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.
jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby jai » 20 Feb 2011 13:58

Vishnu wrote:
As I see it ... MMRCA comes in where the LCA programme has failed to deliver so far (for whatever the reasons may be) .. In other words, it is our MiG-21 replacement. Whats more it will replace the MiG-23BN, the MiG-23 MF, the MiG-27, the Jaguar and ultimately the upgraded MiG-29 and upgraded Mirage 2000.

If any of you were Air Chief, would you be happy with a scenario where your young 21 year old fighter jock eventually graduates from the IJT to a 100 million dollar Rafale or Eurofighter ? Shouldnt there be a process of transition for pilots coming in ?

I dont think any of the single engine fighters compromise on an acceptable level of capability (the manufacturers will argue that they are the most capable despite their cheaper costs) ...

We may be a nation with increasing access to financial resources ... but I think there is a danger in our Air Force selecting the best and most expensive when, in the context of a particular purchase its just not necessary ...

My 100 million dollar bit ... cheers, Vishnu


Vishnu,

I would disagree...on the following counts -

I do not for one think it would replace all the aircraft you mention - but even if it were to, and considering the time frame it needs to operate in - till 2035 or 2045...you need the best available today which offers the potential of upgrades to keep it current till 2045..it does not matter if a plane is current and battle proven in yesteryears' wars - as technological advances will change the landscape very quickly so upgrade potential would be critical...

For new pilots training, there are many other world class options today available..the IJT, Hawks, simulators and old fashioned twin seat trainers of "type".....this is a proven method globally and not one that should or would worry the Air Chief...but rather what would his boys face in the air from the dragon in 2016 or 2020- and if his "boys" will come back home victorious or be shot out of the skies because they were flying - a by then obsolete L1 plane that met the minimum criteria set in 2008/2009.

The Air Chief would be/should be more likely thinking of which plane amongst the current 6 would he not like his boys to face in Chinese colors - as except perhaps the US planes - every other plane can land up in Chinese hands if we have not bought them - so the decision IMO is simple, decide which one you do not want the Chinese throwing against us and order that - even if that means splitting the order between Rafale and EF.

With the complete technology transfers being offered by both, within a decade we should be in a comfortable position to fund further upgrades using any technology we want on our own.

My word...EF / Rafale or both is the best alternative for IAF.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 20 Feb 2011 18:56

Okay here it is my argument on the time frame. Take every MRCA contender here and compare with RFI/RFP knowledge you have about IAF's requirements. None of them are actually ready, including F16IN and super hornet in fly away condition.

So, why blame only on Indian manufacturers alone where schedule slips happens all over the world. Many a schedule slip caused in India is not entirely on DRDO's fault. Babooze to funds is a problem that everyone hides, and fails to project which can put the nation on a 100% pure la.la banana land.

Gripen NG is not ready, Mig35 is not ready, SH for India is not ready, Tranche 3 is not ready, AESA of Rafale is not ready, and none of these were weapons were really used in a war if IAF wants that as a criteria.

It is shameful of us to keep on hiding our faults that needs to be projected and that is entirely because it may bring out an unwanted names to the fore, and the gullible inner nature of our larger section.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 20 Feb 2011 18:58

With Typhoon, India gets tech, freedom to act
Deccan Chronicle

Excerpts from an interview.

The Typhoon is the ‘youngest’ aircraft in the MMRCA competition. The flip side is that it’s still a work-in-progress… If you buy an F-16, you know what you are getting — a 1970’s product. If you go for the Typhoon, it’s been in service for six years with the Eurofighter air forces, you are getting the best platform available today, and the opportunity to upgrade it.

What do we gain in politico-strategic terms from buying European?

The Typhoon purchase will promote a couple of things. One, India’s stated ambition to develop an indigenous defence capability, in particular in this area because the Eurofighter consortium, with the full support of the governments of Germany, UK, Italy and Spain, will deliver the technology transfer commitments and the know-how, not just the source code and the paperwork. We won’t find ourselves caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare, which perhaps will happen in the case of another country, in terms of the ability to transfer technology, which will allow India a degree of sovereignty which it would not otherwise have.

With the US, you are still in CISMOA discussions, and other technology cooperation discussions that are yet to be resolved. Moreover, India has already bought the P-8I, the C-130J, it’s buying the C-17, how many more deals do the Americans want? :rotfl: The law of diminishing returns begins to kick in somewhere. For us, India will be buying 126 Typhoons. Money talks. India will be a key partner going forward and it will develop the aircraft according to its own needs.

Eurofighter nations build military capability in the belief that they will go to war only in coalitions, not alone. Is there a conceptual issue here with regard to the Typhoon, because India has to fight its wars alone?

What we will do is to provide India the capability to develop the aircraft to its own requirements. So, if that means that India thinks it is going to go to war on its own with its neighbours or other nations, under our obligations in the deal, we will work with India to develop the aircraft in the way that it needs. And we will also ensure that if there’s any degree of interdependence, India will have access to the support and capability that it needs to ensure its legitimate national security interests, whatever they are.

Is there US technology in the Typhoon, and will it be difficult getting unrestricted access to it?

It’s not impossible on occasion. But, in principle, if India buys the Typhoon, the relationship with India is such that whilst there may be a problem from time to time, any technology transfer which requires US approvals will come through.

I mean, BAE Systems has 45,000 employees in America, we are the fifth biggest supplier to the Pentagon. So, the US absolutely knows where its interest lies, and I have no doubt whatsoever, provided we behave responsibly, the US will step up and do the right thing.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2420
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VinodTK » 20 Feb 2011 19:18

The Big Deal nears the finish
Corruption has always been the big bugbear, but the MMRCA process has, so far, been admirably unaffected. The IAF and the MoD have, in fact, gone out of the way to ensure that the process is clean and transparent.

Trouble, however, could come from elsewhere. For one, as the air chief himself said, a losing contender could put a spoke in the wheel — such corporate sniping has forced the MoD to re-tender or even cancel procurements in the past. Or, the finance ministry could well play spoilsport, as it did with the refueling tanker deal recently.

No matter who puts the spoke in the wheel, ultimately it is the country’s security that will be put at risk unless the IAF can begin to induct the aircraft by 2015-2016. Beyond that date, the MMRCA will either have to be scrapped or the aircraft will become a costly, even unnecessary, acquisition.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4237
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kit » 20 Feb 2011 19:29

VinodTK wrote:The Big Deal nears the finish
Corruption has always been the big bugbear, but the MMRCA process has, so far, been admirably unaffected. The IAF and the MoD have, in fact, gone out of the way to ensure that the process is clean and transparent.

Trouble, however, could come from elsewhere. For one, as the air chief himself said, a losing contender could put a spoke in the wheel — such corporate sniping has forced the MoD to re-tender or even cancel procurements in the past. Or, the finance ministry could well play spoilsport, as it did with the refueling tanker deal recently.

No matter who puts the spoke in the wheel, ultimately it is the country’s security that will be put at risk unless the IAF can begin to induct the aircraft by 2015-2016. Beyond that date, the MMRCA will either have to be scrapped or the aircraft will become a costly, even unnecessary, acquisition.


Now that is the question.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 20 Feb 2011 19:45

With the kind of delay happening in deciding MMRCA for IAF, deciding which one to pick up is becoming a complex decision with time. Now the buzz is that the decision has been deferred to 2012. So, if anyone of them is chosen, they will only be coming in by 2015 (earliest).
And also by 2015, our Tejas MK – II will be in production by then. Tejas MK – II will be comparable to Gripen NG (IN).
So, when we will be making a comparable SDRE aircraft at half the cost, will it be sensible enough for us to buy a foreign aircraft at $85 million a piece?
Why by then we need to gift the Swedish $ 12 billions?
Why can’t we rather invest the amount in India and increase the production line of Tejas MK – II?

So, the conclusion is, the further the decision for MMCRA is delayed, chances for Gripen getting selected is becoming bleak?

And if by 2015, Gripen is selected, we will have have a “my one is bigger” kind of debate as we are having the one between Arjun and Tin Can now.

Indaruta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Indaruta » 20 Feb 2011 22:01

Hi.this is my first post ..please bear if this seems irrelevant .Since every one seems to concur that the Rafale and Typhoon will get shot listed as the finalists.The F18 SH changed its air intakes from a OVAL one to square intake to reduce the RCS signature , the Rafale still has a oval intake, does it imply the Rafale places more emphasis on EW than stealth. What does the IAF doctrine lay stress on EW or stealth to achieve penetration?

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2420
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VinodTK » 20 Feb 2011 22:56

Any time, when you buy weapons from other countries they come with strings attached, dose not matter who the seller is. Going through the thread it looks like the vast majority of the members seem to think going with US could be risky because of sanctions, and going with Typhoon or Rafael will be a safe and will be sanctions free. Maybe all of you are right, some how I do not feel safe regardless as to who the seller is. The following article makes me think about the Germans, even though it is talking about hand guns.
Gunned Down
Efforts by Indian states to equip their police forces with modern weapons have hit a roadblock. Germany and Austria have refused to give export licences to their weapon manufacturers wanting to sell to certain Indian states which they believe have a poor human rights record.

The above statement coming from a country that butchered millions of people, is beyond laughable.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby vic » 20 Feb 2011 23:15

I think that current comments that "political considerations" will not play a part and L1 will get the deal. I think that Hornet will win on the basis of life time cost plus effectiveness criteria. Though my favorite is Rafale. France will really need to massively lower their price to get the deal, me think that US is ahead

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 20 Feb 2011 23:29

VinodTK wrote:Any time, when you buy weapons from other countries they come with strings attached, dose not matter who the seller is. Going through the thread it looks like the vast majority of the members seem to think going with US could be risky because of sanctions, and going with Typhoon or Rafael will be a safe and will be sanctions free. Maybe all of you are right, some how I do not feel safe regardless as to who the seller is. The following article makes me think about the Germans, even though it is talking about hand guns.
Gunned Down
Efforts by Indian states to equip their police forces with modern weapons have hit a roadblock. Germany and Austria have refused to give export licences to their weapon manufacturers wanting to sell to certain Indian states which they believe have a poor human rights record.

The above statement coming from a country that butchered millions of people, is beyond laughable.


Simply black list them and stop all kinds of business dealing with both nations. Those EU countries needs Indian market for their revival & survival. Germany is hard pressing for selling goods like EF & Subs, when they can't even supply guns then how can classified informations and assure us of full ToT for a major arm deals.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby tejas » 21 Feb 2011 02:01

What is truly laughable is a "superpower" that has to beg two bit Eoiropean countries like Austria for handguns. Even more laughable is being biatch slapped with a no in response!

This in a nutshell exemplifies what a failure the socialist approach to weapons manufacture is in India. How can a nuclear power not be self sufficient in hand guns? Now I wait for forum members to describe how hard it is to make modern handguns just as it is to make modern artilliery ( wonder how Singapore, Israel, South Africa, Serbia and the Czech republic do it?).

No worries. If Austria and Germany deny us small arms I am sure Bulgaria, Romania or Albania would likely oblige. :evil:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby srai » 21 Feb 2011 02:18

Vishnu wrote:...
As I see it ... FGFA is our frontline ... we have invested 30 billion dollars on it ...

Sukhoi 30 is our bedrock ... our present state of the art ... and with upgrades to its radar and engine .. it will remain relevant for a long period of time ...

As I see it ... MMRCA comes in where the LCA programme has failed to deliver so far (for whatever the reasons may be) .. In other words, it is our MiG-21 replacement. Whats more it will replace the MiG-23BN, the MiG-23 MF, the MiG-27, the Jaguar and ultimately the upgraded MiG-29 and upgraded Mirage 2000.

...

... cheers, Vishnu


I had done some IAF squadron projection (2022) calculations earlier using the BR's Aircraft Fleet Strength as baseline. Here it is again:

Retiring squadrons by 2022:
  • 5 x MiG-21 M/MF
  • 2 x MiG-21Bis
  • 6 x MiG-21 Bison
  • 3.5 x MiG-27 ML
  • 2 x MiG-27 UPG
Total (retiring 2022): 18.5 squadrons

Current Squadrons (2010) still in place by 2022:
  • 3 x MiG-29UPG
  • 3 x Mirage 2000UPG
  • 6 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
  • 5 x Jaguar IS
  • 1 x Jaguar IM
Total (remaining 2022): 18 squadrons
Note: All listed here, except MKI, will be retiring between 2022 and 2030.

Planned Squadrons in place by 2022:
  • 2 x LCA Mk.1
  • 5 x LCA Mk.2
  • 9 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
  • 7 x MRCA
  • 2 x PAK-FA/FGFA
Total (induction 2022): 25 squadrons

This means in 2022:
Total (remaining + induction): 18 + 25 = 43 squadrons in 2022

From 2022 to 2030, there will be 12 squadrons (3 x MiG-29UPG, 3 x Mirage 2000UPG, 5 x Jaguar IS, 1 x Jaguar IM) being retired (as shown above). The production lines for the LCA, MRCA, and FGFA will be available during that period. AMCA will come online in the later half of this (between 2025 and 2030).

In the last two decades, IAF has not inducted new aircraft types in sufficient quantity to cover the upcoming retirements. So it is no longer a question of which new type is replacing which retiring aircraft type anymore. As the above projections show, it will be a mix of new aircraft types that will that replace a mix of retiring aircraft types. It is not one-to-one per se. With the 126 (+60 options) MRCA induction, IAF will get a proven modern (4++ gen) aircraft type for 7 to 10 squadrons, and with a local production line, it will help mitigate risks of possible delays in the R&D of LCA Mk.1/2, FGFA, and AMCA. If there are delays with LCA, FGFA and AMCA programs, IAF can order more MRCA.

Note: +3 years for margin of error on the above projections.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Rahul M » 21 Feb 2011 02:35

Victor wrote:If the LCA was available in numbers, the MMRCA tamasha would never have taken place. I recall that the search was started only after the LCA failed to appear when needed.

The LCA project was funded starting from 1993 and the MRCA search in the form of 125 mirage-2000 started in 2000. are you telling me that ADA/HAL was supposed to develop a 4th gen fighter from scratch in 7 years flat ??? :eek:

even dassault with its half a century of experience required 17 years. LCA has reached IOC in 17 years as well, this in spite of the 2 year delay due to sanctions and the absence of the requisite R&D base.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Feb 2011 04:10

Boreas wrote:That's not best of advices i heard from you!
I think the reason "acquiring fighters in hurry" was superseded by the reason "to acquire new technology (read western) that could be applied in homegrown programs and to gain political ground" and above all the reason "to maintain a quality-wise superiority on PLAAF"[/b]

Boss, that is why there is the Pakfa and AMCA. What more technology will the MRCA provide? The FGFA is far ahead technologically, period. The greatest reason for the MRCA was always as an "interim" solution i.e. a quick stopgap measure to counter falling numbers. Rest is all afterthought. For ex. the idea that the MRCA will help gain a distinct qualitative advantage over the PLAAF is bogus in light of the fact that the PRC is already on its way to produce a gen 5 bird. Its upgraded flankers and J10s should be quite competitive with most MRCA candidates more or less.

Jags/M29/Mig-2k are passe' LCA is for an entirely different purpose and AMCA is more then a decade away.

Nice, so all the effort going into upgrading the Jags, M2ks and M29s are pointless - these birds will serve close to 2030 after upgrades, and are expected to hold competitive advantage vs. uber chinese/paf 4gen birds at least until a time that the chinese/paf do massive MLUs for such fighters. IOWs, highly networked and upgraded M2k-5s or fulcrums can more than hold their own vs. uber PAF solahs or chinese MKKs - more than enough to hold a defensive posture vs. China and be aggressive vs. PAF. For such a 2 front war, what is primarily needed is numbers in equally competitive to better a/c.

There are many voids we have to fill - void in terms of number, void in terms of our technological knowledge and void in terms of our industrial base. WE want this deal to fill all the voids.. not just one.
[/quote]
I reiterate - the MRCA was always designed as an "interim" solution to fill the void in terms of numbers. YOu can simply NOT fill technological voids via TOT - SKD/CKD type assembly. Even the Su-30MKI where India probably received max TOT has not sealed the tech/industrial void. To do this you need to heavily invest and support indigeneous programs - there simply is no other way. Whether we look at the US, Rus, Fra, UK, or CHina - the tech void/ability was built by bread and butter R&D programs. No shortcuts here - and the MRCA is not the answer to this situation. To fill this void, support to the Tejas/AMCA is even more critical. The Tejas is literally a brilliant example when it comes to setting up an industry - in this sense it was largely successful.

CM

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1017
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nits » 21 Feb 2011 09:46

Livefist conducted poll on probable ranking of MRCA winners and results are as follows...

Image

Now if you noitce MIG-35 is at the end in all the option so if Livefist has correct clues (as he reports in his post given to selected journos from IAF) then MIG stands minimal chances; EF and SH tops in two of the options... so as predicted by most of you final battle is between EU and Unkil...

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Sid » 21 Feb 2011 09:57

^^ I hope Rafale wins (my personal fav.).

But with unkil's currency almost equal to Indian rupees now (NOT), we might witness another successful ingress by yanks. Similar to victory by GE over RR engines where we chose to by an engine which was one generation behind EU.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 21 Feb 2011 11:39

Rahul M wrote:
Victor wrote:If the LCA was available in numbers, the MMRCA tamasha would never have taken place. I recall that the search was started only after the LCA failed to appear when needed.

The LCA project was funded starting from 1993 and the MRCA search in the form of 125 mirage-2000 started in 2000. are you telling me that ADA/HAL was supposed to develop a 4th gen fighter from scratch in 7 years flat ??? :eek:

even dassault with its half a century of experience required 17 years. LCA has reached IOC in 17 years as well, this in spite of the 2 year delay due to sanctions and the absence of the requisite R&D base.

I recall that the LCA program was started in 1983 in order to replace the MiG21, not in 1993.

Added later to support my post: From ADA Director, PS Subramanyam:
the (LCA) project was conceived in 1983 with initial funding of Rs560 crore.

This is a moving target since it makes little sense to simply "replace" obsolete technology and the more the delay, the greater the demands on the program--a vicious circle.
Last edited by Victor on 21 Feb 2011 14:22, edited 1 time in total.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 21 Feb 2011 12:14

Marten wrote:Victor, when was ADA established and when was the project funded?

1984. I assume it was "funded" when the program began, in 1983.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby krishnan » 21 Feb 2011 12:24

Didnt expect this from someone who has joined in 2001

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 21 Feb 2011 13:02

Marten, don't try to intimidate me with warnings of a flame war with me in the forefront. I stand by what I have written--the LCA program was started in 1983 and ADA was created to run it in 1984. If you dispute this fact, please say so.

Krishnan, jingos come in all colors, no matter when they joined. I feel the LCA and Kaveri programs are important for us and should be backed to the hilt.

This is OT for the thread and this is the last on it from me.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 21 Feb 2011 13:23

shukla wrote:With Typhoon, India gets tech, freedom to act
Deccan Chronicle

Excerpts from an interview.

The Typhoon is the ‘youngest’ aircraft in the MMRCA competition. The flip side is that it’s still a work-in-progress… If you buy an F-16, you know what you are getting — a 1970’s product. If you go for the Typhoon, it’s been in service for six years with the Eurofighter air forces, you are getting the best platform available today, and the opportunity to upgrade it.


EFT is in service with many Middle Eastern Nations, nations which have deep and meaningful relationship with Pakistan. It is speculated that these middle eastern nations are now planning to upgrade their fighters to Tranche 3 type. Pakistan will get a close look at this fighter, if its pilots are not already flying it. Hopefully Pakistan will not get access to this fighter, but well in the incestuous relations of Middle-Eastern Nations nothing can be discounted.
Also EFT owes its origin to the 1970 staff requirements of RAF.

What do we gain in politico-strategic terms from buying European?

The Typhoon purchase will promote a couple of things. One, India’s stated ambition to develop an indigenous defence capability, in particular in this area because the Eurofighter consortium, with the full support of the governments of Germany, UK, Italy and Spain, will deliver the technology transfer commitments and the know-how, not just the source code and the paperwork. We won’t find ourselves caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare, which perhaps will happen in the case of another country, in terms of the ability to transfer technology, which will allow India a degree of sovereignty which it would not otherwise have.

With the US, you are still in CISMOA discussions, and other technology cooperation discussions that are yet to be resolved. Moreover, India has already bought the P-8I, the C-130J, it’s buying the C-17, how many more deals do the Americans want? :rotfl: The law of diminishing returns begins to kick in somewhere. For us, India will be buying 126 Typhoons. Money talks. India will be a key partner going forward and it will develop the aircraft according to its own needs.

This concept of India being a so called "key partner" is a mirage. EFT design work has been done. It is over.
There is no 5th generation EFT planned or proposed or discussed anywhere. All of the countries which are part of the EFT are going to F-35 for a 5th generation fighter as significant partners or as buyers. So basically this thought that we are going to get design expertise from a fighter whose design has been already done does not hold water. All we will get will be tweaking this aircraft.
And if we want to get design expertise, it would be better to partner with the french, who will most likely build a 5th generation fighter independent of the US and Russia.

Eurofighter nations build military capability in the belief that they will go to war only in coalitions, not alone. Is there a conceptual issue here with regard to the Typhoon, because India has to fight its wars alone?

What we will do is to provide India the capability to develop the aircraft to its own requirements. So, if that means that India thinks it is going to go to war on its own with its neighbours or other nations, under our obligations in the deal, we will work with India to develop the aircraft in the way that it needs. And we will also ensure that if there’s any degree of interdependence, India will have access to the support and capability that it needs to ensure its legitimate national security interests, whatever they are.

Is there US technology in the Typhoon, and will it be difficult getting unrestricted access to it?

It’s not impossible on occasion. But, in principle, if India buys the Typhoon, the relationship with India is such that whilst there may be a problem from time to time, any technology transfer which requires US approvals will come through.

I mean, BAE Systems has 45,000 employees in America, we are the fifth biggest supplier to the Pentagon. So, the US absolutely knows where its interest lies, and I have no doubt whatsoever, provided we behave responsibly, the US will step up and do the right thing.

The problem with EFT is the problem with Grippen, significant portion of the fighter has American components. And the above statement is glossing over the difficulties which may or may not happen in the future, with regard to US approvals. Dont forget there are 4 countries who make EFT. Each country contributing significant amount. EFT is unique because there are 4 assembly lines for it. One for each partner for EFT. Though the parts of the fighter come from all the partners. So for example the country x will manufacture the engine, country y will provide the radar and cockpit and so on. Are we prepared to depend on 5 countries, 4 EFT partner plus US for a fighter.

This should not be taken as a critique of the EFT fighter on its own. Among all the fighters in the fray, EFT is one of the best if Grippen is taken out of the equation. But we should not be blind to the attempts to gloss over its weaknesses. And there is no mention anywhere about the extremely high cost of the fighter. Add to this the fact that MRCA has to be a Multi-Role fighter. EFT was designed with a Air Superiority Role in mind like F-15.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Boreas » 21 Feb 2011 14:16

Cain Marko wrote:
Boreas wrote:That's not best of advices i heard from you!
I think the reason "acquiring fighters in hurry" was superseded by the reason "to acquire new technology (read western) that could be applied in homegrown programs and to gain political ground" and above all the reason "to maintain a quality-wise superiority on PLAAF"[/b]

Boss, that is why there is the Pakfa and AMCA. What more technology will the MRCA provide? The FGFA is far ahead technologically, period. The greatest reason for the MRCA was always as an "interim" solution i.e. a quick stopgap measure to counter falling numbers. Rest is all afterthought. For ex. the idea that the MRCA will help gain a distinct qualitative advantage over the PLAAF is bogus in light of the fact that the PRC is already on its way to produce a gen 5 bird. Its upgraded flankers and J10s should be quite competitive with most MRCA candidates more or less.


It is most certainly not. Both India and China will start inducting there 5th gen fighters almost same time or maybe within a gap of one year. Leaving the discussion of whose 5th gen fighter will be better for some other time. Any war wont be limited to 5th gen fighter only. Lets focus on the rest of the capability.
The next best PLAAF has is variants of J-10, J-11 with some hundred SU-27/30.
I ask you a simple question do you think ur sugeestion of fielding Jags/Mig29/used Mirage2k-5 against them gonna work?
or, wouldn't we have a better chance of holding the skies when IAF will be flying a EF/rafale/SH against them??


Cain Marko wrote:
Jags/M29/Mig-2k are passe' LCA is for an entirely different purpose and AMCA is more then a decade away.

Nice, so all the effort going into upgrading the Jags, M2ks and M29s are pointless - these birds will serve close to 2030 after upgrades, and are expected to hold competitive advantage vs. uber chinese/paf 4gen birds at least until a time that the chinese/paf do massive MLUs for such fighters. IOWs, highly networked and upgraded M2k-5s or fulcrums can more than hold their own vs. uber PAF solahs or chinese MKKs - more than enough to hold a defensive posture vs. China and be aggressive vs. PAF. For such a 2 front war, what is primarily needed is numbers in equally competitive to better a/c.

Your two statements the underlined statement here and in the above paragraph ARE CONTARDICTORY.
On one side you are saying chinese 4th gen planes will have advantage over contenders of MRCA who are mostly 4.5gen fighters. And then you are saying the upgraded M2ks, M29s, Jags (whom we are upgrading to get "some" technologies of these 4.5gen fighters) will have competitive advantage over chinese! Plz tell how?

In your second argument, you urself are accepting the weakness of choice you have excercised. PAF is no more a threat to us, now our plans are focused on PLAAF. And all you are offering is that we can be defensive against them! If all we wanted is to be defensive, don't you think it will be better to have a maasive investment in creating a lethal air defense/SAM network. Which will protect us without staking lives of our pilot.

I think we will have a clear advantage over any of PLAAF 4th gen fighter with our MRCA. Its a fact.

Cain Marko wrote:
There are many voids we have to fill - void in terms of number, void in terms of our technological knowledge and void in terms of our industrial base. WE want this deal to fill all the voids.. not just one.

I reiterate - the MRCA was always designed as an "interim" solution to fill the void in terms of numbers. YOu can simply NOT fill technological voids via TOT - SKD/CKD type assembly. Even the Su-30MKI where India probably received max TOT has not sealed the tech/industrial void. To do this you need to heavily invest and support indigeneous programs - there simply is no other way. Whether we look at the US, Rus, Fra, UK, or CHina - the tech void/ability was built by bread and butter R&D programs. No shortcuts here - and the MRCA is not the answer to this situation. To fill this void, support to the Tejas/AMCA is even more critical. The Tejas is literally a brilliant example when it comes to setting up an industry - in this sense it was largely successful.

1. When the idea of MRCA was popped up in ealry 2000s It was a stopgap solution (and everybody has M2k in mind as a solution). But this is year 2011, it is NO MORE an interim or gap filling solution.

2. Su-30 was our first experience. The terms of TOT have evolved greatly since then. Even then SU-30 has contributed immensely in the growth of HAL. Anybody who have been to HAL before and after the implementation of SU-30 deal can tell what wonders it has done in the development of infrastructure.

3. "Heavy investment" is a mirage. On what to invest heavily? A building won't produce a fighter.. you MUST first have the relevant knowledge. Without technology you can't make anything. And if you try to re-discover everything it will only push you back. (V K Saraswat frequently admits it in public domain, we cant grow in isolation.)

4. I am glad you bought up how US/Rus/Fra/Uk build there technology. (Leaving the chinkos, they dun believe in R&D)
Try to find answer of these questions - Who developed first stealth fighter concept? Was is the US? What is the origin of USAF B-22 design? What is the base of US and USSR's nuclear program? If you invest sometime in that you will find nobody started from scratch. And nobody just made up great things by bread and butter R&D.

5. MRCA will provide us with important inputs in avionics, AESA, counter measures ets.

6. Nobody is stopping funding for LCA/AMCA. But just by injecting more money we can't fast forward time. They will take time.
Tejas is an example of how hard it is to start something and sustain it. Its success will depend upon how we use the lessons we learnt there, in the AMCA program.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Nikhil T » 21 Feb 2011 15:24

Moreover, India has already bought the P-8I, the C-130J, it’s buying the C-17, how many more deals do the Americans want? The law of diminishing returns begins to kick in somewhere


This is such a stupid argument. The EADS CEO assumes that India is playing a round robin game with defense purchases. Every single one of the deals he has mentioned has had strong reasons. In case of the MMRCA, the IAF has created an exhaustive report of 600 test points per aircraft but the CEO is bent upon discussing issues out of scope. If IAF/MoD did not want countries with huge defense deals with India to participate, they wouldn't have sent them a RFI and RFP to Russia!

Hope the contenders fight on relative merits of aircraft and leave these frivolous arguments for Ashley Tellis and others.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Doddel » 21 Feb 2011 16:47

Sholdn't this be quite a big disadvantage for Rafale in BVR combat?

Meteor will be 'network-enabled'. A two-way datalink will allow the launch aircraft to provide mid-course target updates or retargeting if required, including data from offboard third-parties. The datalink will be able to transmit missile information such as functional and kinematic status, information on multiple targets, and notification of target acquisition by the seeker.[5] The two-way datalink is compatible with Eurofighter and Gripen but not with Rafale which is fitted with a one-way link originally designed for use with MICA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

As I understand this means that the Rafale will be equipped with a inferior version of the meteor.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Rahul M » 21 Feb 2011 18:15

Victor wrote:
Rahul M wrote:The LCA project was funded starting from 1993 and the MRCA search in the form of 125 mirage-2000 started in 2000. are you telling me that ADA/HAL was supposed to develop a 4th gen fighter from scratch in 7 years flat ??? :eek:

even dassault with its half a century of experience required 17 years. LCA has reached IOC in 17 years as well, this in spite of the 2 year delay due to sanctions and the absence of the requisite R&D base.

I recall that the LCA program was started in 1983 in order to replace the MiG21, not in 1993.

Added later to support my post: From ADA Director, PS Subramanyam:
the (LCA) project was conceived in 1983 with initial funding of Rs560 crore.

This is a moving target since it makes little sense to simply "replace" obsolete technology and the more the delay, the greater the demands on the program--a vicious circle.

please understand the difference between funding for the project definition and funding for the project itself. IAF's ASR for LCA itself appeared in 1985, how can the project 'start' before even the requirements are known ? :shock:
by your token the rafale project started in 1975,
In the mid-1970s, both the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air) and Navy (Aéronavale) had requirements (the Navy's being rather more pressing) to find a new generation of fighters (principally to replace Air Force SEPECAT Jaguars and Navy F-8 Crusaders), and their requirements were similar enough to be merged into one project.[3]

eurofighter in 1971.
The UK had identified a requirement for a new fighter as early as 1971.

please read this in PS Subramanium's own words.
http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... Id=8548497
the link doesn't work properly now but the article is quoted in full @ viewtopic.php?p=1002876#p1002876

let me quote the relevant part.
Q.After a long delay, the LCA is ready. How does it feel?
PSS.Everyone talks about the delays. It is not correct to say that the programme started in 1983, when the government first thought of working on a combat aircraft. They decided to put Rs:560 crore seed money for preparing the project definition, but there was no clarity. Even the air staff requirement (ASR) [standards for the engine] came only in 1985. In 1987-88, the project definition was prepared and the proposal to make prototypes was submitted. {which is incredibly quick for folk with no experience}The government said they cannot take a risk with that kind of money and they split the programme into two parts; technology demonstration (TD) programme and proto-vehicle development project. In 1993, they gave Rs:2,199 crore for the TD. So, the actual programme started only in 1993. {IOW, for FIVE years i.e from 1988-1993 the govt sat on the proposal. if you want to blame somebody for the delay, blame the govt. in reality, there is no delay as compared to projects like the eurofighter or the rafale. if you insist on counting from the day someone thought "we would like a new fighter" as you are doing with the 1983 date for LCA, the years taken for EF and Rafale are 37 years and 34 years respectively, as against 29 for LCA}
In fact, clarity came only in 2004-05. In 2001, we flew the first aircraft and in 2004, we did the TD for the government, after which they released ?3,320 crore. The first proto vehicle (PV1) came out in December 2005. The IAF got confidence in the programme and gave the standard of preparation of fighter aircraft. So, the fillip came in 2005. From then on, the programme has been progressing rapidly, especially after Defence Minister A.K. Antony tilted the balance in favour of the LCA by publicly stating that the government would support the project, irrespective of any developments.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8167
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nachiket » 21 Feb 2011 19:01

Vishnu wrote:
Nachiket ... its failed to deliver because it did not arrive in the form the Indian Air Force wants it. The Air Chief still describes the Mk1 as a MiG21 + +, not as a plane of the capability the IAF expected.

Thanks
Vishnu

That is kind of vague. What exactly did the IAF want in the LCA that they are not going to get?
As for "delays" in the project, please read Rahul's post. If that doesn't dispel the myth about "20 and 30 year delays" that our media has propagated, I don't know what can. The MRCA program has no relation to the fortunes of the LCA. It would have happened even if the LCA had magically achieved IOC ten years ago.

What I really hate is this general feeling being generated in the minds of Indians that the nation is having to spend $10 billion dollars on foreign aircraft because the LCA is not what was promised/wasn't delivered on time. This is totally false.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4676
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Feb 2011 19:13

Boreas wrote:I think the reason "acquiring fighters in hurry" was superseded by the reason "to acquire new technology (read western) that could be applied in homegrown programs and to gain political ground" and above all the reason "to maintain a quality-wise superiority on PLAAF"[/b]

Boss, that is why there is the Pakfa and AMCA. What more technology will the MRCA provide? The FGFA is far ahead technologically, period. The greatest reason for the MRCA was always as an "interim" solution i.e. a quick stopgap measure to counter falling numbers. Rest is all afterthought. For ex. the idea that the MRCA will help gain a distinct qualitative advantage over the PLAAF is bogus in light of the fact that the PRC is already on its way to produce a gen 5 bird. Its upgraded flankers and J10s should be quite competitive with most MRCA candidates more or less.[/quote]

The next best PLAAF has is variants of J-10, J-11 with some hundred SU-27/30.
I ask you a simple question do you think ur sugeestion of fielding Jags/Mig29/used Mirage2k-5 against them gonna work?
or, wouldn't we have a better chance of holding the skies when IAF will be flying a EF/rafale/SH against them??


Err, no. Not when there are uber upgraded MKIs en masse. No need for eurofritter or anything to deal with riffraff - MKI is more than enough. Backed with upgraded M2k-5 + MiG-29, and LCA. Adding another 4.5 gen bird to the inventory is of no use whatever. Don't forget not too long ago - just 5 years or so - the IAF felt and described the need for an MRCA via a Mirage 2000-5. In 3-4 years little has changed to alter this.

Your two statements the underlined statement here and in the above paragraph ARE CONTARDICTORY.

Nothing contradictory - read and comprehend. I said in light of the J20 (Gen 5) a/c, MRCA is of little use since it obviously not designed to defeat a LO design. IOWs, it is the Pakfa/AMCA that will hold the fort/attack vs. Gen 5 chinese threat. Also note that I was speaking of upgraded flankers/J10s (B variant) as a competitive threat against the MRCA and NOT the current versions. The M2k/MiG-29 upgs in a networked envirnoment should be more than enough to deal with current versions and challenge future versions. By the time the J11/J10B sees operational service, one can assume that a superior Su-30MKI should be operational thereby nullifying the need for a similarly specced MRCA.

On one side you are saying chinese 4th gen planes will have advantage over contenders of MRCA who are mostly 4.5gen fighters. And then you are saying the upgraded M2ks, M29s, Jags (whom we are upgrading to get "some" technologies of these 4.5gen fighters) will have competitive advantage over chinese! Plz tell how?

Read again what I said - I did not say Chinese 4 gen a/c will have an advantage against MRCA anywhere in my post - you are surely mixing things up and putting words in my mouth. The point is curent Chinese 4 gen a/c should be tackled by MKI, M2k/29 upg, LCA, Bison. Near future chinese 4.5 gen threat can be dealt with MLUed MKI + upg M2k/M29, LCA 2. If J20 comes along nicely, only 5 gen type will be competitive. In either case, MRCA is unnecessary. To summarize what I said:
a) MRCA is not competitive against a pure 5 gen design
b) What little advantage an MRCA might provide against 4.5 gen a/c will be achieved and sustained by a upgraded MKI fleet backed by M2k/29 upgrades and Tejas Mk2.
c)Tech gap cannot be filled via MRCA (there is nothing there either in terms of heavy partnerships or in terms of novelty in design/tech).
d) MRCA is mainly an interim/number filling solution because of - retirement of older types and delays in LCA.

The primary goal of MRCA is D) above, which can be achieved by getting greater #s of LCA, M2k-5, MIG-29 and perhaps a sqd more of MKI.

In your second argument, you urself are accepting the weakness of choice you have excercised. PAF is no more a threat to us, now our plans are focused on PLAAF.

For the last time, read my post and understand it better before making ridiculous assumptions.

And all you are offering is that we can be defensive against them! If all we wanted is to be defensive, don't you think it will be better to have a maasive investment in creating a lethal air defense/SAM network. Which will protect us without staking lives of our pilot.

Irrelevant. SAMs cannot replace fighter requirements although it surely would help in layering the AD network.

I think we will have a clear advantage over any of PLAAF 4th gen fighter with our MRCA. Its a fact.

4th gen? Sure, but so will the MKI and upgraded M2k/MiG29. There is nothing to support such a claim against upgraded PLAAF birds though - at least not in reliable open sources. More pertinently, if an MRCA holds such an advantage as you assume, why not an upgraded MKI? IOWs, why invest in redundancy?

1. When the idea of MRCA was popped up in ealry 2000s It was a stopgap solution (and everybody has M2k in mind as a solution). But this is year 2011, it is NO MORE an interim or gap filling solution.

SO then what is the aim of the MRCA? Not interim? OK tell me what the MRCA brings that the Pakfa, LCA Mk2, MKI upgrade and AMCA will not? And don't tell me that it will buff up numbers - I already recommended faster, easier solutions to that. At best, it can act as a hedge against delays/failures in current programs. It cannot offer the kind of quality or access to tech that the pakfa does, it cannot create more infrastructural value than the LCA or AMCA, it is at best another screwdriver TOT type thing - no better than the MKI, which INdia already produces.

3. "Heavy investment" is a mirage. On what to invest heavily? A building won't produce a fighter.. you MUST first have the relevant knowledge. Without technology you can't make anything. And if you try to re-discover everything it will only push you back. (V K Saraswat frequently admits it in public domain, we cant grow in isolation.)


4. I am glad you bought up how US/Rus/Fra/Uk build there technology. (Leaving the chinkos, they dun believe in R&D)
Try to find answer of these questions - Who developed first stealth fighter concept? Was is the US? What is the origin of USAF B-22 design? What is the base of US and USSR's nuclear program? If you invest sometime in that you will find nobody started from scratch. And nobody just made up great things by bread and butter R&D.

5. MRCA will provide us with important inputs in avionics, AESA, counter measures ets.

6. Nobody is stopping funding for LCA/AMCA. But just by injecting more money we can't fast forward time. They will take time.
Tejas is an example of how hard it is to start something and sustain it. Its success will depend upon how we use the lessons we learnt there, in the AMCA program.[/quote]

Dont patronize, and don't ask irrelevant, tangential questions without clearly reading my post :evil:

CM.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby pragnya » 21 Feb 2011 20:22

just adding to Rahul M's post above, here is the relevant section on the LCA from the 9th report of standing committee on defence -

Reply of the Government

The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been
initiated in August‟ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs
560.00 Cr. This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase
(PDP). After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to
build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into Technical
Development Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase. The Full Scale Engineering
Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April‟1993 at a cost
of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983).
The scope of FSED
Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build
operational proto-vehicles at a later stage. LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go
ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles. The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build
three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure
required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP)
aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs
3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov‟2001.
The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely,
Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of
preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and
avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was
made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.


http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... REPORT.pdf

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Feb 2011 20:46

Last edited by chackojoseph on 21 Feb 2011 20:52, edited 2 times in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Rahul M » 21 Feb 2011 20:48

thanks pragnya.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby aditya.agd » 21 Feb 2011 20:52

India is soon becoming a laughing stock of all major arms producing countries. We are taking so long to decide the MRCA winner as if selection of aircraft is itself a major task. In this process we are neglecting our LCA and further development of MCA.

US is going to arm-twist Indian policy makers who will just be sitting wagging themselves in front of western bosses. This is excrutiating painful wait to equip our armed forces with the best weapons....

We need both numbers and quality.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby ramana » 21 Feb 2011 21:39

Aditya its not like war is breaking out tomorrow and the planes would be delivered yesterday. GOI is taking its time to see what the suppilers are going to do and reveal themselves. So chill . Its not the IAF but GOI that is making the determination. And your paranoia is not becoming of the forum. So relaxn and stop painting nightmares. The whine thread is there for relief.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 21 Feb 2011 21:54

nachiket wrote:
Vishnu wrote:
Nachiket ... its failed to deliver because it did not arrive in the form the Indian Air Force wants it. The Air Chief still describes the Mk1 as a MiG21 + +, not as a plane of the capability the IAF expected.

Thanks
Vishnu

That is kind of vague. What exactly did the IAF want in the LCA that they are not going to get?
As for "delays" in the project, please read Rahul's post. If that doesn't dispel the myth about "20 and 30 year delays" that our media has propagated, I don't know what can. The MRCA program has no relation to the fortunes of the LCA. It would have happened even if the LCA had magically achieved IOC ten years ago.

What I really hate is this general feeling being generated in the minds of Indians that the nation is having to spend $10 billion dollars on foreign aircraft because the LCA is not what was promised/wasn't delivered on time. This is totally false.


Only 10%-20% feel like that

I believe most of us are thinking why IAF is not keen on Tejas project instead of going ahead with MRCA project.

Tejas is the only aircraft which will allow IAF keep its minimum required force level and also secrecy of capability because every one know what EF, Rafael, F-18, F-16 are capable of but none of us have the 100% correct information regarding Tejas.

If IAF invest the money into development of Tejas it can have a decent fighter for next generation. Supporting a home grown fighter is more important than supporting somebodies economy. buying any of the aircrafts of MRCA contenders, will not help India financially rather other than a meager political advantage.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 21 Feb 2011 21:57

PLAAF is only about numerical superiority so it will surely maintain 2500+ fighters in future which will be a headache to IAF as most of them will be J-10, J-11 and in another side PAF which will maintain around 350+ fighters and IAF will have to deal with both side.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Rahul M » 21 Feb 2011 21:58

PLAAF can't maintain 2500 fighters, for one thing it does not have 2500 fighters even now. the sum total of relatively modern fighters in PLAAF number around 600-700 not all that different from IAF's numbers. now keep in mind that some are always tied down by taiwan and USAF presence in japan and SoKo and you will see where that goes.

aditya, better be laughing stock on our own terms than be honoured guest while paying double the price like the saudis.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Feb 2011 22:22

aditya - how long has brazil taken to select an MRCA?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Drishyaman » 21 Feb 2011 22:22

kmc_chacko wrote: I believe most of us are thinking why IAF is not keen on Tejas project instead of going ahead with MRCA project.

Yes
kmc_chacko wrote: If IAF invest the money into development of Tejas it can have a decent fighter for next generation. Supporting a home grown fighter is more important than supporting somebodies economy. buying any of the aircrafts of MRCA contenders, will not help India financially rather other than a meager political advantage.

Yes
Rahul M wrote: aditya, better be laughing stock on our own terms than be honoured guest while paying double the price like the saudis.

Yes

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmkraoind » 21 Feb 2011 22:36

kmc_chacko wrote:Tejas is the only aircraft which will allow IAF keep its minimum required force level and also secrecy of capability because every one know what EF, Rafael, F-18, F-16 are capable of but none of us have the 100% correct information regarding Tejas.


I do not think so. Once Kaveri and indigenous radar matures, expect relatively moderate (100-150) market from Taiwan, Vietnam, and South American countries. There are very few single engine, low cost 4th generation planes in world market. Once there is decent market, marketing team has to divulge more information on flight capabilities and envelope. :D

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 21 Feb 2011 22:47

Rahul M wrote:PLAAF can't maintain 2500 fighters, for one thing it does not have 2500 fighters even now. the sum total of relatively modern fighters in PLAAF number around 600-700 not all that different from IAF's numbers. now keep in mind that some are always tied down by taiwan and USAF presence in japan and SoKo and you will see where that goes.

aditya, better be laughing stock on our own terms than be honoured guest while paying double the price like the saudis.


as per wiki presently PLAAF poses around 100 Su-30s, 69 Su-27s, 200+ J-10s, 175+ J-11s making 500+ 4 Gen fighters and producing another 20+ aircrafts to replace its aging 450+ J-7s, 150+ J-8s, 190+ JH-7s & 500 Q-5s and they are also upgrading its existing J-10s & J-11s.

Yes, it may be possible PLAAF may not go upto 2500+ but at the present production rate it can field a good number of aircrafts in future. by the time we will induct MRCA i.e., by another 3 years they will induct atleast another 100+ fighters to their force making a numerically equal to IAF and we should not forget that Chinese now using their economy as the weapon than its army.

and for making up the force level I feel JF-17 has the better chance since it is cost effective can be produced in large quantity. in future it will provide PLAAF quantitative edge over its opponents and finally is PAF acting as Reserve Force of PLAAF ? I asked because PAF is expected to induct 250 JF-17s in next 10 years.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmc_chacko » 21 Feb 2011 22:49

kmkraoind wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote:Tejas is the only aircraft which will allow IAF keep its minimum required force level and also secrecy of capability because every one know what EF, Rafael, F-18, F-16 are capable of but none of us have the 100% correct information regarding Tejas.


I do not think so. Once Kaveri and indigenous radar matures, expect relatively moderate (100-150) market from Taiwan, Vietnam, and South American countries. There are very few single engine, low cost 4th generation planes in world market. Once there is decent market, marketing team has to divulge more information on flight capabilities and envelope. :D


What i am saying is, since Tejas is home grown we can keep PAF & PLAAF under dark regarding its capability. Which will in turn a advantage just like J-20 to PLAAF


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests