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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 27 Feb 2011 01:47

VinodTK wrote: India wants fighter jets – but without American baggage

If Govt of India and the IAF know that they will not be able to get US aircraft with the required configuration, I wonder as to why F16 and F18 were even considered as contenders? Waste of time and money.

It is a way to create a lobby. The lobby will get message that they are still significant.


If the reason for including them was to put pressure on on other manufacturers, I do not think it will work. Because the French and euro fighter manufacturers will find out the reason for the inclusion of US manufacturers and will not budge on the price. I feel we are missing something, in all our discussions.

Geo political picture is the missing picture.
It is for the eyes of the Chini that India has to create a perception that India will be militarily aligned with US mil. This is dominant geo political perception that has to be created soon and the anti china block should be seen as solid and firm. This is the only way PRC will start making changes in - currency and trade practice, regional relationship and internal social changes.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2011 01:56

RoyG wrote: DRDO-Snecma Kaveri deal..
Please leave the K alone!

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 27 Feb 2011 02:29

Acharya wrote:
VinodTK wrote: India wants fighter jets – but without American baggage

If Govt of India and the IAF know that they will not be able to get US aircraft with the required configuration, I wonder as to why F16 and F18 were even considered as contenders? Waste of time and money.

It is a way to create a lobby. The lobby will get message that they are still significant.


If the reason for including them was to put pressure on on other manufacturers, I do not think it will work. Because the French and euro fighter manufacturers will find out the reason for the inclusion of US manufacturers and will not budge on the price. I feel we are missing something, in all our discussions.

Geo political picture is the missing picture.
It is for the eyes of the Chini that India has to create a perception that India will be militarily aligned with US mil. This is dominant geo political perception that has to be created soon and the anti china block should be seen as solid and firm. This is the only way PRC will start making changes in - currency and trade practice, regional relationship and internal social changes.


will we get with only perception? i wish it was that simplistic.

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 27 Feb 2011 02:44

Christopher Sidor wrote:Malli F-16IN is inferior to Grippen if there are restrictions and monitoring activities which come with F-16IN are absent with Grippen. F-16IN is inferior if the source code of its AESA radar is not available, unlike in the case of Grippen, where it will be available.

And your point regarding the thrust is meaningless. A TATA truck has more horsepower than a humble Alto, does that mean it is superior. Or to put it in reverse, A Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren has more horsepower than a humble Tata Truck, does that make the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren more useful or does it make it useless.

F-16IN may be the best aircraft on offer, but the associated baggage with it is not worth it. And will America promise us that it will never ever upgrade Pakistan F-16 to the same level as F-16IN. Or will not provide Pakistan F-16 with the means to overcome F-16IN. Our enemies, Pakistan and China, already have access to this fighter. They are at ease with its capabilities and its performance. India buying the same aircraft will not give it an edge. Rather we will be sending out a very loud signal. A signal which says to American and to the world, boss you can sell Pakistan all the weapons you want, and then in turn come back and arm us with the same weapon.

And like Lalmohan said, please state your reason clearly for asking the question. I hope that you are asking a question not for rhetorical reasons.


what restrictions are you talking about??
dos SAAB make the T/R modules?? does it have the manufacturing plant that makes gallium arsenide? does it have a program to find the next generation emitters? where does the engine come from?? now about the weapons. what does sweden make? by companies owned by itself. cant US behemoths take over whatever they want if it makes business sense. will they not be affected by any sanctions that will be imposed?
about selling to my enemies, pse read my earlier post.

if anybody thinks or propagates that the gripen is superior to the F-16IN, they can continue to live in a fools paradise. pse read why the ISAF chose it over the F15.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2011 03:24

Nothing of that sort. Here's how our "open minded" surrender brigade works. When we are unwilling out of precaution, the surrender brigade cries "prejudice", when we become willing and sign away our interests the surrender brigade says "oh but india did that willingly".


What you are saying is understandable. I do not find anything wrong with that except that here on out India is no longer a weak country of the 80-90s. You may disagree with that - that is your right - and it is OK with me too. But, I said this about 10 years ago, India will no longer be the same old nation. She cannot be.

Also, I find no need to be fearsome. Concerned - true, that is OK. But, today India has a lot more to bring to the table to be afraid of situations. (But then the UK too sanctioned India in 1971 - Vikrant needed parts and the UK said no. India worked that out with Sea Kings and the the Hawks. Some yahoo German law maker is asking why should Germany supply to a nation in a conflict area - I can only hope India will deal with such characters.)

On French/EU - they too have their own interests and will oppose India if and when the need arises. If it were not for some laws they would have, by now, sold whatever China wanted.

That is the way all nations behave. India will too.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2011 03:41

Unfortunately, yes. MMS sold us away by signing a blanket agreement regardless of the purchase to allow monitor of what was our property and that's why I consider that too as effectively a lease. And I was pitching for a EUMA waiver for mmrca and all subsequent sales for such equipments of crucial dependence. The sooner the two countries roll-back EUMA the better it would be for both otherwise it will cast its shadow on every proposed buy. Signing it does not means we are comfortable with each and every of our equipment bought from them being open to their intrusion.


Perhaps (on selling India).

(My recollection is that it is not the same agreement signed by other nations. In that it is based on a case-by-case basis and that the US components can be isolated and brought to a single location if need be. That too has its attended issues granted. OK. That is another matter - for some other time I guess.)

Let me ask this. Since signing the EUMA what has transpired? EUMA applies to a ton of other imported materials. Do we have an idea of how many things have been imported and how EUMA has impacted them? The one article I posted SEEMED to be rather casual about the topic - but then it is a single data point.

On casting a shadow - it is not. IN is buying more P-8I, looking into some other recon planes, asking for info on F-35, etc. IAF wants more C-130J. Army the light Hows. DRDO/HAL/space labs - all want more US components - they ALL will come with EUMA, everyone knows that. So, what am I missing? (I am not suggesting that India buy US things, I am trying to understand why we have this trend on BR for so long - been there since about 1997is.) (Outside of the MiG-35 if the IAF is happy with any other plane so be it.)

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 27 Feb 2011 03:49

Gaur wrote:malli,
You want to make statements without backing them up with facts and reasoning? OK..but do not expect any of us to take you seriously. This is my last post to you on this matter.

Man, the MRCA thread has really gone to dogs. No wonder that most of the knowledgeable folks hardly take a look around here anymore.

the facts are there in my posts. its a 1650km ROA vs 340 nm, its a 125 KN engine vs a 90 KN one, its 4.5 tonnes vs 2.5 tonnes meaningful payload, its an endurance of 2-30 vs 1-30 hrs, its aesa now against aesa later, its about A-A, A-G, ARM, LACM, etc against future capabilities. at the same price. smell the coffee gaur. dont take me seriously if you dont take the thread seriously.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2011 05:20

NRao wrote: (I am not suggesting that India buy US things, I am trying to understand why we have this trend on BR for so long - been there since about 1997is.) (Outside of the MiG-35 if the IAF is happy with any other plane so be it.)


Nothing wrong with Auntie (russkie), but it is Uncle the fear factor is, where it is more on the lines of he will squash our b@lls, while auntie caress it, if I may say. This is perhaps the fault of various historic events including cold war allying.

When it comes to real offensive capability, is where we are still oriented towards trusted auntie, whose legal bindings are only getting to be known, and the fact that she is more now offering mostly because of lack of money and the trust that Indians will not copy and sell like china, and we will oblige and pay her for her services, and it is well established.

It is like breaking a well built fort, and not just that, it also destabilizes well established oil and buttering off.saar-gentul man agencies who would do anything to keep their lives smooth. But, thinking on the other side of these equations, there exists genuine fear that Uncle has screwed us, and has agreements to screw us further is something no body needs any explanation.

Ideally, have both Uncle and Auntie on level playing field to our service requests is what we may want establish for the future.

/jmt

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sumshyam » 27 Feb 2011 07:59

Haven't we grown two weeks old since IAF Chief announced about the start o contract negotiations..? Any concrete news on that.... :!:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4287
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Feb 2011 08:41

Boreas wrote:God you are one confused lad! :)

I dun know WHAT kind of dream world you are living, in which IAF is showing interest in second hand M2K's from Qatar.. and is going to buy more upgraded M29 (instead of M35.. if at all it has to buy Russian bird). In our planet.. in the REAL world.. where we normal people live.. IAF has floated a tender for buying Medium Multirole Combat Aircrafts.

Now, you are stubborn enough or closed minded enough to not get what i wrote above.. so hence forth I won't bother reason with you.

I tell you something derived from common sense.

1. IAF knows more then you, about its requirements [say YES..]
2. And IAF has floated a tender for 126+ MMRCA.
3. IAF knows it has 270 MKIs, still it has floated this tender it means, IAF needs more besides MKI.
4. Also it means IAF thinks it is not wise to upgrade M29 or BUY 2nd hand M2k from Qatar (gosh)
5. IAF/MoD is paying so much emphasis on TOT, hence they must be sure of getting important technological inputs.

6. To summarize - IAF won't bother doing all this unless IAF thinks adding these MMRCAs is essential for its operational requirements.
Hence your slogan that 'MRCA is not needed' is only making you look extremely ______ (choose an appropriate word like genius etc and fill) that.

7. and IAF also thinks you really don't understand evrything you read. :mrgreen:

[This may help - Try to read 3-4 words at a time, take a pause, try to get what that part means.. then move on. It will take time. But eventually your comprehension skills will get "upgraded"]


Whatever you say boss. I"ll leave it as it stands, don't have time to bicker at this level.

CM

Tummen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 10 Nov 2010 03:25

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Tummen » 27 Feb 2011 09:06

malli wrote:
Great to know that you are swedish and a gripen fanboy. I am an indian and am most directly affected by the decision in the MMRCA. i would only like to say that my kid is likely to fly the chosen one. i am not in corporate employment and am not a lobbyist. I also dont have any favourites like everyone in the media now has or seems to have. i have operated the soviet and european hardware till pretty recently and have come to believe that these are pretty below par compared to the american hardware. In the Falklands it was the F1 and the Etendards against the harrier and the sidewinder. absolutely heroic on the part of the argies. but the sidewinder was the decisive factor. Cut to the Gulf war 1. Migs against the teens. we all know where that went. wrong tactics , superior force et all. the apologists can scream. the result we all know.
Being swedish to plumb for anti-imperialism smacks of taking us for granted. we can give you welfarism. anti-imperialism??? you even understand that? you say about america invading small nations. do you know that every somali pirate wants to surrender to a scandanavian navy rather that the indian or the russian or the american one?? let the middle east implode now and when oil screams its way past 200 $ per barrel everyone will scream that it is again an american conspiracy.get real.
The absolute joke is that after having gained the most from being allied to the americans and built up your defence industry on the basis of your access to their tech, now you are resorting to a juvenile argument to deny India the same.
so you can supply AEW's to Pakistan, Russia can supply AEW's, SU-30's, Mig MFI's, fighter engines, Shi-Lang, Fregat Radars, LRSAM's, etc, the europeans can supply aero-engines, helicopters, aircraft carrier subsystems, composite tech, etc. but disqualify the teens because the americans supply hardware to the paki's. Isnt it a fact that all the winter hardware was bought from sweden by pakistan prior kargil?
It would be better to compare products only on merit. like i said before if anyone can give a single example where our PSU's have altered source codes to our advantage i would buy that argument.we havent even changed the source codes of marine navigation radars. period.
no thumb here. only a royal salute to a product of a welfare state brought up on North sea oil and pension funds, not to forget from remittences by overseas brides in america.


Hi malli,

Better presentation, but you do still not keep to the MRCA-subject. We better keep to that or we might get us both banned for baiting/trolling/slander. :D
Also, it is boring for other in this forum.

I believe that IAF have found EF and Rafale to be the best planes and F-18 and Gripen NG hard to compare (because they differ the most) but that they get about the same amount of points. If we will get IAFs evaluationresults and above ranking is the correct, will you accept that F-18 and F-16 are not the best plane-for-plane choise for India then?

In the end I guess India will choose F-18 for other reasons as you mentioned in your post, but I guess that those reasons will not make much difference in terms of Indian pilotsafety. (Well, maybe indirectly if India in an ongoing process does reach fargoing deals with the US helping defend India this should bring stability between India, China, Pakistan. But as we can see with Japan and China, this kind of agreement does not promote those countries to have harmonius relations, it only widens the rift between them)

Best regards
The Thumb

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby raj-ji » 27 Feb 2011 10:31

NRao wrote:
Nothing of that sort. Here's how our "open minded" surrender brigade works. When we are unwilling out of precaution, the surrender brigade cries "prejudice", when we become willing and sign away our interests the surrender brigade says "oh but india did that willingly".


What you are saying is understandable. I do not find anything wrong with that except that here on out India is no longer a weak country of the 80-90s. You may disagree with that - that is your right - and it is OK with me too. But, I said this about 10 years ago, India will no longer be the same old nation. She cannot be.

Also, I find no need to be fearsome. Concerned - true, that is OK. But, today India has a lot more to bring to the table to be afraid of situations. (But then the UK too sanctioned India in 1971 - Vikrant needed parts and the UK said no. India worked that out with Sea Kings and the the Hawks. Some yahoo German law maker is asking why should Germany supply to a nation in a conflict area - I can only hope India will deal with such characters.)

On French/EU - they too have their own interests and will oppose India if and when the need arises. If it were not for some laws they would have, by now, sold whatever China wanted.

That is the way all nations behave. India will too.


My comparison of the contenders to India's interests:

F16 and F18 - Too many strings attached. Also the US can't possibly think they can give state-of-the-art military equipment to the Pakis for free and expect us to pay through the nose for their planes.

MIG35 - We already have the best Russian tech with the SU30MKI. Perhaps strong need to diversify.

Typhoon - Great technology, but very expensive. However, ze Germans are refusing to sell certain Indian States MP-5 machine guns as they are concerned with how they will be used. OK to sell us Typhoons at an outrageous price, but not MP-5s?

Gripen - Smaller contender in many ways, also closest to the Tejas, both points which could be a strength or weakness depending on who you ask. Single engine and lower operating costs may be welcome after all the twin engine aircraft in the IAF inventory and on the way.

Rafale - Also expensive but impressive multirole fighter. IAF already a fan of Dassault's tech. And GOI already in bed with France for Subs (rocky relationship however). French are desperate for a deal and we have a relatively long relationship with them. French will sell to anyone, atleast they are open about it, but since they are desperate for a deal perhaps this is our opportunity to make sure to add a 'don't sell to the Panda' clause.

IMHO the last two are the best choices. Time will tell.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 27 Feb 2011 11:04

malli wrote:the facts are there in my posts. its a 1650km ROA vs 340 nm, its a 125 KN engine vs a 90 KN one, its 4.5 tonnes vs 2.5 tonnes meaningful payload, its an endurance of 2-30 vs 1-30 hrs, its aesa now against aesa later, its about A-A, A-G, ARM, LACM, etc against future capabilities. at the same price. smell the coffee gaur. dont take me seriously if you dont take the thread seriously.


Malli,
No one including the IAF doubts that the Americans have the best technology and superior defense-industrial setup unmatched in the entire world.
What the IAF and common view among BRFit's included do not want is the level of oversight and dependence which the americans bind the users of their defense hardware.
Having said this, F16IN IMHO doesn't stand a chance.
1. It does not have a road-map of 40 yrs which IAF wants.
2. Pak-China have extensive experience with this platform and loads of their war doctrines would be developed & based on this platform.
3. The thunder was reportedly made better by breaking apart and studying the F16's pak had.
Though, obviously, it has some huge advantages also:
1. Partly as you stated.
2. The most quickest induction into the IAF (if you have visited the LM industrial complex, you will know why)

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby jamwal » 27 Feb 2011 12:15

A cousin got loads of Gripen memorabilia including sunglasses, watch, posters and what not and got his pictures clicked with the plane dressed in flight suit in their official ad campaign. Here am i, wondering WTF ! This discrimination against ugly people has to stop :((

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nits » 27 Feb 2011 13:19

Two Sales Pitch publication by F-16 and EF

F-16 - Link

EF - Link

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby kmkraoind » 27 Feb 2011 13:37

Oops, my mistake. Self deleted.

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 » 27 Feb 2011 23:26


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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 28 Feb 2011 04:39

malli wrote:
will we get with only perception? i wish it was that simplistic.

:) I know but this is only the first step. Every step is a barrier for the new entrant.

Later the complex mil relations will evolve over time and will provide the tested real stuff. Until then it is all talk

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Baldev » 28 Feb 2011 04:48

it would be better to get f119 engine on f16 if it is selected

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby keshavchandra » 01 Mar 2011 00:29

I think we should opt only those MRCA participents who will allow us whole technology transfer esp the higher end. MRCA deal for India would't be just as a addition in fleet (like the MKI) but this deal may add adhoc for current indig. Projects.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 01 Mar 2011 04:18

^nothing like that in RFI/RFPs we have heard. Unless you have some chaiwala news.

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Baldev » 01 Mar 2011 06:17

sorry if someone else has posted this before
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... ed-on.html

rbe2 aesa radar picture
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rlfPgilwzMw/T ... c.Full.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5LtVG71FOgY/T ... attern.png

The RBE-2 AA picture released yesterday by Thales has raised a polemic all around the web. Indeed, the number of modules of the presented antenna is exacly 838, which is almost 20% less than the usually advertised "1000 modules" for this radar

http://see.conference-services.net/reso ... 9_0256.pdf

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/ ... r-for.html

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Singha » 01 Mar 2011 06:57

the french apparently do not care for a very large rbe2 aesa saying the rafale's will always work with a awacs in support providing it the wider picture.

UAE when evaluating the rafale had raised the query.

not all non-NATO nations can guarantee that an awacs will be available always...certainly not india. and on deep strike missions there is a part which is outside friendly awacs cover.

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Baldev » 01 Mar 2011 07:46

Singha wrote:the french apparently do not care for a very large rbe2 aesa saying the rafale's will always work with a awacs in support providing it the wider picture.

UAE when evaluating the rafale had raised the query.

not all non-NATO nations can guarantee that an awacs will be available always...certainly not india. and on deep strike missions there is a part which is outside friendly awacs cover.

my understanding is that inclined radar face can accommodate more t/r modules,
but don't forget the cost when it is related to french hardware as you must have seen in m2000 case.

actually radar range should be more than required

and it would be interesting to know how many t/r modules are in aesa radar for typhoon because technology is same for both radars.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 01 Mar 2011 08:10

Baldev wrote:my understanding is that inclined radar face can accommodate more t/r modules,

if mounted at 90* to the inclination. Then, we have none facing for the frontal fcr. That arrangement would not work, in my understanding.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby rajanb » 01 Mar 2011 12:13

@malli
did we dare to change the Mig 21 to make it better on our own.


Have you ever sat in a cockpit of a MIG21? I did so in 1982 and was :shock: and was surprised that at the amount of western gear they had! And BTW, they had Russians from MIG working there too!

Obviously, the intent to change to western systems was not dicatated by the need to see the names MARCONI and COLLINS splashed all over the cockpit to make it more colourful. :rotfl:

So please check facts before you post. As far as selling them to other countries, did the agreement with Russia permit that?

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Baldev » 01 Mar 2011 16:53

zhuk ae tested with 688mm diameter
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 3e218cbe26

so production zhuk ae will have around 775-780 t/r modules if the technology is same.
Last edited by Baldev on 01 Mar 2011 17:03, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby NRao » 01 Mar 2011 17:01

did we dare to change the Mig 21 to make it better on our own


Yes.

There was a group, led by a prof at IIT Bombay, that proposed an alternative to the LCA. It was to redesign the MiG-21 - essentially as they suggested, get rid of the inherent -ves in the 21. They (rightly?) claimed it would be a far cheaper solution, not to talk of the time component too.

This suggestion goes back to around 1980.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Austin » 01 Mar 2011 17:43

Baldev wrote:zhuk ae tested with 688mm diameter
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 3e218cbe26

so production zhuk ae will have around 775-780 t/r modules if the technology is same.


More like 1024 T/R module , technology is the same the backend cold get improvements.

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby keshavchandra » 01 Mar 2011 19:16

TOT is the core of MRCA deal. Contender like france are more promising on this part. Technology absorbtion should be the main focus while final selecthon. Reason is tech. direct absorbtion would be more efficient way then dovelop all at home. This will put an edge in all projects in pipeline even may be an adhoc in LCA MK-3. That was my notion saik.
cheers..

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 01 Mar 2011 21:13

to Rajanb and Nrao:
China independently developed a double delta wing with increased internal fuel. it also introduced indegenous engines with greater thrust. IIT's, notwithstanding we just couldnt do it. or should i say HAL couldnt.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 01 Mar 2011 21:25

It is not that we could not, but it is that there was no directive by requirements and funding to do so, if I may say..

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 01 Mar 2011 21:39

To better oneself is the nature of successful organisations and individuals. our L1 norms and risk averse nature has resulted in some amazing status quo's. the TOT recieved during the build of the Nilgiri Class has survived even to this day, when the private sector is supplying components for the Daring Class. this is just one example from a service that has been at the forefront of modernisation. added to this fact is our low base for achievments. our achievements should never be compared because we are special, living in a special environment, with special needs and requirements.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 01 Mar 2011 21:49

malli wrote:To better oneself is the nature of successful organisations and individuals. our L1 norms and risk averse nature has resulted in some amazing status quo's. the TOT recieved during the build of the Nilgiri Class has survived even to this day, when the private sector is supplying components for the Daring Class. this is just one example from a service that has been at the forefront of modernisation. added to this fact is our low base for achievments. our achievements should never be compared because we are special, living in a special environment, with special needs and requirements.



you sound like a young man cursing everything around and wondering what dreams you saw in college and what the world is...

what you said is all agreed...but would love to see some fruits out of what you saying all along...

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 01 Mar 2011 22:21

Jamie Boscardin wrote:
malli wrote:the facts are there in my posts. its a 1650km ROA vs 340 nm, its a 125 KN engine vs a 90 KN one, its 4.5 tonnes vs 2.5 tonnes meaningful payload, its an endurance of 2-30 vs 1-30 hrs, its aesa now against aesa later, its about A-A, A-G, ARM, LACM, etc against future capabilities. at the same price. smell the coffee gaur. dont take me seriously if you dont take the thread seriously.


Malli,
No one including the IAF doubts that the Americans have the best technology and superior defense-industrial setup unmatched in the entire world.
What the IAF and common view among BRFit's included do not want is the level of oversight and dependence which the americans bind the users of their defense hardware.
Having said this, F16IN IMHO doesn't stand a chance.
1. It does not have a road-map of 40 yrs which IAF wants.
2. Pak-China have extensive experience with this platform and loads of their war doctrines would be developed & based on this platform.
3. The thunder was reportedly made better by breaking apart and studying the F16's pak had.
Though, obviously, it has some huge advantages also:
1. Partly as you stated.
2. The most quickest induction into the IAF (if you have visited the LM industrial complex, you will know why)


very relevant post and i take the thrust of the argument.
Inspite of it i will continue to plump for the teens for the simple reason that a bird in hand is better than ten in the bush. to put it simplistically, (i hope you will forgive me for that) how much of russian, swedish or european stuff is there in our homes? isnt what is good for our homes good for our country? now coming to trade deficit, will this deal; increase or decrease our trade deficit with the particular country? it makes economic sense.
But the biggest reason from a psycho analyst's point of view is the instant superiority that we will attain against our rabid western neighbour. I dont remember having lost a single wargame. the secret was playing the opposing commander. like i said earlier perception matters and no joker in Quetta would go up against odds of 72 vs 260. it would take a decade and a half before that joker is going to say that some J-ng was better. by then we would move on.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Boreas » 01 Mar 2011 22:47

malli wrote:
malli wrote:the facts are there in my posts. its a 1650km ROA vs 340 nm, its a 125 KN engine vs a 90 KN one, its 4.5 tonnes vs 2.5 tonnes meaningful payload, its an endurance of 2-30 vs 1-30 hrs, its aesa now against aesa later, its about A-A, A-G, ARM, LACM, etc against future capabilities. at the same price. smell the coffee gaur. dont take me seriously if you dont take the thread seriously.


very relevant post and i take the thrust of the argument.
Inspite of it i will continue to plump for the teens for the simple reason that a bird in hand is better than ten in the bush. to put it simplistically, (i hope you will forgive me for that) how much of russian, swedish or european stuff is there in our homes? isnt what is good for our homes good for our country? now coming to trade deficit, will this deal; increase or decrease our trade deficit with the particular country? it makes economic sense.
But the biggest reason from a psycho analyst's point of view is the instant superiority that we will attain against our rabid western neighbour. I dont remember having lost a single wargame. the secret was playing the opposing commander. like i said earlier perception matters and no joker in Quetta would go up against odds of 72 vs 260. it would take a decade and a half before that joker is going to say that some J-ng was better. by then we would move on.

Malli ji plz address my concern, do you think its in our best interest to sign LSA, CISMOA and BECA??
(In case you answer yes, I would be pleased if you can point out 4-5 benefits of signing them.)


(Fortunately) Before buying a Mac & my iphone I didn't have to agree to allow Steve Jobs to inspect my home whenever he desires!
(And let me tell you I would have certainly not purchased either of them if pre-condition included any such clause.)

malli
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Feb 2011 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby malli » 01 Mar 2011 23:12

LSA is vital for the IN. No other service will be affected. we give logistics support to the USAF on case to case basis. in the last decade we havent denied the USAF and the USN has not denied the IN or vice versa even on a case to case basis. what this agreement entails is that both countries will use the logistics facilities of the other and the financial aspects will be resolved on a yearly basis. that is that. No basing rights, no co-ercive overflight facilities etc etc. The IN would enoremously benifit and would have a permanent presence in the Gulf/ Red Sea. Just imagine relying on Djibouti or Oman to maintain a presence. or imagine maintaining a replenishment ship on permanent rotation in the gulf.

CISMOA?? whats the full form?? Communications inter-operability and security memorandum of agreement. what does it imply?? it simply means that the communication equipment supplied by the americans will not be shared with a third country. why is it so important for the americans?? cut to the P-8I. link 16 or 22 is probably may gigabytes faster than legacy IN systems. this is just a guess. but an educated one. suppose we the same system and we want to sell some comm systems to the bangladeshis. wouldnt we have some safeguards??

BECA is too simple for me to try and rebut.

When the SNF's or the EKM's or the Mig 29's came the russians forbade even serving indian officers from visiting them. The EKM's were contractually not allowed for two decades to be exposed to multinational exercises. It was the same with the Jaguars and the Mirages.

You bought the MAC and the Iphone and Intel chips and Windows even when they were closed systems because they offered value. and believe me they are closed. you bought a mac that couldnt connect to much else because it felt great. The Iphone doesnt give you options, there's only itunes. the premium is on what it can do and not on what it cannot do.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 02 Mar 2011 01:08

Doesn't interoperability also includes signal processing logic, and perhaps response controls as well? If agreements are made at abstract level of thought, then we can easily get chewed at the lower end. They should make clear the devils of details. Even then, these legal documents are a killer for any smooth operation our forces need to have. Why jay walk in a direction when you know there is a hidden pot hole?

Wayne Arnold
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2010 22:20

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Wayne Arnold » 02 Mar 2011 02:28

Dear All, a little clarification pls....are we still assuming that the deal would be allotted to a single vendor??I suppose there have been enough hints to suggest that the deal might be split to multiple vendors as well.Now even though the IAF is already struggling with the huge amt. of inventory it has to maintain for its current line of aircraft, wudn't this be an optimal solution to meet the current and future needs of the IAF??comment pls?

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 02 Mar 2011 03:03

Wayne Arnold wrote:Dear All, a little clarification pls....are we still assuming that the deal would be allotted to a single vendor??I suppose there have been enough hints to suggest that the deal might be split to multiple vendors as well.Now even though the IAF is already struggling with the huge amt. of inventory it has to maintain for its current line of aircraft, wudn't this be an optimal solution to meet the current and future needs of the IAF??comment pls?

We need maybe all the vendors selected and have few squad for each type. India has the best testing ranges in the world and Indians will get the best of all the tech


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests