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20172
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2011 20:38

One report in a mag along with the parameters of all contenders has the MIG-35 coming in at just $38.5m,half that of a Typhoon or Rafale,with the Gripen/F-16 about equal in the $45m range and the F-18 at $58m.Will check out the exact figs later on.Ashley tellis has also advised the IAF to buy the cheapest 4th-gen fighter,not waste money,spend it on the 5th-gen fighter as the arrival of the J-20 has changed the game.The future is going to see 5th-gen stealth fighters dominate the skies along with UAVs/UCAVs.Why waste money on acquiring 4th gen tech? Remember Putin's absence form the World Cup vote? Russia won! Wew might yet see a split decision,with European tech acquired form one of their birds,plus the MIG-35,cheapest to make up numbers.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 12 Feb 2011 21:11

Philip wrote:One report in a mag along with the parameters of all contenders has the MIG-35 coming in at just $38.5m,half that of a Typhoon or Rafale,with the Gripen/F-16 about equal in the $45m range and the F-18 at $58m.Will check out the exact figs later on.Ashley tellis has also advised the IAF to buy the cheapest 4th-gen fighter,not waste money,spend it on the 5th-gen fighter as the arrival of the J-20 has changed the game.The future is going to see 5th-gen stealth fighters dominate the skies along with UAVs/UCAVs.Why waste money on acquiring 4th gen tech? Remember Putin's absence form the World Cup vote? Russia won! Wew might yet see a split decision,with European tech acquired form one of their birds,plus the MIG-35,cheapest to make up numbers.

I must say, I fully agree with you. :)
Now, with "Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA" going into production shortly, it makes full sense.
Also, it seems, the decision for MRCA has been deffered by another 1 yr. By that time Mig - 35 will be evolved further.
When IAF Mig - 29 s were pitted against IAF Mirage 2000, Mig - 29 won that hands down.
The original requirement for MMRCA was for Mirage 2000 class fighter and Mig - 29 clearly is better than Mirage 2000.
One of the major draw backs of Mig - 29 has been its range this has been rectified in Mig - 29 upgs with fuel efficient engines and additional tanks. But, here I must say Mig - 35 's range is better than Mig - 29's.
As of reliability, Mig - 35 is 25 yrs younger to Mig - 29 so in last 25 yrs reliability of russian products has improved.
Case to support the above point is Su - 30 MKI.

Why don't we have a Mig - 35 MKI i.e. a Mig - 35 with western, Indian and Israeli equipments (avionics) ?
That will really be a cost effective solution.
In fact RD - 33 is already being license produced in India and Mig - 29s will be upgraded in India.
So, cost in setting up Manufacturing base in India for Manufacturing Mig - 35 can be reduced.
IN and IAF are already operating Mig 29s and Mig - 29K so cost of training manpower for flying Mig - 35 will be minimum.
Cost of setting up Maintenance depot for Mig - 35 will be less in India, as we already have Maintenance facility for Mig - 29 in India.
In addition, IAF will saved from cost incurred by having an additional class of fighter in India.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby palash_kol » 12 Feb 2011 22:22

Drishyaman wrote:Why don't we have a Mig - 35 MKI i.e. a Mig - 35 with western, Indian and Israeli equipments (avionics) ?


One simple question....Why do we need another MKI when we already have an MKI???
Su-30MKI is going to be upgraded further with better avionics (western, Indian and Israeli equipments etc as you say).

MRCA is not about Russian technology...Its about very modern technology(which Russia cant give us). Thats why we dont need Mig-35.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20172
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2011 22:28

This is the rational choice.However,the IAF instead opened Panndora's box with this contest! It has ended up into becoming the Indian version of the WWE's "Royal Rumble"! I had a long chat later on with a man in the def. loop.He says that we cannot as of now absorb the tech that is being transferred,referring to the Scorpene project.
This then beggars a Q mark about the TOT aspect.Will this too be a screwdriver job?I was given a few examples of some ("indigenous") systems which are "label changing" ops.where allegedly our desi outfit merely imports systems and resells them to the forces at highly inflated prices!
He also is sceptical of some US wares like Harpoon missiles which he says can be "shut off" by them at will,or provided to the Pakis just as Mrs.T. did with Exocet missiles in the Falklands War,where France gave-in to providing the Brits with the "keys" to neutralising them.

One reason why we want an MMRCA is because it has a singe pilot.The Flankers are phenomenal,unbeatable by any of the 5, but require a larger logistic/human resource army behind it.As for tech,which of the 5 is providing us in this deal any 5th-gen tech? None! Therefore,the most cost-effective of the lot should rationally be bought,but this govt. is anything but rational and Man Mubarak Singh has been reduced in recent times to the status of a deaf and dumb mute.!

PS:The MOD has clearly said tht thy do not want the JSF as we already have a deal with Russia for the FGFA.Therefore,what great TOT will we gain from this deal? I think tht here we should list out the key systems,tech that we wish for the AMCA and factor in which of the birds brings home the bacon.To note for one,the MIG-35 already flies with its own AESA radar as is well mentioned in the above post.

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RSoami » 12 Feb 2011 22:38

An even simpler question...
How come a twin engined Mig 35 is cheaper than both F 16 and Gripen which are single engined....Adding another engine seems to bring the price down!!! :eek:
Are we gonna pay later like we did for Gorshkov???

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby palash_kol » 12 Feb 2011 22:57

RSoami wrote:An even simpler question...
How come a twin engined Mig 35 is cheaper than both F 16 and Gripen which are single engined....Adding another engine seems to bring the price down!!! :eek:
Are we gonna pay later like we did for Gorshkov???


Nobody can guarantee that after the gorshkov saga happened. :roll:

Russian aircraft has always been cheaper than western aircraft. May be thats why mig-35 is cheaper. But per hour flying cost is way more than Grippen and F-16 at least since its a twin-engined aircraft. And also mig-35 life cycle cost is more that Grippen and F-16.

Only Grippen is the compact aircraft and has least life-cycle cost and per hour flying cost. But its not the best option when high-end technology is to considered.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Feb 2011 23:07

The MRCA circus is a circus (or Royal Rumble as PHilip garu points out) not only because of variety of a/c involved - all shapes and sizes, but also because of the variety in prices involved. How they intend to keep it fair at a "fixed" price of about $ 10-12 billion is a mystery.

Under the circumstances there are only a few possible options:

1) The budget of $ 10-12 billion for 126 a/c effectively keeps out 4 out of 6 contenders, the 35 and NG being the only ones that could fith this budget. The Gripen NG (based on Norway, Dutch prices and verified by Tellis) stands at about $ 85-90 million and should squeak into the above budget. The MiG-35 can be surmised to cost no more than $ 55-60 million and should easily make it into this budget.

2) The above budget is only for upfront unit costs - weapons, spares, options, support etc will be over and above this. This could allow the heavy western birds to play the game. Consider the brazillian, Austrian, Saudi, Australian deals involving any one/all of these birds - Shornet, Rafale, Tiffy, and it becomes clear that the actual cost would be well above the $ 15 billion mark, closer to the $ 20 billion mark.

3) The budget is not really $ 10-12 billion at all. :D

4) The GOI / IAF will actually split the order (despite ACM comments) as reported by many sources thereby getting perhaps $ 10 billion worth Tiffy/Shornet/Rafale, and $ 2 billion worth MiG-35s (40 odd units). This might not be unreasonable at all in that a) it still gets in the required numbers, b) it allows IAF to get a large amount of western hardware, c) it fits in the budget, d) it can ensure the speedy induction of about 2 sqds - in 3 years, e) The MiG-35 is v.similar to existing IAF and IN fleet allowing for ease in logistics, training etc.

Any other possibilities?

CM

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RSoami » 12 Feb 2011 23:12

Also quite possible -
1. They will split the order.
2. Still take 10 years to induct
3. Want cutting edge technology in MCA when it comes along in 10 years time.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Feb 2011 23:18

Doddel wrote:I made a follow up from my one of my last post on unit price and maintenance cost to compare the mmrca contenders.

Unit cost:
Rafale: ~US$84.48 million
EF: ~US$83.16 million
F-16IN: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F: US$58 million
Gripen NG(IN): US$48 million
MiG-35: US$38.5 million



Wrong way to look at it. THe support package, when taken into account allows the MiG-35 to be cheaper by a long margin. Take for ex:
Shornet costs - $ 160 million plus (Brazil and Australia).
Rafale costs - $ 150 million plus (FAB deal).
Tiffy costs (T1+) - $ 150 million (RSA)
F-16 E/F - $ 80 million plus weapons etc (UAE).
MiG-29K - $ 46 million (IN)
Gripen NG - $ 85 million (Netherlands, Norway).

What was that about the Gripen being twice as cheap as the others? Sorry.

The IN MiG-29K with support package comes to about $ 45 million, I think the 35 would be a little more - perhaps $ 55 million. The fulcrum also enjoys a very BIG advantage in terms of existing logistics, weapons commonality and familiarity with the IAF - all of which will cost a fortune when it comes to the other birds.

Maintenance cost per flight hour

Rafale: 19 000 USD
EF: 15 000 USD
F-16IN: 5 000 USD
F/A-18E/F: 18 000 USD (have seen figures of ~£85000 but that seems insane)
Gripen NG(IN): 2 500-5000 USD (3000 USD ackording to Swedish Air Force)
MiG-35: 18 000 USD


Where do yo get these figures for the Fulcrum. Last I checked it was much, much lower. Also, do not forget that when it comes to lifecycle cost calculations, include upgrade costs - as we all know Russian/Indian upgrades are dramatically cheaper than western ones so far.

CM.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 12 Feb 2011 23:29, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Feb 2011 23:27

nachiket wrote:
Karan M wrote:SAABs PR apart, the Gripen is clearly not the aircraft for India, what with the conservative, and entirely achievable LCA Mk2 design shown. Best India goes for either the Hornet, the EF or the Rafale. Probably one of the latter two as the AF seems to have not liked the Hornet aero performance. (BSt article)

The Gripen NG will still have more hardpoints and a greater payload than the Mk2. I don't see why one should cancel out the other. Besides, the MoF will have the last say in this matter, just like the refuelers tender and the Rafale and Typhoon might be nearly twice as expensive. That is why I'm putting my money on the Gripen.


There is very little difference in terms of what a Tejas Mk2 is expected to offer and the Gripen NG. The idea that the NG carries a LOT more is just spin. In effect it has an MTOW of 16500kg and an Empty of 7100kg, and an internal fuel figure of 3500kg - all figures suggesting that like the Mirage 2000, it won't carry more than ~ 6000 odd kg of ordinance unless internal fuel is seriously compromised. The Tejas Mk2 should not be too far from this figure, my guess is around 5000kg plus.

Surely, the Gripen NG's selection will effectively scuttle the Tejas's hopes. There is simply no need imho - unless of course the IAF has little confidence in the desi bird. And if there are genuine reasons to doubt the Tejas's performance, perhaps a Gripen buy is not a bad idea. And again, it is not exactly cheap - rather expensive for a single engined lightish fighter imho.

CM

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 13 Feb 2011 01:01

palash_kol wrote:One simple question....Why do we need another MKI when we already have an MKI???

What is wrong about having another MKI if that meets IAF’s requirements both technologically and financially ? Mig – 35 MKI would be a cost effective solution. If it performs like Su – 30 MKI, then that’s the best thing that could happen to IAF.
On the other hand Su 30 MKI is world class aircraft. Please refer to the below link as to know how much better it is than the F – 18 and F – 16.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 473452.cms

palash_kol wrote:MRCA is not about Russian technology...

Its not about any country’s Technology. You must agree here. Its about meeting IAF’s requirements in a cost effective manner with some amount TOT ( only GOD knows how much )

palash_kol wrote:Its about very modern technology(which Russia cant give us). Thats why we dont need Mig-35.

Modern Technology !! Modern Technology would be a 5 Gen Aircraft. MMCRA deal is just a stop gap solution for IAF and we are trying to get the best out of it by getting some amount of notional TOT. None of them can be categorized as true 4.5 Gen aircraft other than the Unkil’s teens as per the definition of 4.5 Gen aircraft, as 4.5 Gen aircraft mandates the presence of AESA Radar.

Rafale and Typhoon doesn’t have working AESA Radar in their production variants. Correct me if I am wrong.
Gripen is years away from that (Confirmed !!).
Mig – 35 is nearest to 4.5 Gen as it the closest to having an AESA Radar.

RSoami wrote:How come a twin engined Mig 35 is cheaper than both F 16 and Gripen which are single engined....Adding another engine seems to bring the price down!!!

Frankly, this question should go to Newbie thread. :)

RSoami wrote:Are we gonna pay later like we did for Gorshkov???


palash_kol wrote:Nobody can guarantee that after the gorshkov saga happened.

Gorshkov saga seems to be much publicized. Some simple mathematics ->
IAF Mig – 29 has already proved to be a better fight than IAF Mirage 2000. So, when it comes to upgrading both, following are the figures :

Mig – 29 upg : For 62 aircraft upgradation, the cost is $960 million (Rs 3840 crore), so unit cost of upgrading is $15.48 million per unit
Mirage 2000 upg : For 52 aircraft upgadation, the cost is $39 million per unit.

Which is a better deal ? Was there cost escalation for Mig – 29 upgradation ?
I can understand there could be different levels in an upgradation program. But, look at the difference in cost for the two programs.
So, please stop victimizing the Russkies.
Cost escalation in Gorshkov is after all not that much irrational considering the inflation in last 10 yrs.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 13 Feb 2011 01:29

Cain Marko wrote:
Doddel wrote:I made a follow up from my one of my last post on unit price and maintenance cost to compare the mmrca contenders.

Unit cost:
Rafale: ~US$84.48 million
EF: ~US$83.16 million
F-16IN: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F: US$58 million
Gripen NG(IN): US$48 million
MiG-35: US$38.5 million



Wrong way to look at it. THe support package, when taken into account allows the MiG-35 to be cheaper by a long margin. Take for ex:
Shornet costs - $ 160 million plus (Brazil and Australia).
Rafale costs - $ 150 million plus (FAB deal).
Tiffy costs (T1+) - $ 150 million (RSA)
F-16 E/F - $ 80 million plus weapons etc (UAE).
MiG-29K - $ 46 million (IN)
Gripen NG - $ 85 million (Netherlands, Norway).

What was that about the Gripen being twice as cheap as the others? Sorry.


That price for Gripen NG is old and obsolete, for the FAB-deal the Gripen is way lower than $85 million.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 13 Feb 2011 01:50

‘MMRCA a chance to acquire high tech

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengaluru/‘mmrca-chance-acquire-high-tech’-351

Deccan Chronicle
Last edited by shukla on 13 Feb 2011 04:52, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 13 Feb 2011 02:57

Why should IAF go in for Gripen NG (IN)? Firstly, it is half Americano ( Engine ). It costs a hell for a Single Engined fighter. Modern Technology?? It’s not even a 4.5 Gen Aircraft as it doesn’t have a working AESA.

Gripen NG (IN) is Swedish. Remember another Swedish “BOFORS”. Oops !! Somebody else brought it. “BOFORS” is no longer Swedish. What is the guarantee Gripen NG (IN) will remain Swedish? Its already half Unkil’s and other half Unkil will devour after ( a very big "if" ) it wins the deal for MMRCA.

By that time our own Tejas MK – II will arrive, which in a way will be better than Gripen NG (IN) as it is being designed from specification stage to meet IAF ‘s requirement whereas Gripen will be adapted to meet IAF’s requirement.

Gripen NG (IN) has been designed to work in cold climate whereas Tejas is designed to work in Hot and Humid climate.

Tejas MK - II will have more composite than Gripen NG (IN). So, in this parameter Tejas MK - II is more hi-tech than Gripen NG (IN). :rotfl:

So if Gripen NG (IN) is selected as MMCRA it will join IAF in parallel with Tejas MK – II. Tejas MK – II as evident from the design specifications will match that of Gripen tooth and nail.
Gripen NG (IN)’s RCS is more than that of Tejas MK – II as is evident as Gripen NG (IN) has got Canards and also the size of Gripen NG (IN) is more than Tejas.
Gripen NG (IN) at Maximum Take-off weight would be 2000 kg to 3000 kg heavier than our Tejas MK – II. So, a compromise has to be made on range, speed and agility in comparison to Tejas MK – II.

Somebody was mentioning Gripen NG (IN) can take off from Highways, in case all the air fields are bombed. Now who in India will take such a strategic decision of buying Gripen NG (IN) just because it can take from Highways. Are Indian Highways as good as those in Europe. (My CT100 doesn’t take off from our roads ) :mrgreen:

Gripen NG (IN) is comparatively light aircraft so it can land or take off from Swedish Highways (Somebody might say Gripen has been designed for that and Tejas has not been designed for that ... blah blah). In an emergency I am pretty much sure our Tejas MK – II will be able to take off and land in Mumbai – Pune Express way, if need arises as it is a light fighter.

When will the first MMRCA arrive it the deal is signed ? Sometimes in 2015. Does it make sense to buy Gripen NG (IN) when Tejas MK – II will be around ? Why put $85 million per unit in Swedish pocket when a comparable Tejas MK – II will be around for $45 million per unit.
And that too money spend on Tejas, maximum amount of that will remain in India.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Singha » 13 Feb 2011 07:18

if they want to keep the budget around $12b, we will perhaps get no more than around 80 of the twin engine types - 5 squadrons @ 16 planes each. I dont think splitting the order makes any sense given we are not buying multiple hundreds.

even if Tejas come in around $50 mil each which is likely, there is no getting around the fact in a decade's time we will have a need for 300 units at "low end" to cover Mig27/Jag/Bisons going away and just to maintain force numbers (the Mig21FLs will go away much sooner). Bisons alone are 120 units.

Mirage and Mig29 between them come to around the number of MRCA we plan to buy.

the AMCA and FPGA will be icing on the cake and our "high end" birds after 2020.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby raj-ji » 13 Feb 2011 08:10

Drishyaman wrote:Why should IAF go in for Gripen NG (IN)? Firstly, it is half Americano ( Engine ). It costs a hell for a Single Engined fighter. Modern Technology?? It’s not even a 4.5 Gen Aircraft as it doesn’t have a working AESA.

Gripen NG (IN) is Swedish. Remember another Swedish “BOFORS”. Oops !! Somebody else brought it. “BOFORS” is no longer Swedish. What is the guarantee Gripen NG (IN) will remain Swedish? Its already half Unkil’s and other half Unkil will devour after ( a very big "if" ) it wins the deal for MMRCA.

By that time our own Tejas MK – II will arrive, which in a way will be better than Gripen NG (IN) as it is being designed from specification stage to meet IAF ‘s requirement whereas Gripen will be adapted to meet IAF’s requirement.

Gripen NG (IN) has been designed to work in cold climate whereas Tejas is designed to work in Hot and Humid climate.

Tejas MK - II will have more composite than Gripen NG (IN). So, in this parameter Tejas MK - II is more hi-tech than Gripen NG (IN). :rotfl:

So if Gripen NG (IN) is selected as MMCRA it will join IAF in parallel with Tejas MK – II. Tejas MK – II as evident from the design specifications will match that of Gripen tooth and nail.
Gripen NG (IN)’s RCS is more than that of Tejas MK – II as is evident as Gripen NG (IN) has got Canards and also the size of Gripen NG (IN) is more than Tejas.
Gripen NG (IN) at Maximum Take-off weight would be 2000 kg to 3000 kg heavier than our Tejas MK – II. So, a compromise has to be made on range, speed and agility in comparison to Tejas MK – II.

Somebody was mentioning Gripen NG (IN) can take off from Highways, in case all the air fields are bombed. Now who in India will take such a strategic decision of buying Gripen NG (IN) just because it can take from Highways. Are Indian Highways as good as those in Europe. (My CT100 doesn’t take off from our roads ) :mrgreen:

Gripen NG (IN) is comparatively light aircraft so it can land or take off from Swedish Highways (Somebody might say Gripen has been designed for that and Tejas has not been designed for that ... blah blah). In an emergency I am pretty much sure our Tejas MK – II will be able to take off and land in Mumbai – Pune Express way, if need arises as it is a light fighter.

When will the first MMRCA arrive it the deal is signed ? Sometimes in 2015. Does it make sense to buy Gripen NG (IN) when Tejas MK – II will be around ? Why put $85 million per unit in Swedish pocket when a comparable Tejas MK – II will be around for $45 million per unit.
And that too money spend on Tejas, maximum amount of that will remain in India.



Perhaps the IAF and the GOI are not as confident that the Tejas MKII will be ready and up to their specifications by 2015. Recent history would say that they would be correct to be concerned. As for the Unkils engine on the Gripen, if that is a concern then it shouldn't be in the Tejas as well, but that's not the case.

The similarities of the Tejas and the Gripen can be seen by some as a weakness, to others it is a strength. If the Gripen is chosen, the tech. in the Gripen program can assist the Tejas program and vice versa. Having two aircrafts sharing a common engine offers obvious logistical benefits to the IAF. I have no doubt that the Tejas will be a potent fighter but it can't be compared to a Gripen at the moment.

My choice is the Rafale, and I would love to see it in IAF colours. But the Gripen with it's low operating cost, offer of full TOT, offer to share the source code, hot refuelling, short take off and landing ability and common engine with the Tejas should not be dismissed so quickly. IMO it is a serious contender. If the Gripen is chosen, it would be great to see a Gripen MKI down the road.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 13 Feb 2011 08:29

Gripen...is tejas killer, and now with the current scene and tejas FOC coming, TEJAS is Gripen killer. just count it out, however great and cost effective it can be.
I'll anyday go back to mig 35, if nothing made sense, and if made sense i'll go for EF.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 13 Feb 2011 08:46

Drishyaman wrote:
palash_kol wrote:One simple question....Why do we need another MKI when we already have an MKI???

What is wrong about having another MKI if that meets IAF’s requirements both technologically and financially ? Mig – 35 MKI would be a cost effective solution. If it performs like Su – 30 MKI, then that’s the best thing that could happen to IAF.
On the other hand Su 30 MKI is world class aircraft. Please refer to the below link as to know how much better it is than the F – 18 and F – 16.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 473452.cms

palash_kol wrote:MRCA is not about Russian technology...

Its not about any country’s Technology. You must agree here. Its about meeting IAF’s requirements in a cost effective manner with some amount TOT ( only GOD knows how much )

palash_kol wrote:Its about very modern technology(which Russia cant give us). Thats why we dont need Mig-35.

Modern Technology !! Modern Technology would be a 5 Gen Aircraft. MMCRA deal is just a stop gap solution for IAF and we are trying to get the best out of it by getting some amount of notional TOT. None of them can be categorized as true 4.5 Gen aircraft other than the Unkil’s teens as per the definition of 4.5 Gen aircraft, as 4.5 Gen aircraft mandates the presence of AESA Radar.

Rafale and Typhoon doesn’t have working AESA Radar in their production variants. Correct me if I am wrong.
Gripen is years away from that (Confirmed !!).
Mig – 35 is nearest to 4.5 Gen as it the closest to having an AESA Radar.

RSoami wrote:How come a twin engined Mig 35 is cheaper than both F 16 and Gripen which are single engined....Adding another engine seems to bring the price down!!!

Frankly, this question should go to Newbie thread. :)

RSoami wrote:Are we gonna pay later like we did for Gorshkov???


palash_kol wrote:Nobody can guarantee that after the gorshkov saga happened.

Gorshkov saga seems to be much publicized. Some simple mathematics ->
IAF Mig – 29 has already proved to be a better fight than IAF Mirage 2000. So, when it comes to upgrading both, following are the figures :

Mig – 29 upg : For 62 aircraft upgradation, the cost is $960 million (Rs 3840 crore), so unit cost of upgrading is $15.48 million per unit
Mirage 2000 upg : For 52 aircraft upgadation, the cost is $39 million per unit.

Which is a better deal ? Was there cost escalation for Mig – 29 upgradation ?
I can understand there could be different levels in an upgradation program. But, look at the difference in cost for the two programs.
So, please stop victimizing the Russkies.
Cost escalation in Gorshkov is after all not that much irrational considering the inflation in last 10 yrs.


will the life of aircraft increase as much as new aircrafts ? if No, then what is the point of upgrading ?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 13 Feb 2011 08:54

Singha wrote:if they want to keep the budget around $12b, we will perhaps get no more than around 80 of the twin engine types - 5 squadrons @ 16 planes each. I dont think splitting the order makes any sense given we are not buying multiple hundreds.

even if Tejas come in around $50 mil each which is likely, there is no getting around the fact in a decade's time we will have a need for 300 units at "low end" to cover Mig27/Jag/Bisons going away and just to maintain force numbers (the Mig21FLs will go away much sooner). Bisons alone are 120 units.

Mirage and Mig29 between them come to around the number of MRCA we plan to buy.

the AMCA and FPGA will be icing on the cake and our "high end" birds after 2020.


Isn't we are buying MRCA to replace Mig-27s (140+) which was designated for Ground Attack.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Dmurphy » 13 Feb 2011 09:13

^^^ :-? No. Not really.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 13 Feb 2011 09:58

raj-ji wrote:Perhaps the IAF and the GOI are not as confident that the Tejas MKII will be ready and up to their specifications by 2015. Recent history would say that they would be correct to be concerned.

There are Naysayers and Optimists always in this world. The choice is yours, on which side you want to be. There has been Naysayers for Arjun MBT, I don’t see them around now.

raj-ji wrote:As for the Unkils engine on the Gripen, if that is a concern then it shouldn't be in the Tejas as well, but that's not the case.

So, you are talking about increasing risks and I am in support of risk aversion. Remember the recent fiasco with “ELTA EL/M-2052”. Unkil throttled that deal. You still want to keep most of your eggs in Unkil’s basket.

raj-ji wrote:If the Gripen is chosen, the tech. in the Gripen program can assist the Tejas program and vice versa.

Vice versa would be more applicable now, we can teach the Swedish how to increase the usage of composites in fighter aircraft and keep the weight and RCS minimum. :mrgreen:

raj-ji wrote:Having two aircrafts sharing a common engine offers obvious logistical benefits to the IAF.

Same logic would be more applicable for Mig – 35, as Logistics support is readily available for Mig – 29 s.

raj-ji wrote:I have no doubt that the Tejas will be a potent fighter but it can't be compared to a Gripen at the moment.

Sir ji, who is talking about at the moment. Gripen if chosen will not come before 2015. So, I was talking about the year 2015 when Tejas MK - II will be arround.

raj-ji wrote:offer of full TOT, offer to share the source code

Full TOT ? Which technologies are you referring to that we need and we don’t have?

raj-ji wrote:short take off and landing ability

And you assume Tejas MK – II won’t be having such cutting edge technology. :D

raj-ji wrote:If the Gripen is chosen, it would be great to see a Gripen MKI down the road.

At $ 85 million it won’t be that great but if Gripen is available a $ 40 million a piece, it would be great.

kmc_chacko wrote:will the life of aircraft increase as much as new aircrafts ? if No, then what is the point of upgrading ?

Huh !! at $15.48 million you want the life of a new aircraft ? Average life of any new aircraft is 20 – 25 yrs. After 25 yrs any aircraft will need upgradation otherwise it will not remain relevant. At $15.48 million IAF is getting a midlife re-fitment with engine change (upgradation), contemporary radar (Zhuk ME), upgraded avionics and life extension of air frame by another 15-20 yrs. Otherwise, you simply need to retire the 62 Mig – 29 s and 52 Mirage – 2000 s. So, you think there is no point in upgrading. Why ?
Let me know your plan B for Mig – 29 s and Mirage – 2000 s in IAF’ s inventory.

Opps !! at $15 million a piece you will get a zandu fighter JF - 17. Interested ? :mrgreen:

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 13 Feb 2011 10:27

Self Deleted.
Last edited by sumshyam on 13 Feb 2011 10:28, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 13 Feb 2011 10:27

I think, The deal should be divided between two vendors. That should increase the rate induction and we also may get alternate technologies.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 13 Feb 2011 10:31

then !!!

Tejas was to replace Mig-21s ? or we changed that stand ?

IAF wanted around 126 Mirage-2000 to make up the depleting forces and to make up the minimum required strength.

for now by January of 2013 IAF inventory will be for
Su-30 MKI – 200+ (by Jan 2011 – 140+ and 15 each for 2 year and 40 directly from Russia), Mig-29s- 60+ , Mirage – 51, Mig-21bis – 120+, Jaguar – 150+, Mig-27s – 140+, Tejas Mk1 – 30+ Total : 750+ combat aircrafts approx 42 sq of 18 each plane. Induction of MRCA will make up the force level to 45 sq and for replacing older versions of Mig-21, 27 & Jaguars.

where as Mig-21s/Tejas-Mk1 to be replaced by Tejas Mk2 - 200 aircrafts, Mig-27 & Jaguar will be replaced by FGFA/PAKFA - 250 aircrafts and Mig 29 & Mirage will be by AMCA around 150+ making force of 4 type of Aircraft by 2030 and by 2050 it will be two type fighters ALCA & AMCA

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2011 10:38

Henrik wrote:[That price for Gripen NG is old and obsolete, for the FAB-deal the Gripen is way lower than $85 million.


Seriously? Any decent source, with a description of what is included at given price? IIRC the $ 85 mil figure was bandied about in the official dutch/norway eval and that was a few years ago. I understand obsolete, but it is hard to believe that a fighter gets cheaper with time, ordinarily it is the other war around - hardware just keeps getting more pricey!

CM

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 13 Feb 2011 10:57

Drishyaman wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote:will the life of aircraft increase as much as new aircrafts ? if No, then what is the point of upgrading ?

Huh !! at $15.48 million you want the life of a new aircraft ? Average life of any new aircraft is 20 – 25 yrs. After 25 yrs any aircraft will need upgradation otherwise it will not remain relevant. At $15.48 million IAF is getting a midlife re-fitment with engine change (upgradation), contemporary radar (Zhuk ME), upgraded avionics and life extension of air frame by another 15-20 yrs. Otherwise, you simply need to retire the 62 Mig – 29 s and 52 Mirage – 2000 s. So, you think there is no point in upgrading. Why ?
Let me know your plan B for Mig – 29 s and Mirage – 2000 s in IAF’ s inventory.

Opps !! at $15 million a piece you will get a zandu fighter JF - 17. Interested ? :mrgreen:



JF-17 is a very capable plane you cannot underestimate it. the only problem is, it is copied from Russians, tested by Chinese and assembled by Pakistanis. and :idea: if they can change its Engine, Radar, EW suites, Computer, Missiles, Landing Gear and Ejection seat then it will be a decent 4th Gen fighter.

and you want IAF to fly that ? I will prefer to fly Tejas Mk1 instead of that. They should have named AF instead of JF i.e., Assembled Fighter instead of Joint Fighter :lol: :lol:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests