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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Juggi G » 17 Feb 2011 07:22

Unraveling the ‘Super Viper’

>> Expert Speaks >
By Air Marshal (Retd) V.K. Bhatia
Former IAF Western Commander


Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2011 08:26

Here, after paying for everything take a look at who holds the rights as the customer and who is a mere operator.


what is wrong with that? It has not even left LM facilities, where it was being built!! That is a picture of an unfinished plane!!

GOTUS is the customer and IAF is the operator (as opposed to other air crafts that may have other operators) - AT THAT point in time!!

On tall claims: 123? There are plenty of other examples.

____________________________________________________________________

BR seems to have declined rather badly since the old days!!

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby merlin » 17 Feb 2011 11:12

NRao wrote:
Here, after paying for everything take a look at who holds the rights as the customer and who is a mere operator.


what is wrong with that? It has not even left LM facilities, where it was being built!! That is a picture of an unfinished plane!!

GOTUS is the customer and IAF is the operator (as opposed to other air crafts that may have other operators) - AT THAT point in time!!

On tall claims: 123? There are plenty of other examples.

____________________________________________________________________

BR seems to have declined rather badly since the old days!!


Old foggies always say that when people don't agree with their views or question them :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3875
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kit » 17 Feb 2011 11:32

Arya Sumantra wrote:
Raveen wrote:Sir, kindly stop trolling and realize the cold war is over and the world is sold to the highest bidder now, no true friends just the same old enemies and desi mismanagement

Yes, yes go ahead and get stuff from whoever offers the best terms but at least learn what options can be treated at par before getting into features and superiority. Letting foreign intel loose on your bases in the name of “monitoring” and treating a lease as equal to ownership of a gear that too which can be turned into tupperware anytime, is stupidity passing off as open-mindedness.

Here, after paying for everything take a look at who holds the rights as the customer and who is a mere operator.
Image

Indranil Roy wrote: I wish objective thinking prevails over prejudice.

There is no prejudice. We have been unable to get what we want from the said country in terms conditions & ToT, inspite of tall claims of our new found power like below
NRao wrote:India is not a country of the 80s or even the 90s any more. She has enough power to enforce such a change



Recommended reading :
The Arms Trade Revealed, a guide for investigators and activists : http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/handbook/cover.html


A guide to FMS : http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HLSNXKH4

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Multatuli » 17 Feb 2011 14:01

Some have expressed concern about the future of the Euro Fighter, I believe these concerns to be legitimate. There is no great enthusiasm in Germany or Britain for defence spending, (actually this the case across much of Europe: the Europeans fully expect the Americans to take care of their security, while the Europeans themselves spend on education, health care, decent and affordable housing for their citizens, etc., and I can't blame the Europeans, why should they spend money on weapons when there is no real external threat?), and my gut feeling is that the Europeans may decide to dump the Euro Fighter altogether in the near future. We need guarantees that Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy will support the EF for at least the next 30 years. Should the Europeans decide to quit the EF before a set date, say 2040, then then there has to be an obligation on them to transfer all the technology and production facilities for free to India (we don't have to pay them for IP rights, it's all ours from then on) so that India can continue to operate/manufacture/upgrade the EF without any outside interference.

The is a lot of blahblah from the the Americans on how they expect India to "pay them for the civil nuclear agreement". This is blatant nonsense, we don't owe the Americans anything for that agreement: they only rectified, and partially at that, a past crime they committed against India. The Indo-US strategic partnership is of course also a load of crap: the US continues to invest and source from China, when they could equally well invest in India.

And then there is this insistance of the US that they should "monitor" any defence products they sell to India. Are they fu#king out of their minds!! They seem to think that India is a bigger version of Porkistan: we too will allow them free access to our military bases whenever the Americunts get it into their fat heads to "audit" us. Only a country without any self respect would go along with such humiliating conditions.

Doddel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 16:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Doddel » 17 Feb 2011 14:39

srai wrote:If EF is chosen, these could be purchased and updated to IAF standards and that way another 3 squadrons could be raised quickly to address shortfall in numbers within the next 5 years.


Please tell me.... why would India buy 3 squadrons of obsolete (or soon to be) a/c? The plane is too expensive to upgrade. Also... the article is saying that the Brits will scrap them. Also the a/c is very expensive both to buy and to operate.

Viv S wrote:This is Tranche 1 EF's that unlike the T2 and T3 are have design limitations preventing them from a full upgrade to T3 standards. And the scrapping is still being contemplated - its not been sanctioned.
It says it needs fewer pilots because it has reduced its fleet of fighter aircraft through the axing of 66 Harrier jets. It is also likely to shrink the Tornado fleet by half, to 60. The number of Eurofighter Typhoons will remain at 160 once all the aircraft have been built.


Of course it is contemplated... It is a prestige project... (that went wrong more or less). At least the T1 went wrong, that is proven now.

So it is cheaper to buy 50 new EF's (to reach 160) than upgrading 50 older (new!! 3 y old) T1...? EF's T1 is not built for upgrading. How can we be so sure that T2 & T3 are so much better. Do you have a source on that?

Are the other buyers of EF happy? Austria only have T1 and there planes will soon be obsolete and needs replacement. Do you think that the austrians were told this when they ordered EF? Seems like the austrians were scammed big time. Can we be sure that the Indians won't be?

The EF-project sure has some problems.

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Multatuli » 17 Feb 2011 15:24

The point has been made that the American technology (radar, other sensors, software, etc.) is at least 10 years ahead of Russia and Europe. But I remember reading that the IAF C-130J will not be fitted with some of the hi-tech gadgets, unless India agrees with American supervision of these aircraft. So, all the talk of Boeing, that they are ready to sell this and that gadget to India is meaningless, unless India agrees with invasive American "auditing".

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 17 Feb 2011 19:36

Juggi G wrote:Unraveling the ‘Super Viper’

>> Expert Speaks >
By Air Marshal (Retd) V.K. Bhatia
Former IAF Western Commander


Image


Maybe F-16IN is a superior plane. Maybe it is a better plane. This may also apply to F/A-18. But pray tell me one thing, what will prevent America from handing over the keys to defeat F-16IN to pakistan. None. And this question has been raised because in the past the americans have handed over to pakistan sensitive info regarding IA, IN and IAF. Also in the time of dire need they might just shut down the plane altogether by denying us some critical spare parts or via some trojan.

There is another aspect which we should not over look. F-16 is being flown by the pakis too. There is nothing preventing US from upgrading the existing Paki F-16 to F-16IN caliber or better, all in the name of maintaining the balance or keeping the peace. This would result in some 126 fighters of IAF loosing their edge in a fight over PAF. It is claimed that when US supplied PAF with F-16 it made them non-nuclear capable. However to the surprise of many the pakis were able to convert them to nuclear capability. Whether they received help from Americans in this endeavor is not known. Or whether they received help from a US client country, with a US nod-wink is also not known.

F-16IN and F/A-18 should not be considered. There are better fighters, capability wise and cost wise in the fray.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2011 19:54

Hi Merlin,

Looooong time.

Multatuli,

India was accommodated in the nuclear arena. I am not sure if people recognize what a huge shift that was/is (granted we could still debate a few items).

The news on the street was that the US would - very quietly - come up with a new set of "agreements" to accommodate Indian concerns. I had posted an Indian news items, which to me at least, indicates that such an accommodation has begun, albeit at a very, very, very low level. Will such accommodation migrate to higher levels? I cannot say. But I am very, very hopeful. I feel (and have for some 10+ years) that India is in the drivers seat - the sad part is that Indians are not.

On the MMRCA it self (this thread) - I am not sure what the problem is. MMRCA HAS to go by the RFP. And ALL vendors have stated that they can comply. From what I can see, the battle is on at a FAR higher level - what can each vendor provide WAY beyond the RFP. The two items brought up by COAS and the comments by Tellis are geared to put more pressure on the US - IF (some within) the US wants the deal. COAS' comments alone shows the clout India has today.

Please listen to the Sounder (sp?) Rajan vid from AE11. He talks very briefly - but is very clear - on ToT and what is needed in today's world to design new platforms. What is there to worry? It is just a matter of knowing the stupid games everyone plays and play the right cards. granted easier said.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2011 20:02

But pray tell me one thing, what will prevent America from handing over the keys to defeat F-16IN to pakistan.


Nothing.

We can sit an debate/discuss (as we have done for 10 years now - about what Russia is doing, what France will do, etc, etc, etc) or India/ns can act.

Just BTW, a few years ago, India got to know what Pasha (head of ISI) and Karzai talked. Not with Indian technologies (at that point in time).

At national levels, it is a matter of interests.

It was a matter of Russian interest to supply an engine for a Chinese plane, for Pakistani use. Plain and simple - national interest.

The US/Russia/China/Pakistan/India always make decisions based on national interests.

So, the question really is what will India do, IF the US does what you say they may/could do. (If and when the US does do what you feel they will do, the US has already figured out what India will do, so has Pakistan in accepting the offer.)

Got to run.

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 17 Feb 2011 21:33

Christopher Sidor wrote:Maybe F-16IN is a superior plane. Maybe it is a better plane. This may also apply to F/A-18. But pray tell me one thing, what will prevent America from handing over the keys to defeat F-16IN to pakistan. None. And this question has been raised because in the past the americans have handed over to pakistan sensitive info regarding IA, IN and IAF. Also in the time of dire need they might just shut down the plane altogether by denying us some critical spare parts or via some trojan.

There is another aspect which we should not over look. F-16 is being flown by the pakis too. There is nothing preventing US from upgrading the existing Paki F-16 to F-16IN caliber or better, all in the name of maintaining the balance or keeping the peace. This would result in some 126 fighters of IAF loosing their edge in a fight over PAF. It is claimed that when US supplied PAF with F-16 it made them non-nuclear capable. However to the surprise of many the pakis were able to convert them to nuclear capability. Whether they received help from Americans in this endeavor is not known. Or whether they received help from a US client country, with a US nod-wink is also not known.

F-16IN and F/A-18 should not be considered. There are better fighters, capability wise and cost wise in the fray.


Christpher,

Though this will be completely OT, but has a purpose.

I'm sure you would know the following:
1. US now fully understands what a mess Pakistan is not only to them but the entire world.
2. In this part of the world, if US is not with India, then within a decade or so, they will never sail in these waters again (read China).
3. US is taking the first 'steps' towards normalizing the fragile and always suspicious relationship with India (armed forces exercises, nuclear deal(+ NSG waiver), any Indian PM's first & a very warm visit to Saudi land (US push), closeness to Japan/South Korea[another main players in this sphere], support for UN permanent seat (+ allies which they will make sure) etc etc etc.

You would also note that:
1. Inspite of been like brother countries US & UK greatly differ when it comes to EADS & Boeing, its kind of like a never ending fight.
2. Inspite of the great friendship between Israel & US, every now and then they have public disputes, US arms twist Israel and they listen as they are the biggest aid getter.
3. In-case of India, we somehow are unique. We have the top human capital known all across the globe, we have the best relationship with Russia (our traditional partner), we are paranoic about an independent foreign policy, we are progressing not with FDI (like China) but pure consumerism and domestic industry (a carrot for US companies), and by 2040 we will have almost negligible or minute GDP difference with the top2. Not to forget, 2nd largest army, 4th biggest AF, a true blue water Navy (bridging the technological gap is just a factor of money and time).

So, pls understand and take pride in been an Indian and the power we will be exercising in the coming decades. Your apprehensions were correct if we were living in 1980's, not now, and never in the future. :)

PS: A true relationship is the one, where the relationship is mutual, always there is a give-and-take. I'm sure, a 'friend' whom you can only help all the time, would have just become a long distance 'known person' within some years!

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sancho » 17 Feb 2011 21:35

Doddel wrote:If the fighter is cheap to buy and support it will be possible to aquire more of them and thus lower the gap in payload etc. The cheaper aircrafts can also be loaded with less weapons per aircraft and thus reduce weight, drag and RCS and still deliver the same amount (or more) of weapons on the mission. They will also have more "lives".


See, that's what I meant with mathematical comparison, because you equate everything with costs and that's not gonna work!

Lets say 2 Gripen costs as much as 1 EF and will be able to do the same missions, with the same payload..., you also need 2 pilots and twice the ground crew, because you have to maintain them at the same time. That means, while the costs per unit and per hour are similar, the workload to operate more fighters, will increase dramatically, which in return increases the overall costs again.
Another example, 2 Gripens in BVR loaded with 2 missiles only, will not be neccesarily better than 1 EF with 4 missiles, simply because your calculation says nothing about the capabilities of each fighter. The EF has the way bigger radar and longer detection ranges, 2 fighters means twice the RCS, so twice the chance to be detected (EF has only 2 more missiles which obviously have a smaller RCS than a 2nd Gripen).
As you can see, costs are one part, capabilities another, you can't simply equate them on a mathematical basis and get to an overall conclusion like this.

I didn't said you shouldn't compare the costs, but that there are more things that has to be included, then just the fly away costs and the costs per hour, to understand if the costs are worth it.
For example, Gripen is cheaper than the Rafale, but the latter offers an operational carrier version, which means we could procure higher numbers and reduce the unit costs again, as well as commonality to Mirage 2000 and IAF has already the neccesary logistics to operate and maintain them (again reduction of costs). Gripen instead, is a completely new fighter for IAF, that means you have to add costs for more training of pilots and ground crews, new logistics and maintenance too. Add the fact that Rafale will be available earlier and you have the advantage of fast and easy induction into IAF!
I could go on with better ToT and offset packages..., but I think the point is clear now. We don't search for the cheapest fighter (that will be LCA anyway), but for the fighter that offers the most in return!


Doddel wrote:The cost pre flight hour of Gripen is not $8000. It's much less. $8000 comes is an approximation by the Norweigan Air Force. They based this number on there earlier experience of the F-16 fighter!!!
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f35 ... an-defense

I can not see the source of the other two numbers ($10000 and $12300) from the article. They sounds really low. Do you have a source for these number?


Sorry, here is the original, but yo have to translate it:

http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/o-r ... -dos-cacas


The cost of the Gripen that Saab is stating is based on the older Gripen, which in all terms was a light fighter, just like LCA. But the Gripen E/F will be a completely new fighter compared to the older versions, new radar and engine (not just upgrades of the older), IRST, new avionics..., all these things costs more and needs more maintenance of course too. So base their costs on the older hardly makes sense and not even Saab knows what the costs really will be, which is obvious when you see the different figures they gave out themself. For India first $3000 per h, now $4000 , for Brazil $4000, then increased to $5000, but from the Brazilian eveluation it is reported to be $8000. The real prototype will be launched only this year, so what they mainly do is estimating, but not based on real experience with this version, but as you said on older specs and specs GE for example provided of the engine (based on F18SH service)...
There is no doubt that it will be cheaper, but not at the same level as earlier Gripens!

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 17 Feb 2011 21:39

Christopher Sidor wrote:But pray tell me one thing, what will prevent America from handing over the keys to defeat F-16IN to pakistan.


There are no such 'keys'.

They could talk about strengths and weaknesses, but the Pakis already know about those, as do most serious fighter enthusiasts.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sancho » 17 Feb 2011 21:51

srai wrote:If EF is chosen, these could be purchased and updated to IAF standards and that way another 3 squadrons could be raised quickly to address shortfall in numbers within the next 5 years.


What's the use of 50 x expensive purly A2A capable fighters? Even our upgraded Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 will be more multi role capable, let alone MKI.
For countries like Swiss, that wants fighters for air policing only, this might be interesting, but not for India.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Raveen » 17 Feb 2011 22:08

NRao wrote:

BR seems to have declined rather badly since the old days!!

Agreed!

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gaur » 17 Feb 2011 22:08

Sancho wrote:
srai wrote:If EF is chosen, these could be purchased and updated to IAF standards and that way another 3 squadrons could be raised quickly to address shortfall in numbers within the next 5 years.


What's the use of 50 x expensive purly A2A capable fighters? Even our upgraded Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 will be more multi role capable, let alone MKI.
For countries like Swiss, that wants fighters for air policing only, this might be interesting, but not for India.

Purely A2A platform? Does no one even bother to browse wiki anymore before posting? :roll:
Last edited by Gaur on 17 Feb 2011 22:48, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 17 Feb 2011 22:45

Jamie Boscardin wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Maybe F-16IN is a superior plane. Maybe it is a better plane. This may also apply to F/A-18. But pray tell me one thing, what will prevent America from handing over the keys to defeat F-16IN to pakistan. None. And this question has been raised because in the past the americans have handed over to pakistan sensitive info regarding IA, IN and IAF. Also in the time of dire need they might just shut down the plane altogether by denying us some critical spare parts or via some trojan.

There is another aspect which we should not over look. F-16 is being flown by the pakis too. There is nothing preventing US from upgrading the existing Paki F-16 to F-16IN caliber or better, all in the name of maintaining the balance or keeping the peace. This would result in some 126 fighters of IAF loosing their edge in a fight over PAF. It is claimed that when US supplied PAF with F-16 it made them non-nuclear capable. However to the surprise of many the pakis were able to convert them to nuclear capability. Whether they received help from Americans in this endeavor is not known. Or whether they received help from a US client country, with a US nod-wink is also not known.

F-16IN and F/A-18 should not be considered. There are better fighters, capability wise and cost wise in the fray.


Christpher,

.....
So, pls understand and take pride in been an Indian and the power we will be exercising in the coming decades. Your apprehensions were correct if we were living in 1980's, not now, and never in the future. :)

PS: A true relationship is the one, where the relationship is mutual, always there is a give-and-take. I'm sure, a 'friend' whom you can only help all the time, would have just become a long distance 'known person' within some years!


No matter how close one's friend is, one never ever hands over the house key or the locker keys to him or her. It is called prudence. In 1980s america was actively trying to undermine us, if not directly then indirectly. And there is a chance that in the future america will do so again. America or west or china will never let Pakistan go under. It is the only country which sits some 500-600 km from the Indian Capital. It is the only country via which a territorial invasion of northwestern and central india can happen. Pakistan was created by the west with two purposes in mind, one to safeguard the oil fields of south-western asia and the other to keep India in check. This is one of the reason, that dismemberment of East-Pakistan was ignored, but when the existence of Pakistan was called into question, they prevented it by sending the 7th fleet into the Bay of Bengal and by coordinating with the Chinese.

Today if China is a threat to the West/US, then more than a decade in the future India will also be a threat to US/West.

This is not a thread on Indo-US strategic relationship or Indias Interest relationship, but we should not assume that India's and US's interest are the same. They are not. And I am not saying that Russia or Europe Or Japan will not try to do the same to us if the situation were different. The point I am making is that American birds are not worth it. Not after US history. We ignore our history at our own peril.

And regarding the nuclear deal, we have paid enough for it already. We have put 18 of our reactors under safe-guards. Reactors which we built while under American sanctions. That is too heavy a price to pay. We should have instead offered, that all the future or proposed reactors built with international cooperation would only be put under safe-guards provided a fuel guarantee is there. And I am not including the vote against Iran as one of the cost of the nuclear deal.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 18 Feb 2011 02:33

Sancho wrote:The cost of the Gripen that Saab is stating is based on the older Gripen, which in all terms was a light fighter, just like LCA. But the Gripen E/F will be a completely new fighter compared to the older versions, new radar and engine (not just upgrades of the older), IRST, new avionics..., all these things costs more and needs more maintenance of course too. So base their costs on the older hardly makes sense and not even Saab knows what the costs really will be, which is obvious when you see the different figures they gave out themself. For India first $3000 per h, now $4000 , for Brazil $4000, then increased to $5000, but from the Brazilian eveluation it is reported to be $8000. The real prototype will be launched only this year, so what they mainly do is estimating, but not based on real experience with this version, but as you said on older specs and specs GE for example provided of the engine (based on F18SH service)...
There is no doubt that it will be cheaper, but not at the same level as earlier Gripens!


Why would the NG be much more expensive to maintain? The F414 is more fuel efficiant compared to the RM-12, an AESA radar requires less maintenance, the whole thinking behind the aircraft has evolved over the years through experience with the earlier Gripen fighters. The maintenance hours and cost have gone down with every upgrade since the first batch of Gripen A. One of the main parameters the SwAF has is that this should continue. I will agree that it will be more expensive to operate than the C/D, but certainly not in a dramatic way and it will not even be near the cost of it's competition.

Of course the NG will be more advanced on the inside, but why exactly would it be that much more expensive to operate (except that you can fill up the aircraft with more fuel of course)?

How much in common do the Indian Mirages' have with the Rafale by the way?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 18 Feb 2011 03:08

Doddel wrote:
Of course it is contemplated... It is a prestige project... (that went wrong more or less). At least the T1 went wrong, that is proven now.


The T1 was intended to be operated as a ADV type aircraft. Nothing 'went wrong' per se.

So it is cheaper to buy 50 new EF's (to reach 160) than upgrading 50 older (new!! 3 y old) T1...? EF's T1 is not built for upgrading. How can we be so sure that T2 & T3 are so much better. Do you have a source on that?


No it means the T1 will probably be retained and the force structure will stay at 160. The cuts will take place in the Tornado and Harrier fleets. And yes the T2 and T3 have no limitations as far as upgrades go.

Are the other buyers of EF happy? Austria only have T1 and there planes will soon be obsolete and needs replacement. Do you think that the austrians were told this when they ordered EF? Seems like the austrians were scammed big time. Can we be sure that the Indians won't be?


Yes other buyers are happy and yes, Austria knew the present and future configuration of the aircraft they were receiving. If they wanted a true multi-role aircraft they'd have waited and ordered the T2 instead. And even the critics of the EF wouldn't call the T1 'obsolete'.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sancho » 18 Feb 2011 03:19

Gaur wrote:Purely A2A platform? Does no one even bother to browse wiki anymore before posting? :roll:

They are, the very limited capabilities that UK added later (most of the T2s don't even have integrated a targeting pod), don't even exceed what our M2Ks can now, let alone what they can after the upgrade. People are complaining about the money those M2K upgrades costs, so why should we pay even more to get even less?


Henrik wrote:
Why would the NG be much more expensive to maintain? The F414 is more fuel efficiant compared to the RM-12, an AESA radar requires less maintenance, the whole thinking behind the aircraft has evolved over the years through experience with the earlier Gripen fighters. The maintenance hours and cost have gone down with every upgrade since the first batch of Gripen A. One of the main parameters the SwAF has is that this should continue. I will agree that it will be more expensive to operate than the C/D, but certainly not in a dramatic way and it will not even be near the cost of it's competition.

Of course the NG will be more advanced on the inside, but why exactly would it be that much more expensive to operate (except that you can fill up the aircraft with more fuel of course)?

How much in common do the Indian Mirages' have with the Rafale by the way?


As I said, more capabilities increases the costs, most of what NG, or E/F offers is not present in the older versions and yes, normally AESA means less maintenance, because you need less mechanical, but that is not the case for the Swashplate design right?

Nearly the complete weapon package, several avionics and systems that ar integrated in the 2000-5/-9 came out of the Rafale development. The only other fighter in MMRCA that offers this advantage is obviously the Mig.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby arnab » 18 Feb 2011 04:18

US doubts over India jet fighter partner


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97fee18c-3aca ... z1EGEmXsH0


“The potential for HAL to successfully partner with US firms on a truly advanced aircraft remains untested and suspect,” Timothy Roemer, US ambassador to Delhi, wrote in a confidential cable released by WikiLeaks and seen by the FT.

After a visit to the company’s plant in Bangalore in February 2010, he described India’s aviation industry as “two to three decades behind the United States and other western nations” despite advances.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4560
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby srai » 18 Feb 2011 04:24

Doddel wrote:
srai wrote:If EF is chosen, these could be purchased and updated to IAF standards and that way another 3 squadrons could be raised quickly to address shortfall in numbers within the next 5 years.


Please tell me.... why would India buy 3 squadrons of obsolete (or soon to be) a/c? ...

...

:D ... It would be interesting to hear your definition of what "obsolete" means?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2011 04:25

Then the ambassador either flaunted his unkill brain or the leak should embolden euro teams to step up campaign on all the goodies and sells. If both Boeing and Raytheon doesn't respond to this leak, then it could be that the ambassador was misquoted, and highly possible with ddm-ites.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Viv S » 18 Feb 2011 04:59

Sancho wrote:They are, the very limited capabilities that UK added later (most of the T2s don't even have integrated a targeting pod), don't even exceed what our M2Ks can now, let alone what they can after the upgrade. People are complaining about the money those M2K upgrades costs, so why should we pay even more to get even less?


The T2 can use the Litening pod. More importantly the IAF's aircraft will be able to employ the Litening pod, PGMs, the Brimstone and eventually the Nirbhay.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 18 Feb 2011 13:01

Sancho wrote:As I said, more capabilities increases the costs, most of what NG, or E/F offers is not present in the older versions and yes, normally AESA means less maintenance, because you need less mechanical, but that is not the case for the Swashplate design right?

The AESA is on a swashplate yes, but it's only turning in two directions, left or right. It's not a mechanically steered radar on a gimbal like the old ones, hence less maintenance, not more. There's also no logic in why new electronics should require much more maintenance than the old ones.

No, I really don't think the NG will be much more expensive to maintain.

Nearly the complete weapon package, several avionics and systems that ar integrated in the 2000-5/-9 came out of the Rafale development. The only other fighter in MMRCA that offers this advantage is obviously the Mig.


But you still need to train pilots and ground-crew for the Rafale and all new systems it contains compared to the Indian Mirages'. Also the maintenance crew will have to be trained for the Rafale.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 18 Feb 2011 13:08

Viv S wrote:Yes other buyers are happy and yes, Austria knew the present and future configuration of the aircraft they were receiving. If they wanted a true multi-role aircraft they'd have waited and ordered the T2 instead. And even the critics of the EF wouldn't call the T1 'obsolete'.

As far as I know the Austrians are deeply regretting their EF buy. What I've heard, the Germans "made an offer the Austrians couldn't refuse" by saying: "If you don't buy EF, Mercedes will close down it's factories in Austria". It explains why Austria in the last minute (with very short negotiations with Germany) suddenly turned around and picked old EFs.

Doddel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 16:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Doddel » 18 Feb 2011 14:58

Sancho wrote:Lets say 2 Gripen costs as much as 1 EF and will be able to do the same missions, with the same payload..., you also need 2 pilots and twice the ground crew, because you have to maintain them at the same time. That means, while the costs per unit and per hour are similar, the workload to operate more fighters, will increase dramatically, which in return increases the overall costs again.

Please... please be more specific and show me some numbers and sources. Gripen outclasses all comparable planes in support and operating cost and is famous because it needs far less ground crew, so according to you the difference in cost between the two fighters will be even greater. It is true that more pilots will be needed but the pilots 127-260 will be easier/cheaper to educate because the training structure will already be in place and india then already have 126 pilots that can be used as teachers. Can you be more specific of the other hidden costs of operating a larger number of fighters?

After the first 126 a/c have been introduced the later ones (127+) will be cheaper because of the same reasons you are writing about - commonality and all support structure is already in place. But the effect will be much greater because obviously a gripen has more in common with a gripen than a rafale has with a mirage. Also as you say: more a/c means India could procure higher numbers and reduce the unit costs again. So this also speaks for the Gripen.

Sancho wrote:Another example, 2 Gripens in BVR loaded with 2 missiles only, will not be neccesarily better than 1 EF with 4 missiles, simply because your calculation says nothing about the capabilities of each fighter. The EF has the way bigger radar and longer detection ranges, 2 fighters means twice the RCS, so twice the chance to be detected (EF has only 2 more missiles which obviously have a smaller RCS than a 2nd Gripen).


You cannot add RCS that way and I don't have time to explain. That is simply wrong.

How do you know that the radar is so much better? Source please...

Interresting that you brought this up.Two gripens have the advantage of the worlds best data link. This means that the two (or more) gripens will share all data between them. The gripens can be very far away from each other and it is only possible to jam the datalink by placing a jammer between the two gripens. The data link will make it possible for the radars to work collectively as a "super radar". This gives at lot of tactical advantages and options (I guess there are more advantages):

- One Gripen jam the EF radar while the other is tracking - both gripens will have a full radar picture while the EF will be blind.
- Both Gripens have there radars in in passive mode and is tracking the EF:s radar. Two gripens is enuogh to by triangulation calculate speed and position of the EF.
- The two radars can be operated in different modes to increase detection possibility and increase resistance to jamming.
- One gripen stay at long range (out of range of missiles) while the other is closing (preferably from another direction) with the radar in passive mode (sneaking). Both gripens will have a full radar picture. After the closest gripen has fired its missiles it can turn away to escape while the other gripen is providing the missiles with tracking info. The missiles (meteor) tracker will be switched on when it is too late for the EF to react.


Also... The EF has too hit 2 targets with 4 missiles. Gripen only has to hit 1 target.

Also... It is not only important to win every engagement. I high sortie rate (quick turn around and few hours of support per flight hour) is just as important and Gripen excels here also. What use is a high TWR on the ground?
The easiest way of defeating a air force is by bombing the run ways not defeating them in the air. Gripen is almost impossible to fully destroy on the ground because they will be using road bases. The competitors a/c is very sensitive and not built for the reality of war in the same way.

Another plus is that the Gripen is very independent of AWACS.

Sancho wrote:Sorry, here is the original, but yo have to translate it:

http://blogln.ning.com/forum/topics/o-r ... -dos-cacas

For India first $3000 per h, now $4000 , for Brazil $4000, then increased to $5000, but from the Brazilian eveluation it is reported to be $8000.
[/quote]

Your source is some kind of blogg... I already told you. If you read your own source it says that the $8000 number is not from the Brazilian evaluation - it is from the Norweigan eval and they based this number on the F-16. It is not a number based in the gripen. I have already provided you with the source. $8000 is the flight cost per hour of the norweigan F-16. Gripen is much cheaper than $8000 to operate.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3875
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kit » 18 Feb 2011 15:56

The recent wiki leak on the american ambassador Mr.Roemer is rather indicative of the US thought process.Will they walk the talk if the deal goes to them ? And is that why Boeing is selective on how it collaborates preferring not to have any subsidiaries in India ? and dealing on a 'case to case' basis.How much TOTing or whatever is likely to happen this way ? the entire offset obligation of this massive deal wont happen this way for sure.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby JTull » 18 Feb 2011 17:13

Good point kit.

1. In all recent imports, if US was the not the winner there invariably was a new RFP/tender. e.g., Tanker

2. If the contract was won by US then there were lots of lifafa news of what's wrong with the contract, how it is not giving India the best stuff, etc. e.g., C-130J, P-8I, etc.

3. Add to it the news when US companies claimed that the offset requirements are impractical as Indian companies weren't good enough and cannot absorb the hi-tech. e.g., LM tried this very hard when MMRCA RPFs were asked to be updated with new prices last year

4. There were also case with joint-ventures/consultancy work. US wouldn't let anyone else to win the contract (as above) and then walk out on the deal due to their inability to get US Gov nod to allow the contract to be executed (dual-use tech concerns). e.g., LCA/F-16 FBW control law code, GE Kaveri consultancy.

5. Do not let third parties to execute deals with India on some pretext. e.g., Sea King mid life upgrades, GE Gas turbines commissioning for IN

6. Even when we buy and receive the items, they frequently turn out to be of junk quality. e.g., Artillary radars after Kargil, Helios on Jalashwa

7. Where they have a (near) monopoly on equipment then they refuse to sell it. That is, until we have alternate sources or develop it internally. There are tons of examples of this. But little known one is that the DPSRV for IN subs were offered and then not sold when we showed interest. When IN went to a Canadian (or was it Norwegian?) manufacturer, they were offered on a fee basis - as and when needed. So IN never got the capability but ended up paying for it.

It is my firm belief that US would only take the contract on it's own terms and will go out of way to delay the acquicision to the detriment of our defensive readiness. If we don't bend backwards to get the contract changed to their tune then they just walk out, causing years of delay. When we find it elsewhere they will slag it as being bad. If we build it ourselves then lifafa news appears as how a 3rd world country is wasting resources and not feeding it's people while it can easily acquire it from ouside.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2011 17:26

Well let us put it simple, that MRCA is not a gov-gov deal through FMS route. And, why do even talk about ToT, if they are not even considered by IAF? MoD can't over rule IAF blatantly, and that is what the chief indirectly says in his previous media appearance on going to courts issue.

MoD is going to be the issue rather than the diplomat leak in this case. MMS is being held by strong noodles that is totally desensitized his nerves.

maganlal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 07:25

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby maganlal » 18 Feb 2011 18:41

I full heartedly agree with JTull. US has all the power to delay the MMRCA project if granted to them but I worry, if it is not granted to them, they could still try to delay it or sabotage others deals we have with them.

That's is why regardless of capabilities/technology being superior, MIG-35 is the safest bet for us.

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmkraoind » 18 Feb 2011 20:01

HAL dismisses doubts about ability to work on advanced fighter programmes

HAL’s N.C. Agarwal, director Design and Development at HAL’s design complex in Bangalore, said: “If the Americans really thought in this fashion, it is self-contradictory to find them in the fray for the MMRCA deal. There need be no doubt about HAL’s ability to work with any partner. After all, the Sukhoi-30 licensed production programme (with the Russians) is for an aircraft as advanced or more in terms of its structure and aerodynamics, in comparison to the F-18 Hornet.


HAL directors seems to be giving a veil hint that F-18 has been selected.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Juggi G » 18 Feb 2011 20:55

Image


2304 x 3072, 2.8 MB
Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2011 20:58

..and that is exactly the mind bending strategy the khans apply on aam minds. remember they have to create some impact to get well known. it happens in civilian marketing space as well, for example KFC when it opened its first franchise in BLR, and nobody to care about it. They hired a bunch of rowdies and ransacked the place.. and then the place became a hit!

leak it out, then get us to speak for them, and now make appear to the minds, that nothing can be done without unkill's wands.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 18 Feb 2011 21:28

JTull wrote:Good point kit.


It seems like it doesn't matter how many times a certain item is debunked, it never dies because it fits certain people's 'narrative' of how the world works.

Boeing has never been particularly interested in the Indian tanker competition (having not bid twice now) and certainly didn't cause it to be cancelled the first time.

The equipment not included with the C-130J was known beforehand and not particularly relevant to India anyways.

There's nothing wrong with the P-8I.

The GE gas turbines had a paperwork issue that was quickly resolved.

The helos on Trenton/Jalashwa were just a throw-in as part of that deal and everyone knew exactly what they were.

JTull wrote:Where they have a (near) monopoly on equipment then they refuse to sell it.


Just like the C-17.

JTull wrote:It is my firm belief that US would only take the contract on it's own terms and will go out of way to delay the acquicision to the detriment of our defensive readiness.


Which of course ignores all the very timely deliveries like C-130J and C-17.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2011 22:14

Part of FMS policy if there is no new inventory available for delivery within schedule, then supply the same from existing used inventory, and later be replaced with the new one or support as new for any issues., is what I have read. Now, on that policy where is the chance of American supplies not delivering in time?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2011 22:28

Now, on that policy where is the chance of American supplies not delivering in time?


The US Mil (check out dla.mil) has a very mature supply chain system (needs improvement). (The other do not have it because they do not have the same need as the US.)

IAF will be assigned a code within such a system and they should have direct access - as have NATO and others.

The issue with the US is not technical - it is political.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby JTull » 18 Feb 2011 22:29

GeorgeWelch wrote:It seems like it doesn't matter how many times a certain item is debunked, it never dies because it fits certain people's 'narrative' of how the world works.

Did I offend you in anyway? Why the third person remark then? If you wish to get personal, please be direct.

Boeing has never been particularly interested in the Indian tanker competition (having not bid twice now) and certainly didn't cause it to be cancelled the first time.

It is the underhand dealing (or the hidden agenda) of US that I'm alluding to. I don't know what Boeing is interested in or is not. But I know that on 12th Jan 10, Airbus tanker contract was reported to be cancelled and on 18th Jan 2010, Boeing was reported to have received a RFP. Lot of people made the connection on BRF.

The equipment not included with the C-130J was known beforehand and not particularly relevant to India anyways.

There's nothing wrong with the P-8I.

That didn't stop them from publishing umpteen stories in the press on how many hi-tech items will be missing if India didn't sign CISMOA. BTW do you have any inside source on why P-8I is not in the same boat. Sample Link "The agreement, the US argues, would be useful for India as it is acquiring American military systems like the P-8i long-range maritime surveillance aircraft and C-130J 'Super Hercules' planes."

The GE gas turbines had a paperwork issue that was quickly resolved.

Not a paperwork issue, but a political decision to review all military ties. Sample Link "GE has told MDL that there could be up to three months delay, while the new US administration reviews its military relations with several countries....GE has not responded to an email, asking for details of this delay. The US State Department has also ignored a request for information. A spokesperson of the US Embassy in New Delhi has sidestepped the question, replying by email that, “The State Department has not instructed GE in the conduct of this direct commercial sale. Aspects of this sale were subject to export licensing, which is conducted through the State Department.” When asked to comment specifically on blanket orders from the State Department to GE regarding commercial defence dealings with India, the US Embassy did not respond."

The helos on Trenton/Jalashwa were just a throw-in as part of that deal and everyone knew exactly what they were.

They were not a throw-in. $39 million were paid for them. And they were for exactly 6 pre-owned Sea Kings (not exmpty air). Otherwise, why would Sikorsky be so concerned by the negative press. Sample Link "This offer hopes to counter the negative feedback with regard to alleged "sub standard quality" of the USS Trenton".


JTull wrote:Where they have a (near) monopoly on equipment then they refuse to sell it.

Just like the C-17.

They don't have any monopoly here, as has been dicussed to death on BRF. There are other aircraft available. If we want to look at them or not is a different matter. Perhaps because of the present govt that seems to be blinded in the glory of stars and stripes.

JTull wrote:It is my firm belief that US would only take the contract on it's own terms and will go out of way to delay the acquicision to the detriment of our defensive readiness.

Which of course ignores all the very timely deliveries like C-130J and C-17.

Which delivery of C-17? And let's not sing praise of C-130J delivery until we start needing maintenance support. When the Hawks came we were all very happy until we found the spares were sub standard. That's the reason I pointed to the Artillary fire detection radars and Sea Kings.

R Charan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 22:24
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby R Charan » 18 Feb 2011 23:04

The MMRCA deal is already known as the world's biggest defence import deal. Now it is about to get even bigger than that. The Indian Air Force is in the market to buy 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) from one of six foreign vendors bidding for the contract.

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=349

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2011 23:25

defencenews wrote:The MMRCA deal is already known as the world's biggest defence import deal. Now it is about to get even bigger than that. The Indian Air Force is in the market to buy 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) from one of six foreign vendors bidding for the contract.

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=349



You need to get us FAR newer news than such old stuff.

BR: Where tomorrow comes today!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests