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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 16 Oct 2010 13:33

I strongly believe that the Obama trip could be the game changer for the one of Unkils birds, the SH especially..

NDTV reports
Indian jet deal could create 27,000 jobs in US

The Obama Administration is eyeing the lucrative multi-billion dollar tender for medium multi-role combat aircraft of Indian Air Force as this has the potential to create 27,000 jobs in the US. At a time when unemployment rate continues to be at low ebb and US President Barack Obama is struggling to create fresh jobs; such a deal bagged by an American company could give him a big political boost.

Two major fighter jet manufacturing companies - Boeing and Lockheed Martin - are vying for the USD 10 billion Indian tender; which is expected to be raised by the US officials during the India visit of the US President in November. "If either jet wins, we estimate that it could bring 27,000 jobs to the US," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake told a Baltimore-based think tank, thus indicating the importance US attaches in bagging such a deal.

"Equally important, it will help seal our strategic objective of working wing-to-wing with India to bolster global security and stability," Blake said. "India is the world's largest democracy, one of the world's fastest growing economies, and a rising power in Asia and beyond. It has vibrant democratic institutions, a free press, a robust civil society, and an innovative private sector," he said.

"India's commitment to the values cherished by their people and espoused by their founders democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights animate our continued efforts to build a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure, and sustainable world," he said. "These common values and our increasingly convergent interests have driven an unprecedented transformation in Indo-US relations in just one decade

"Today, the wide scope and the intensity of our bilateral engagement is unprecedented and yet still growing," he said. "President Obama had called India our "indispensable" partner for the 21st century. That's why the President and Secretary Clinton are now forging a new strategic partnership with India that will help shape the 21st century," Blake said.


All this drama about this deal sealing a "so called strategic alliance".. whole load of bs.. Though having said that, I have no doubt that the MMS gov will go down on its knees for Dear Sir Obama and buy that crap of 'strategic alliance'...

Pratik_S
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 21:19
Location: In the Lion's Den
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pratik_S » 16 Oct 2010 14:45

@Guar
I don't understand what you are trying to imply here. Its either you are telling that I am idotic person with absolutely no clue of what the discussion is about or that you are completely ignorant about the history.

Some simple facts which makes me believe that manufacturing is easier in a comparative sense are as follows:
# A country like Pak is today manufacturing reasonably good fighters.
# Iran with absolutely no aviation background was able to maintain their fleet of F-14's for decades which "if i am not wrong" had engines. They were also able to develop so called indigenous fighter based on the F-5.
# Example of India could also be taken over here, after American sanctions the Tejas program was able to maintain GE engines on whom the ToT was not received. There was a article on it a while ago praising the efforts of the engineer's who did a great job with limited know how.
# Also HAL was able to develop some major components of MiG-27 without the help of Russian's who were more interested in selling their expensive components. Read BR history archives.
# Israel was able to manufacture Nesser by stealing the blue prints from France. It is basically Mirage-5 which Israel funded and later France didn't supply it to them.
# China is probably the prime example of manufacturing. Look at them, they are manufacturing Su-27/30/33's without the help of Russians. But struggling with their own R&D.

Thus this proves my logical claim that manufacturing and maintaining what you have is much easy. If you still don't understand it than nobody can help you.
Gaur wrote:^^My suggestion would be to leave it. Wickberg is a particularly bad mannered Swede who graces us from time to time in order to flame bait.Shame really. He only succeeds in giving a bad name to an otherwise excellent people.PS: You do seem to be getting into discussion with all sort of characters today. :P

This shows your nature. You are more interested in ridiculing people rather than countering their views.

manum wrote:its been decades we receiving Russian engine Manuals...of various types...

Exactly, and India has managed to maintain and manufacture those engines without issue but struggled with developing Kaveri. This proves that manufacturing and maintaining is easy. Also your claim that India isn't manufacturing TF engines isn't supported by HAL Korpat which claims it manufactures from nut bolts to blades and shaft. Also I am aware that Indian auto-industry especially TATA motors is dependent on foreign engines for its vehicles. This is primarily because Indian auto industry wasn't there up until 1980's. I can give you example of LADA cars, in soviet times they used to manufacture Fait cars as their own. Now tell me why was a premier auto firm of a super power state not developing its own car ? its because of lack of will. Even today Russian car industry is using outdated technology and old models while its military's missile launch vehicles, troop carriers, tanks, etc are best in the world. Even in formula one there are only four engine suppliers (for 12 teams). Both the teams leading the constructors championship "do not" use in-house engines. I am just trying to tell you that there is no sense in comparing civilian and military situations as both are driven by different factors and goals.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gaur » 16 Oct 2010 16:30

PratikS,
I am hardly interested in a mudslinging match with you. So, this will be my last reply to you even though I personally think that your statements are totally ridiculous. Case in point, the following statement of yours which started the discussion.
Also note that manufacturing and maintaining engines and other stuff is easy and India has done it in the past and I can't think why India can do it with the GE-414.
You said that for the hypothetical situation in which India would be under sanction from US.

Now to your latest post.

A country like Pak is today manufacturing reasonably good fighters.

I assume that you are referring to JF-17? If you think that assembling and manufacturing is the same thing then all the power to you. Pakistan is in that case indeed manufacturing JF-17s.
But there is a little part of it called RD-93 which Pakistan (or anyone else for that matter) would find very difficult to "manufacture".
Also, the PAF F-16 were nearly operationally crippled before the Sanctions were lifted. Even during the Kargil War, they were hard pressed for spares.
Iran with absolutely no aviation background was able to maintain their fleet of F-14's for decades which "if i am not wrong" had engines. They were also able to develop so called indigenous fighter based on the F-5.

And how many of F-14s are operational now? And how sparingly are they used to keep them that way?
As for the indigenous fighter "HESA Saeqeh", no performance issues have been issued till date other than the rather "dubious" figure of 3000km range. We do not even know whether it is a supersonic fighter. So your comparison of HESA Saeqeh to modern fighters like MMRCA contenders is baffling to say the least.

Example of India could also be taken over here, after American sanctions the Tejas program was able to maintain GE engines on whom the ToT was not received. There was a article on it a while ago praising the efforts of the engineer's who did a great job with limited know how.

Maintaining a handful of engines is not similar to maintain a large fleet. But leave alone maintaining, you have repeatedly asserted how "manufacturing" them is "easy".

Also HAL was able to develop some major components of MiG-27 without the help of Russian's who were more interested in selling their expensive components. Read BR history archives.

While the upgrade program of Mig-27 by HAL Nasik and DARE deserves high praise, I do not see the connection of that particular program with engine manufacturing. Again, another irreverent point.

Israel was able to manufacture Nesser by stealing the blue prints from France. It is basically Mirage-5 which Israel funded and later France didn't supply it to them.
'
You seem to have a habit of basing your claims on programs which have little open source info and a lot of mystery and rumour around them.
Nesser's development is shrouded in mystery. The original order of 30 Nessers was paid for by Israelis. Now we go into the rumour territory. Some say that the Israel stole the blueprints, some say that they were secretly given to them by France while some say that they were given whole aircrafts in parts that were meant for French Air Force. Take your pick, neither of the cases prove your point.
Even your theory of stealing "blueprints" does not support your claim. What exactly do you mean by blueprint? 3 view diagrams of the aircraft and engine?

China is probably the prime example of manufacturing. Look at them, they are manufacturing Su-27/30/33's without the help of Russians. But struggling with their own R&D.

Look up the internet for the number of tubofan and turbojet programs they have had for decades. It was hardly "easy". In spite of all the reverse engineering and espionage, it took decades of experimenting for them to reach this level.

Exactly, and India has managed to maintain and manufacture those engines without issue but struggled with developing Kaveri. This proves that manufacturing and maintaining is easy. Also your claim that India isn't manufacturing TF engines isn't supported by HAL Korpat which claims it manufactures from nut bolts to blades and shaft.

AFAIK, the full absorption of AL-31FP technology by HAL Koraput has been delayed to 2014. Unfortunately, I am not able to find the interview where I read that.
But even if you are correct and HAL Koraput does indeed manufacture AL-31FP ingeniously, we did so with full support and TOT from Russians whose technicians were present at every stage of manufacturing. And even then it took us nearly a decade. You find this situation the same as that of manufacturing GE-414?

You have made a stupid and uninformed statement and now you are simply not being a man enough to accept that. Instead, like a child, you are throwing even more bizarre and unrelated "logical statements".
I have exhausted all the patience that I have on this post. Please do not expect another reply from me on this matter. You want to believe that "maintaining and manufacturing engines and other stuff" is easy without the co-operation of OEM? Fine with me.

Pratik_S
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 21:19
Location: In the Lion's Den
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pratik_S » 16 Oct 2010 20:11

I am hardly interested in a mudslinging match with you. So, this will be my last reply to you even though I personally think that your statements are totally ridiculous. Case in point, the following statement of yours which started the discussion.

Let me assure you that I harbor same feeling towards you.
You said that for the hypothetical situation in which India would be under sanction from US.

Yes its a purely hypothetical situation. Looking at present present trends I don't think we will be facing any sanctions unless we do something totally out of mind which also unlikely.
I assume that you are referring to JF-17? If you think that assembling and manufacturing is the same thing then all the power to you. Pakistan is in that case indeed manufacturing JF-17s.
But there is a little part of it called RD-93 which Pakistan (or anyone else for that matter) would find very difficult to "manufacture". Also, the PAF F-16 were nearly operationally crippled before the Sanctions were lifted. Even during the Kargil War, they were hard pressed for spares.

Now that comment was purely comparative in sense, I know Pak doesn't have brain power to pull-off JF-17 on its own. However they have Chinese support in all situations. And Chinese have the capability to "maintain" (READ CAREFULLY) those engines if the Russians withdraw support. Also Pak has enough installations within their country which can " Manufacture" most components within the country. Remaining pieces will provided by China. Also the "RD-33" will soon be replaced by the chinese copy. Yes I know they aren't reliable but Pak will fly with them instead of just smoking weed in the factory's.
And how many of F-14s are operational now? And how sparingly are they used to keep them that way?
As for the indigenous fighter "HESA Saeqeh", no performance issues have been issued till date other than the rather "dubious" figure of 3000km range. We do not even know whether it is a supersonic fighter. So your comparison of HESA Saeqeh to modern fighters like MMRCA contenders is baffling to say the least.

First F-14 was delivered to Iran in 1976 (some 35 years ago). In all 44 were delivered to Iran and some 15 are "believed" to be operational. So considering the fact that they stopped receiving support decades ago I think a country like Iran has done a good job maintaining the ageing fleet up until now. Neither you nor I can comment as to how often they are used. Now Iranian aviation was nothing but they managed to built a decent fighter on their own. Now for them Saeqeh is as good as MMRCA for us.
Maintaining a handful of engines is not similar to maintain a large fleet. But leave alone maintaining, you have repeatedly asserted how "manufacturing" them is "easy".

Yes it will different but you should know that the deal for GE-414 will not be similar to GE-404. We will be getting tools, manuals and ToT along with the deal. This should make their job easier. Also I had given a time-frame. If the sanctions are imposed when we are yet to absorb these technologies than it will be difficult. But if we have achieved a great deal independence than we can "manufacture" them.
While the upgrade program of Mig-27 by HAL Nasik and DARE deserves high praise, I do not see the connection of that particular program with engine manufacturing. Again, another irreverent point.

You are fixated with engines. I have also stated that we can maintain the airplanes and engines if we are imposed with sanction after the MMRCA production phase is over. Its completely relevant.
You seem to have a habit of basing your claims on programs which have little open source info and a lot of mystery and rumour around them.
Nesser's development is shrouded in mystery. The original order of 30 Nessers was paid for by Israelis. Now we go into the rumour territory. Some say that the Israel stole the blueprints, some say that they were secretly given to them by France while some say that they were given whole aircrafts in parts that were meant for French Air Force. Take your pick, neither of the cases prove your point.
Even your theory of stealing "blueprints" does not support your claim. What exactly do you mean by blueprint? 3 view diagrams of the aircraft and engine?

Its widely know that France is a Arab sympathizer and basic facts regarding Nasser is known. Most people acknowledge the fact that Israeli's stole the aircraft. The remaining possibilities are rumors created by people which might be true or not. But in matters of defense I like to go with widely accepted claims. You on the other hand like to dwell in self imaginations and rumors. Also by blueprints I mean the entire set of manuals. You can't ask me to write names of every single documents over here. Also i will agree I don't know what they are.
Look up the internet for the number of tubofan and turbojet programs they have had for decades. It was hardly "easy". In spite of all the reverse engineering and espionage, it took decades of experimenting for them to reach this level.

When did I say about R&D. I just said about manufacturing. If you have tools and have developed the technique of manufacturing one particular engine you can keep doing it. Thats what China is doing, paying royalty to Russia and manufacturing them. Do you think it will make any difference to China if Russia imposes sanctions and embargoes. In fact they will save money on royalty. Same with the Flankers thats why Russia is unable to take action on China cause they know they won't be able to do anything plus won't be getting what little money they are getting now. (Just a phrase, they get lot of money as royalty).
AL-31FP

HAL Korpat claims that it does. I will believe them instead of you.
You have made a stupid and uninformed statement and now you are simply not being a man enough to accept that. Instead, like a child, you are throwing even more bizarre and unrelated "logical statements".
I have exhausted all the patience that I have on this post. Please do not expect another reply from me on this matter. You want to believe that "maintaining and manufacturing engines and other stuff" is easy without the co-operation of OEM? Fine with me.

Yes ofcourse, a uninformed person like you will find thing which he doesn't understand as illogical and all the other worlds you mentioned. Also It seems like you don't have any patience as you gave up on the argument after a few quotes, underlines and stupid ridiculing words. Also it seems like you are not a man enough to put your thinking over here (or may be you are not capable of it). Look Mr, I am a reasonable person, I will put forward my views and if you can constructively challenge them and convince me than its fine(thats what we are suppose to be doing in a forum). But you seem to enjoy ridiculing people and I also sense some level of pride and superiority, don't know why may be because of 800+ posts which anyone with ample time can manage. I am too not interested in slugging out cheap like a Paki against a fellow Indian.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 16 Oct 2010 21:55

Which takes precedence? IAF strategies or Obama's or Medvedev's or any other MRCA contending nations' chief? I know MRCA decision is half politics and half technical, but Obama's 27000 jobs projections irking me a lot.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Luxtor » 17 Oct 2010 01:53

^^^
MMS Should ask Obama how many US jobs the freebies and gifts to the Pukis creates when he visits.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 17 Oct 2010 02:36

well.. if it is barter, then there are much more aspects to consider like for every US job, there is a $foreign exchange$ times in number of Indian jobs.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 17 Oct 2010 06:23

SaiK wrote:Which takes precedence? IAF strategies or Obama's or Medvedev's or any other MRCA contending nations' chief?


What annoys me more sometimes is that IAF, during their evaluation, had the choice (if they wished) to down-select and push for their preferences. Rather, they chose the points system and ensure all the aircrafts fulfill minimum requirement. Which, though fair, hasn't or isn't going to help their cause if the really do have a preference.

At the moment the message out there seems to be - all of these satisfy requirements so you pick one. Which is fine if thats what the want. They have now left it to the 'intellectuals' in the gov to play..

On another note, does anyone know if the birds were "ranked" overall? Or were there brownie points for doing better than the other aircrafts in particular mission or technical characteristics? Surely some one who gets a distinction deserves more than points than someone who just passed.

SaiK wrote:Obama's 27000 jobs projections irking me a lot.


(OT)
This still pales in comparison to the earlier annocuncemt on the C-17 deal..
C-17 deal with India could create 30,000 jobs in US: Blake

On the flip side, I think that announcements are only to muster support for weapon sales to India.. And to show that these sales would benifit local market by creating jobs. As eventually no matter which company & country the deal goes to, its bound to create thousands of jobs. These public announcements about 'number of jobs' seems to be aimed at the American audience.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 17 Oct 2010 19:39

America will see this deal in terms of jobs, economic benefits and the ability to tie down Indian Armed Forces with their forces. They are targeting an era post 2020-25, where the proposed economic size difference between America and some other hostile countries would have shrunk considerably. And if we want something from America like it naval Agies systems or F-22/35 then we should definitely hype the amount of jobs such a deal would create in Amerika.

What we should be concerned with is the ability of our government to successfully resist this american pressure. None of the American birds on offer is great. Many times we have observed that we have meekly surrendered to the american pressure. Even when our core national interests have got harmed.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Kersi D » 17 Oct 2010 20:22

SaiK wrote:Which takes precedence? IAF strategies or Obama's or Medvedev's or any other MRCA contending nations' chief? I know MRCA decision is half politics and half technical, but Obama's 27000 jobs projections irking me a lot.


We give a contract to a US company so that 27,000 US jobs are saved. And US imposes more restrictions on Indian job seekers !!

Fair Exchange !!

K

PS Mr. Obama is NOT fair, not puns intended !!

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Avid » 18 Oct 2010 22:36

America will see this deal in terms of jobs, economic benefits and the ability to tie down Indian Armed Forces with their forces.


American viewpoint is not monolithic -- both in goals as well as process.

Foreign policy faces competition of views in both Goals (long/short-term) and Process from DoD and State Dept.

GoI, to its credit, learned this quickly and has separated the engagement and kept them independent. The military-to-military strategy (Defence Ministry <-> U.S. DoD) is independent to that of foreign policy Foreign Ministry <-> State Dept.

Now, to the question of US wanting to tie down the Indian Armed Forces. DoD point of view is that India be an independent ally with the goal of -- stabilizing influence in the region, containment of potential threats (emanating from TSP and neighborhood, Chinese, Economic threats from rouge actions from Persian Gulf to Straits of Malacca), foundation and bridge to some of the ASEAN nations as well as East African nations through bilateral alliances with Indian forces to neutralize expanding influence and/or threat (read Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. from ASEAN, and Madagascar, Tanzania, Mozambique). DoD would not and does not want to make India a dependent ally (they have learnt from NATO experience!).

From State Dept. point of view world is a little different. They see themselves as quasi peace keepers, and would like to maintain parity/fairness and not "destabilize". In fact, it is better put as -- star trek prime directive -- they would not like to alter balance anywhere. State Dept. is a dinosaur which has not evolved and the rank and file still view relationship with India through TSP parity lens. This is the cause of problems with technical cooperation with Boeing, GE, LM, etc. It is the State Dept. denial of permission (not DoD!)

There is further finesse and players within these giant institutions, and thus both DoD as well as State Dept. something exhibit multiple personality disorder.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 19 Oct 2010 05:37

Ajai Shukla reports.. (dreams away rather...)
Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s

Given the global buzz around the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) ongoing $10-billion procurement of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), my suggestion to scrap the process and, instead, go in for a straight buy of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightening II fighters is admittedly radical. But consider this: when the F-35 enters service, a couple of years from now, it will comfortably outclass every one of the six fighters that the IAF is currently evaluating. Thereafter, through the entire 30-40 year service life of the selected MMRCA, the IAF will fly a second-rung fighter when it could have gotten the best.


while framing the specifications for the 126-fighter tender in 2003, the IAF set the bar so low that the F-35 was overqualified. The Ministry of Defence (MoD), still nursing a hangover from the Tehelka sting expose, wanted to avoid potential controversy by having several vendors competing for the MMRCA order. Had the IAF been allowed to keep the long-term in mind, and to demand Fifth Generation capabilities, only the F-35 would have met the tender requirement. With that single-vendor situation an MoD bugaboo, the IAF'’s specifications were dumbed down to bring in a clutch of Fourth Generation fighters.


Price was just one reason for offering the F-16. With the F-35’s prototype not even having flown then (it first flew in 2006), Lockheed Martin knew that the F-35 would not be available for flight-testing in the time frame that the IAF wanted. Senior IAF officers believe that Lockheed Martin made a strategic decision: to field the F-16 in the MMRCA competition; and later offer the F-35 as a Fifth Generation fighter, a logical follow-on to the F-16. But that offer (which officials confirm was made to the IAF later) was a non-starter: India had decided to partner Russia in jointly developing the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).


Senior IAF officers, serving and retired, make two arguments against the F-35. Accepting that the F-35 far outclasses the other MMRCA contenders, they apprehend that scrapping the MMRCA purchase risks losing several years that the MoD will surely take for fresh evaluations and financial sanctions for buying the F-35.


The other IAF concern is that, with the F-35 still under development, there is little clarity on when it will become available or on what terms. But the announcement last week of Israel’s purchase of 20 F-35s (with another 75 likely to follow) has dispelled much of the mist. Israel, which is not even one of the nine countries that funded the F-35 development, will be buying the fighters for $96 million each under the Foreign Military Sales programme, for not much more than the Rafale’s and Eurofighter’s estimated cost. Israel will get its F-35s between 2015 and 2017; several of the MMRCA contenders will need as long.

Significantly, defence analysts believe that Israel has obtained Washington’s okay to integrate a variety of Israeli sensors and weaponry onto the F-35. The US has long resisted this since it involves passing on software source codes to the Israelis. With an order of 126-200 fighters, India too could demand this important concession.

Given India’s deteriorating security environment, it must build a Fifth Generation air force, one that will remain the pre-eminent power in South Asia the next two decades. The Fifth Generation heavy fighter already in the works, in partnership with Russia, will only enter service towards the end of the decade. In the medium fighter segment, a Fifth Generation fighter is as essential, with strategic balance maintained by importing from the US. For obvious political reasons, the initiative to scrap the MMRCA and go in for the F-35 must come from the IAF; and the MoD must assure them of minimal delay.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby SaiK » 19 Oct 2010 07:09

Scrap MRCA projects sounds like prelude to subsequent shocking announcements of MRCA deal going to a surprise decision, like it happened against EJ200. Sorry to note such articles have to play in the subliminal minds of bidders and final documents that my be getting drafted. Also, note that IAF has already given its suggestion as to which A/c it wants or likes to get, and a point of leak that AS ji got (or projects to do a spin) that either all a/cs were having equal favor or none.

I sincerely hope EADS does not screw up the MRCA deal. They have a pretty good fighter to compete against ransom France and snow-balling Russia. Thank heavens that our babooze nod for PAKFA happens before MRCA announcement. Else, there would be real pressure on IAF to even send its decision to south dilli.

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nishu » 19 Oct 2010 07:33

I sincerely request people to issue a fatwa against ajay shukla and vishal thaphar . i cant bare their ddm reports anymore :( :cry: :cry: :( .
THEY HAVE SOLD THERE ETHICS TO FAVOR ONLY ONE COUNTRY .

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 19 Oct 2010 07:47

Well, as I mentioned before, the MRCA deal doesn't make a lot of sense, but IF you are going to go ahead with it, you need a plane that can be available IMMEDIATELY (ie not Gripen-NG or MiG-35) to retain even a fig-leaf of rationality about it.

Every year the MRCA gets pushed out just makes it look sillier and sillier.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Dmurphy » 19 Oct 2010 08:07

U mean a plane like F-16 IN? :(

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 19 Oct 2010 09:01

Dmurphy wrote:U mean a plane like F-16 IN? :(



The F-16, SH, EF and Rafale are currently in production.

I'm not sure how much customization is involved in the F-16IN or any of the other proposals, but there is something to be said for a hot line and an active supplier network.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Austin » 19 Oct 2010 09:28

shukla wrote:Ajai Shukla reports.. (dreams away rather...)
Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s


I guess a US trip can be an eye opener for Ajai and his F-35 outlook.

But some one may have other views on F-35
F-35 JSF: Can It Meet Canada's Needs?

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby rohiths » 19 Oct 2010 09:39

Firstly the F-35 has a huge order book and even the US has not replaced its fighters with F-35. On top of it there is UK, Israel, NATO, Australia and Japan who are waiting for F-35s. Even if India orders immediately it may take atleast 2020 to get the first batch which is too much of a delay.
Secondly, the F-35 will cost $200 million a piece and will be too much. 126 aircraft will be $25 Billion which is way too much. IMHO numbers are as important as quality. It is better to go with Eurofighter.
Thirdly, the payload of F-35 is limited. When you have air superiority against pakis it is better to bomb the living hell out of them before they use the nukes. F-35 may not be too suited for it.
Last and not the least we have already signed up for FGFA which is cheaper and outperforms the F-35. We also have plans for AMCA which will be inducted latest by 2025.
I don't know what Uncle gave to Ajai Shukla but he has gone rogue

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 19 Oct 2010 09:45

The other IAF concern is that, with the F-35 still under development, there is little clarity on when it will become available or on what terms. But the announcement last week of Israel’s purchase of 20 F-35s (with another 75 likely to follow) has dispelled much of the mist. Israel, which is not even one of the nine countries that funded the F-35 development, will be buying the fighters for $96 million each under the Foreign Military Sales programme, for not much more than the Rafale’s and Eurofighter’s estimated cost. Israel will get its F-35s between 2015 and 2017; several of the MMRCA contenders will need as long.


Gentlemen,
It is true that the few MRCA ac will cost nearly as much as JSF. However, the FGFA with similar or supposedly superior performance characteristics is likely to be in final phases of development by that time and would enter production in a year more or so.

The cost stated for the F-35 is the cost per aircraft. Whereas the cost of MMRCA contenders IIRC includes several other maintenance related costs spread across their life time. This removes the misconception that F-35 and the MMRCA ac will be costing nearly same.

Now, the transfer of technology we were all talking about will be a lost dream in this case. Except for Boeing and LM the remaining houses are offering substantial transfer of technology. We will be at loss in this precious resource once the F-35 comes into picture.

F-35 will be having technologies far critical then those on C-17 or P-8i. This will result in a far more stringent terms of CISOMA.

The original IAF requirement for a gap filler will get lost and also, the aircraft will upset the operational doctrine of IAF with the Rambha as the lead. This may be for the good but just for the record.

Irrespective of the F-35's, The USN has ordered for F-18's. This means that there is still room for such aircraft despite the induction of the JSF.(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-2 ... -jets.html) or otherwise, there are things that are better done by an F-18 then F-35.

Finally, the threat of sanctions will be utmost in this case as the platform is in the forefront of the US arsenal(bar Raptor).

All said, I too love to see the JSF deployed in the north east, but that decision would not be as blind as it currently seems.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby palash_kol » 19 Oct 2010 12:10

Scraping the MMRCA deal will convey a bad message to the global military powers except US (who will be happy that without no competition they won the race and they are successful in making INDIA politically isolated from the countries. Since MMRCA deal is politically very important and should be fair enough). After so much of RFP evaluation, field evaluation, etc etc it is completely meaningless to go for any other fighter plane which is not even in the race. :eek:

If a reporter like Ajaishukla express his views in this ways...I would say it was not expected from a reporter like him who wanted India not to buy an aircraft career made in Britain..but want F-35 as MMRCA where there will not be enough TOT and other indian equipment integration considering India will be receiving it from 2018.

IMO....We already skipped few gen aircraft in making our indigenous aircraft(considering LCA a 4th gen aircraft)...Its time to get our hands on 4++ gen aircraft....get the technologies for our future AMCA....Otherwise we will have a hige gap in our knowledge in making fighter plane...No jumping - tumping any more.... :oops:

Ajai babu...its bad reporting and bad suggestion... :oops:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Philip » 19 Oct 2010 12:39

Take Ajay's views seriously guys! It is worth a hard look indeed,but afer taking a hard look you will have enough and more reasons why the JSF F-35 acquisition by the IAF would be a monumental blunder even if it were available to us,which it is not and even if it were would,would be the equivalent of buying a "dumb blonde"!

One,the JSF is in trouble,both with development and with delayed induction dates.It has seen some orders delayed or cancelled and nations buying "more of the same",OZ with F-18s for example.Secondly,the US is NOT handing over to even its closest (former) poodle Britain,TOT,which has deeply angered the former poodle,as Britain is expected to buy US arms at the cost of its own arms industry and fight US wars at the cost of its own taxpayers! The UK has just revealed that JSF orders will be drastically cut,with the STOVL version cancelled (even to the cost of Rolls-Royce,the engine manufacturers for this version),one new 3 billion pound carrier to be mothballed or sold (to India?) just three years after commissioning.We will never get TOT or even a decent version of the aircraft,since we have not signed on the dotted line to humiliating US demands and conditions.Thirdly,given the inordinate delays and long list of orders for the same,the JSF in IAF colours will arrive only after 2017 at the very earliest,by which time the vastly superior 5th-gen Indo-Russian fighter will arrive.
Fourthly,the inferior single-engined,single pilot JSF will come in at least 25% more costly than the 5th-gen fighter.In fact,the land of OZ even wonders whether the JSF can outperform the upgraded Flankers of the future which will possess some 5th-gen technology.

Ajay Shukla is echoing the desperation in the JSF's manufacturers ever since the new govt. in the UK took power,which has heaped scorn about the so-called "special relationship" with the US,has decided to delay Trident SSBN modernisation,scrap STOVL JSFs for the RN and use only the CATOBAR version or even buy,(sacre bleu!) French Rafales for their new carrier when it arrives and jointly operate its carrier forces along with the French.What treason to Anglo-US relations!
So who can step in and save the JSF from its spiralling costs as orders decline and development escalates in time? Yes,the saviour is our very own Dr.Singh! He is India's "Messiah" to the US's arms industry and when the two "Mess-iah's" meet,and having already resurrected the C-17 from the dead,who knows what miracles they may perform in the future?

PS:Is Ajay's fervent plea in favour of the JSF also because he has inside info that the two aging US beauties offered to us are at the bottom of the evaluation list in the MMRCA contest?

PPS:IF the MMRCA programme/contest is ever scrapped,and I doubt if the IAF are in a mood to surrender to the whims and fancy of the Pentagon and US arms lobby-given the ACM's statements about signing the US's "conditonal" conditions,expect the unlikly winner to be.....the SU-30MKI with even more orders for the same!
Last edited by Philip on 19 Oct 2010 12:45, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Oct 2010 12:42

F-35 gives us some very mouth watering capabilities. It expected V/STOL capability will give us a generation leap in the eastern and western himalayas. It might be a perfect complement to the proposed PAK-FA fighter. But the drawbacks as pointed by rohiths and koti namely, unlikely to have a full TOT, high cost and delayed induction will be a drag. There is another drawback, this is an American fighter. Expect the yanks to quietly slip to the pakis certain critical info about this fighter like they did during operation parakaram or during and after the mumbai attack.

Baring the F-22 and the proposed PAK-FA fighter, there is no fighter which can match F-35 in the next decade. Off course i am assuming that the Chinese or the french do not come out with a competent fighter aircraft in the meantime. F-35 is far far superior to all the six contenders on offer right now. If F-35 is made available without the stringent end user monitoring and a significant ToT, we should definitely give this fighter a closer look. Even at the expense of MRCA.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 19 Oct 2010 13:02

the F35 is a red herring. i suggest that it is being put out there because LM (and Boeing) have assessed their chances of winning as being slim, and are now trying to 'queer the pitch'. it is a spoiling tactic.
that said, the F35 is a long way away from being in service in the US, let alone any of the allies. IAF will be a long way down the track to receive goodies, and then there will be the usual tech denial problems - which even the tight-white buddies of unkil are experiencing.

capability wise, we are gearing up to resist china and overwhelm pakistan. the typhoon, rafale and Grippen NG fill that bill nicely, have plenty of growth potential and in two cases offer interesting strategic industrial collaboration options with political benefits

note that 'compensatory' orders are being given to the US, Ru and perhaps even France... these are also clues

much as i was a fan of the F18 family, i think it is not the right choice for the IAF

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 19 Oct 2010 13:49

Baring the F-22 and the proposed PAK-FA fighter, there is no fighter which can match F-35 in the next decade. Off course i am assuming that the Chinese or the french do not come out with a competent fighter aircraft in the meantime. F-35 is far far superior to all the six contenders on offer right now.


There are a lot of reports from credible sources as cited above(http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html) that state the contrary sir.

The only visibly superior capability an F-35 carries at this point is the Radar and the unverified Stealth.

The Su-30/35 or a Typhoon can easily outclass this in terms of agility, range, payload, maneuverability among others.
The real strength of F-35 comes from the weapons it carries. That too, I believe can be safely compared to the similar platforms in EU or Russia(possibly on the way for FGFA).

We can't use a sword to cut trees or an axe in the Kitchen. The MMRCA has a vast Strike requirement. We even discussed how the EF fares poorer in Strike roles as it was primarily intended as an Air-superiority aircraft.
And now it seems funny when we are comparing an even inferior platform** for the intended reason.

Not that the F-35 is worthless, but it was not required. And without filling in the necessary requirement(of medium Strike AC in numbers), we would be diverting resources to more un necessary segment at this point in time.

If the need for a Stealth platform arises or if we feel that it could be beneficial in our doctrine or if the work on FGFA and MCA are not satisfactory, then we can easily add in the JSF if the US MoD is Ok with that.
A fresh order of some 40 Ac should do the Job. Instead, replacing the MRCA will be in all the ways disastrous.

Also, few of the members are using the word "Complement". I believe "Supplement" makes more sense. Kindly, note this if that is the case.

And Phillip Sir, please go easy on Blonds. :cry:

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sankum » 19 Oct 2010 14:14

If we really require F35 instead of MRCA we can go in for faster induction of FFGA.

By 2040 a hi lo mix of 500 5th gen(250 FFGA+250 AMCA) and 530 4th gen (270 Su30mki +126 MRCA +134 LCA mk1&mk2) will be sufficient.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8270
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pratyush » 19 Oct 2010 14:19

If you are going to go for F 35, then that will surely kill any investments in AMCA. That being the case we will be looking at the HF 73 all over again.

It will be an unmitigated disaster for the nascent Indian aviation industry.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 19 Oct 2010 14:25

No. I don't thing it will make much damage to AMCA in specific.
The future light and medium fighters are going to be all in the class of MCA or F-35. So, AMCA apart from filling the IAF numbers, will also be a top contender for Exports. But all this is astrology.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Oct 2010 14:32

koti wrote:
Baring the F-22 and the proposed PAK-FA fighter, there is no fighter which can match F-35 in the next decade. Off course i am assuming that the Chinese or the french do not come out with a competent fighter aircraft in the meantime. F-35 is far far superior to all the six contenders on offer right now.


There are a lot of reports from credible sources as cited above(http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html) that state the contrary sir.

The only visibly superior capability an F-35 carries at this point is the Radar and the unverified Stealth.

The Su-30/35 or a Typhoon can easily outclass this in terms of agility, range, payload, maneuverability among others.
The real strength of F-35 comes from the weapons it carries. That too, I believe can be safely compared to the similar platforms in EU or Russia(possibly on the way for FGFA).

We can't use a sword to cut trees or an axe in the Kitchen. The MMRCA has a vast Strike requirement. We even discussed how the EF fares poorer in Strike roles as it was primarily intended as an Air-superiority aircraft.
And now it seems funny when we are comparing an even inferior platform** for the intended reason.

Not that the F-35 is worthless, but it was not required. And without filling in the necessary requirement(of medium Strike AC in numbers), we would be diverting resources to more un necessary segment at this point in time.

If the need for a Stealth platform arises or if we feel that it could be beneficial in our doctrine or if the work on FGFA and MCA are not satisfactory, then we can easily add in the JSF if the US MoD is Ok with that.
A fresh order of some 40 Ac should do the Job. Instead, replacing the MRCA will be in all the ways disastrous.

Also, few of the members are using the word "Complement". I believe "Supplement" makes more sense. Kindly, note this if that is the case.

And Phillip Sir, please go easy on Blonds. :cry:


I agree with you that F-35's stealth and radar are what make it stand out. In addition to that I was also referring to the proposed V/STOL capability of F-35 and how that can be a game changer at LAC. This is one of the reason that I have advocated Grippen, as it has been designed from day one to take off from short or damaged runways.

From the article of "Air power Australia"
.....
The mismatch between the F-35 and Canada's strategic needs is fundamentally no different from the mismatch between the F-35 and Australia's strategic needs. Both nations are gravitating into a black hole which will see their respective air forces emasculated and unable to perform their primary mission of protecting national airspace from foreign air forces.
....
(F-35) will not achieve air superiority in the regional environment.
....

F-35 was never intended as an air superiority fighter. That "air superiority" role is best left to the aging F-15 or to the newer F-22 or to SU-30MKI. I grant you that F-15 is way past its prime, and will hardly match the latest Flankers and some newest European fighters. What the article is alluding to is that Canada/Australia require air-superiority fighters, Fighters which can intercept and destroy Bombers and other fighters. Basically they require F-22, if you go by the article, or something equivalent.

Again from the article
....
The F-35 is an aircraft which was defined as a battlefield interdictor, intended to attack and destroy hostile battlefield ground forces,
....

That is the reason why F-35 is "complement". Just like F-16 and F-15 complement each other or as F-22 and F-35 complement each other. I foresee SU-30MKI/PAK-FA as the air-superiority fighter, with F-35 complementing both of them. Su-30/PAK-FA can clean the enemy airspace, so that F-35 can do its job. Offcourse SU-30MKI is multi-role aircraft but in conjunction to F-35 it will be a formidable weapon.

I have to concede though that the time lines for F-35 Induction and its cost can be held against it. But make no mistake, against all the other 6 contenders in MRCA tender, F-35 is by far the most capable one if not better.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby jai » 19 Oct 2010 14:34

Its expected V/STOL capability will give us a generation leap in the eastern and western himalayas.


Additional question to all other posts (covering TOT, Sanctions, Costs, Timing, available capability with FGFA etc) is around useful payload it will be able to operate with from high altitude airfields.

IMO, investing in joint development of S 500 / procurement and deployment of S 400 would better support eastern and western Himalayas as the current aircraft choices of IAF seem to be robust - unless politics dictates otherwise in the years ahead.

We should however aim for F 35 level performance with the AMCA - hopefully, our expected experience with FGFA should help here.

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Willy » 19 Oct 2010 14:58

It would really be moronic to even consider the F-35 at this stage. Tech transfer would be zlichhh and it would set back the IAF expansion process back a decade. It would also kill the AMCA.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby koti » 19 Oct 2010 15:26

I wonder how the current F-35 prototype would fare against the MMRCA contenders if it undergoes the same level of performance evaluation.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Singha » 19 Oct 2010 15:32

it would likely be grounded due to MTBF issues with its loads of new avionics and sensors :((

EF/Rafale would win by walkover due to opponent failing to show up.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shiv » 19 Oct 2010 15:44

shukla wrote:Ajai Shukla reports.. (dreams away rather...)
Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s


Lifafa.

The "international sale" of F 35 will enable the US to fund and keep its F 22s. And when the US's balance book is fine - F 35s will also be supplied to oiseaule nations who are "allies" of the US.

The headline is so stupid I have not clicked on the link.

Dharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 02:10

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Dharma » 19 Oct 2010 16:00

If we opt for F-35 we can forget about the transfer of technology and leave it for the manufacturer to impose restrictions on spares and even a remote kill switch when we really need our MRCA in combat..It reminds me of a proverb that the road to hell is laid with good intentions but since that is not the destination we look forward to ...I think its a bad idea

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Willy » 19 Oct 2010 16:06

Dharma wrote:If we opt for F-35 we can forget about the transfer of technology and leave it for the manufacturer to impose restrictions on spares and even a remote kill switch when we really need our MRCA in combat..It reminds me of a proverb that the road to hell is laid with good intentions but since that is not the destination we look forward to ...I think its a bad idea



Maybe the Yanks looked after Mr.Shukla better than the Brits :lol: :mrgreen:

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Oct 2010 16:08

jai wrote:
Its expected V/STOL capability will give us a generation leap in the eastern and western himalayas.


Additional question to all other posts (covering TOT, Sanctions, Costs, Timing, available capability with FGFA etc) is around useful payload it will be able to operate with from high altitude airfields.

IMO, investing in joint development of S 500 / procurement and deployment of S 400 would better support eastern and western Himalayas as the current aircraft choices of IAF seem to be robust - unless politics dictates otherwise in the years ahead.

We should however aim for F 35 level performance with the AMCA - hopefully, our expected experience with FGFA should help here.


Jai, if you are suggesting that in V/STOL mode or operating from High altitude airfields, will the capacity of F-35 to carry munitions decrease? The answer is most probably yes. If you are suggesting that will range be compromised? The answer is yes. The Combat Radius of MIG-35 is 1000-1200 kms, while that of a V/STOL F-35 will be 800-900 kms. Grippens range is similar to V/STOL variant of F-35, while the range of Grippen NG is estimated at 1200-1300, comparable to Mig-35. Rafale has a combat radius of 1800 kms.
But even with these restrictions, F-35 will still be a better fighter than EFT/Rafael/Grippen. It will be a game changer w.r.t to LAC unlike all the other 6 contenders of MRCA can be. F-35 is a 5th generation fighter, while all the other 6 contenders in MRCA are 4 or 4.5 or 4+ generation fighters.

AMCA program need not be hurt by the acquisition of F-35. Rather the experience gained in F-35 can be integrated with AMCA program.

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 19 Oct 2010 16:40

UK is scrapping plans for VSTOL F35
going to fit catapults on carriers instead
and LM has just announced reduced profits and downgraded outlook (Q3 results)
wonder if the timing is purely coincidental?

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby nrshah » 19 Oct 2010 16:58

Rather the experience gained in F-35 can be integrated with AMCA program.


What experience will we gain from JSF? and how will it be better than Pak FA?

(i often fail to understand, when we criticize FGFA with 30% reported Indian contribution, what gain do we see with no contribution in jsf?)

sarkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 16 Aug 2010 23:19
Location: LCA Tejas - Cutest Fighter Plane

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby sarkar » 19 Oct 2010 17:34

Just because India (or say Indian Gov) is getting richer doesn't mean that it should buy the best of the best aircraft available on the shelf and whatever the cost it may be. Kabir said "utne paanv pasariye, jitni chadar hoye". We are Indians, and we should not behave like those oil rich arabs.

India is making an impression that its the dumping ground of weapons from all over the world. Every defense industry which is in dire state after the recession is now looking towards India to bail it out.

We already have PAK-FA deal. I understand it will take another decade to get FGFA in IAF colours, but its worth it. Scrapping MMRCA after so much hype will create a bad image, as all those companies have high hopes about this deal, they will not be serious about any future deals. I guess need of the time is clearing MMRCA as soon as possible. F35 is not a solution for India. Beside it will kill the very much needed competition, which is important for gaining knowledge.
I believe there are no shortcuts. Stairs are much reliable than elevators.
Last edited by sarkar on 19 Oct 2010 19:11, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests