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.
Locked
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by NRao »

Rahul M wrote:the gripen NG is a nice plane but choosing it for MRCA would kill the LCA, as simple as that. the signs are everywhere.
Interesting you bring that up. I have never had this thinking. Until I heard that SAAB has some consulting position WRT the AMCA.

I would still think that it would assist the LCA and not kill it. IMHO, IAF has substantial capacity to absorb multiple platforms - both for technical AND political reasons.

Furthermore, I really do not see, today, the advantage of a MMRCA that existed say 5-10 years. Perhaps as fillers, but with the FGFA AND the AMCA on the cards, what does the MMRCA really bring to the table I wonder. Which is why I think the MMRCA will not "kill" any Indian effort. It cannot.

I feel that the supposed increase in MMRCA is to accommodate the Gripen - REAL ToT. But that speculation will have to wait a few more months.

Sorry for that ramble.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Rahul M »

I'm not aware that saab is involved in AMCA in any capacity.

by kill I do not mean that the program will be abandoned completely but it will be stifled and frozen at current orders with all chances of expansion snuffed out. then it will be put on accelerated decommissioning like marut.

if you look at the deluge of articles in the last 6 months praising the gripen to sky and castigating the LCA for various half-true and fully false flaws, you'll understand what I meant about the signs being there.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by NRao »

That sounds OK.

However, I could not find the article I recall reading, although there are plenty of - what I call gossip posts - out there.

Check out the International Aerospace Discussion thread for a sec.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Rahul M »

article on what ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by NRao »

SAAB ADA/India talks on consulting for AMCA.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Surya »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 27,00.html


Buying from the Europeans can also be a headache

German oppositon whines about fuelling a arms race
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by vina »

Gripen - REAL ToT
That is something I could never understand . What is the "REAL ToT" that Saab is going to be able to give us from making the Gripen that we already dont have ?.

The gap if any we have is in engines. Saab makes none (oh.. before the fan boys come out saying fan of RM-12.. big deal!). Radar, we are nearly there. Everything else (composite, design tools , testing etc..) we have built from scratch and is available right now and is probably better than what Saab has (for eg, FCS.. Saab sure as hell isn't going to pass on the off the shelf F-16 FCS to us!).

Pray, please put down what is it that Gripen can REALLY offer us!
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by SaiK »

Real ToT! :rotfl:
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by RoyG »


FIRST HAND: Flying The Dassault Rafale

On February 7 at about 1910HRS, not long after walking away after many hours in an IAF Antonov-32 transporter that shipped me and other journalists from Delhi via Nagpur to Bangalore, I received a brief phonecall from an Armée de l'Air Group Captain at the Embassy of France. It was a brief message to inform me that I had been invited to fly in the Dassault Rafale fighter on February 10 at 5PM, and that I would be supplied with more information in the next few days. I wasn't expecting the phonecall. Even less, a flight in the Rafale -- arguably the least visible contender in the Indian MMRCA competition. Well, only so far, as it turns out. Dassault is a conservative organisation that I had thought didn't pay much attention to this sort of thing. The only person I personally knew who had flown a Rafale sortie was former Indian Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash. So as I kicked back in my room that evening, the only thing I could think was, "Huh?".

Shaking off all expectations and tradition, the French had flown in two Rafales to the Bangalore air show. The arrival of the aircraft was in the midst of swirling and uncannily consistent rumours that the Rafale and its European cousin, the Typhoon, had topped the Indian Air Force's field evaluation list, and led the MMRCA pack. The offer to take a sortie in this, the least known contender, at a time like this was huge from a news perspective. Apart from getting to fly in the airplane and seeing what it could do, I was most keen to meet the people from the company that made the jet and the pilots who flew it every day. It was a valuable chance.

Sure enough, on Feb 8, I received a second phonecall, this time from a Dassault delegate who asked me to come to the notoriously out-of-bounds company chalet at the Yelahanka show. Here, I was introduced to Dassault Rafale test pilot Dominique Sébastien, a seasoned pilot with 4,200 hours of fighter flying on the Rafale and all variants of the Mirage-2000. A young enlisted Armée de l'Air man got me kitted out to check that everything fit fine for the next day. I had to get fully kitted out to ensure there were no delays. I put on the beige flightsuit first, then the G-suit, and the heavy Armée de l'Air jacket torso harness -- the heaviest I've had on so far -- and finally the flying boots. A Thales helmet was then lowered onto my head, and the mask strapped on. Check.

Next, was a half-hour briefing by Sébastien on the Rafale's cockpit. Not the most refined I've seen, but emphatically functional and strangely appealing -- the one I would fly in looked like something that had just been fighting. Like the F-16 Block 60 that I did a sortie in two years ago, the Rafale cockpit has a right-hand sidestick, though with full "play", rather than the near-rigid one in the Super Viper. This was good. Because while the idea of a sidestick appealed greatly to me when I flew the F-16 in 2009, I could never seriously get used to the rigidity.

Flipping through a laminated spiral-bound booklet with tight-shot photographs of various Rafale cockpit elements, Sebastien showed me where the emergency systems where, and how to operate the head-level display. After a quick run-through of the eject/egress procedures (as always, said in the most matter-of-fact tone -- "please don't eject yourself unless I say EJECT-EJECT-EJECT or if you're sure I'm dead and the plane is falling"). Next, I had a brief chat with a small group of Armée de l'Air pilots fresh from a deployment in Afghanistan who were eager to know if I'd done any fighter sorties before. When I told them about the four previous ones, one of them, Plu Vinage, said, "You will forget all of them tomorrow." Let's see, I thought, as I walked out of the salubrious air-conditioned environs of the Dassault chalet and into the blinding afternoon Yelahanka sun.

Despite a promise to myself that I wouldn't have a late night before the day of my flight, I ended up turning the lights out at 4.30AM. It was a short night.

At 3PM on Feb 10, I arrived at the Dassault chalet as agreed for my pre-flight procedures. I got into my flight suit, after which Sébastien and I were taken to the Rafale pavillion in one of the halls. There, we spent the next twenty minutes going over what we'd be doing during our 45-minute flight. It was a fabulous checklist of items. We were about to do pretty much everything except fire weapons. By 4PM, we left the pavillion and went to the Rafale fight ops centre right next to the flightline. A typical IAF utility room, this one was strewn with flying gear -- overalls, helmets, boots, name-patches, G-suits, torso harnesses, sunglasses, clip-pads with flight log scrawls and a group of Armée de l'Air pilots and personnel. Plu Vinage was there, and he got me into the rest of my kit. As I left the room with Sébastien, Vinage looked at me, his face glistening with sweat, and said, "Remember what I told you yesterday."

Sébastien and I went out to the aircraft and two personnel helped me strap into the second cockpit. All pre-flight systems checks went through fine, and at about 4.50, Sébastien lowered the canopy, as I felt the pressure equalize making my ears pop. But there was a problem. The cockpit lady informed us that our oxygen supply systems were not cleared. Sébastien opened the canopy, conferred with his flightline personnel, who quickly sorted out the snag, and lowered the canopy again. It was time to power on.

The two Snecma M88s began with a low growl, reaching a gothic roar. The aircraft shuddered under its restraints. These were some serious turbofans. Powering to ground, we waited until we were cleared to taxi out to the runway.

I am in no way technically equipped to attest to a fighter's capabilities, and am truly in awe of those who can, but I must say this. However else the MMRCA contenders compare, after four take-offs in fighters, the Rafale's was undoubtedly the most thunderingly powerful one. Lined up and ready, at 1711HRS, Sébastien gunned to mil power and then full reheat as the twin M88s sent the Armée de l'Air Rafale B (No. 104 HD) hurtling down the runway and into the air and then quickly into a steep 70-degree climb followed a second later by a quick roll to starboard. Pitching up further into a vertical climb, the aircraft was then put on its head before a quick level out to zoom out to the sector we'd been asked to get into. I've never experienced a more dramatic take-off routine.

We cruised for a while, climbing to over 16,000 feet. To both my sides, I could see the aircraft's canard foreplanes swivel and twitch with every bit of input. At 19,000 feet, Sébastien asked me to take the stick. I did the first thing I always do when given the stick -- two hard rolls, the stuff that sends your blood sloshing around your body. With all that magnificent power behind it, the Rafale's handling qualities at high speed were superb. As Sébastien communicated with the tower to get a fix on which sector we were cleared to fly in, I put the fighter into some hard turns, getting some serious kicks out of how beautifully responsive this heavy jet was.

Yelahanka traffic control crackled in, asking us to head to Sector 3, and away from Sector 2. We broke right, descended and entered a wide open scrubland with gentle hillocks dotted with tall white windmills. "That is pretty," came a heavily accented voice from the front cockpit. It truly was. We dived out and took her low, 700-feet low, Sébastien demonstrating the auto-piloted terrain following mode, as the aircraft smoothly rose and descended, describing the surface of what we were flying over. Perfect for head-level/down work. It was time for some loops. As we pulled up and fed the Snecmas some fuel, the plane shuddered into a blistering climb, completing a perfect loop -- and giving non-fighter pilots such as myself the single most exhilirating view. That of the earth gliding back into view, and the sky slipping away. As the Gs pile up during the climb, and you feel your suit expand to keep your blood equitably distributed, the closing of the loop is as surreal as it gets. I did two loops, the second one with throttle control. "Excellent, perfect," called Sébastien.

Next, Sébastien demonstrated the very nifty Thales nose mounted infrared/TV search and track system. We scoped several aircraft in the area, including the Saab 2000, an An-32 and a couple of light aircraft from the show. We undertook a Fox-3 demo as Sébastien "unleashed" an MBDA MICA from a port hardpoint at an aircraft we'd been tracking. "He's dead," he sniggered. We scoped some territory for an air to ground demonstration, and swooped low to get a visual. With some quick head-level work, Sébastien chose five features. We then proceeded to rain hell on them with tri-hardpoint Sagem AASMs. "We do everything in flight. You can draw full plans in the cockpit," he said, while I imagined the AASMs screaming down at some unsuspecting knoll near the Andhra Pradesh border. The mission computer, I was later told, is built to assume that every mission is a scramble. Get off the ground first. Decide in the air.
8)

Just about the time our Rafale was getting ready for some G, something deeply significant was being announced across the world in the fighter jet's homeland. Thales was busy announcing that the AESA variant of the Rafale's RBE2 radar had been validated in 2010 tests, and that the new radar met all operational requirements and specifications of the French Air Force. Rafales with the new AESA radar, part of Tranche 4, would be ready for delivery by 2013, the French press was informed. And yet, Dassault made no noise about it at Aero India. Not a word. No press statement. To them, as long as the right people knew, it didn't matter. That's Dassault apparently. That's why you don't hear very much about or from them, which can be pretty unsettling for a journalist. I keep trying to think what would have happened if one of the American jets met such a milestone during the air show. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I can tell you that all the while I was in that cockpit, I had to tell myself this -- a flight in a Rafale -- was really happening.

About 20 minutes into our sortie, it was time for some real G. I had control, and was instructed to take her up to 16,000 feet, which I did with my game face on. Almost exactly two years before, I'd pulled 9G during a sortie in a leased UAE Air Force F-16 Desert Falcon at Yelahanka. I was ready for another rush. Sébastien, first slowly and then with force, pushed the jet into a steep dive. We plunged, and gunned to mil power, watching the ground come up at us. Then, Sébastien pulled up hard and engaged reheat, putting us both in a 9G environment for a couple of seconds, before it tapered. The grey squares mixing with your vision, like blood in water, and then receding as the aircraft levelled off. It was brutal. Brutally good. Sébastien asked me if I was okay. I was fine, breathing hard. I unhitched my mask to gulp some cockpit air. That was brutal. I felt my stomach muscles loosen slowly. Fighter pilots like Sébastien do this for whole seconds. They truly are made of something else.

We'd run out of time and had to head back. But what happened next, I was totally unprepared for. As we cruised low over the Yelahanka strip, Sébastien banked super-hard right, pulled up, engaged full reheat and tore us away. The grey came like a small wave, and then receded quickly. Blood and water.

We came around for approach and touched down, after 46 minutes in the air.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/02/fi ... afale.html
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

Post by Juggi G »

Aero India 2011, Day 4

The Rafale Jumped Over the Moon

Image

Image
Hey diddle diddle,
The Gripen played the fiddle,
The Rafale jumped over the moon,
The BRFites Laughed to see such Fun,
And the IAF ran away with the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

NRao wrote:I feel that the supposed increase in MMRCA is to accommodate the Gripen - REAL ToT.
NRao Ji,
Can you please list down what all technologies India is expecting to get from SAAB which India is not having as part of “Gripen - REAL ToT” deal ?
Which are the Technologies we are looking for from Gripen ?
As I am aware Gripen can’t be considered as a “REAL” 4.5 Gen fighter aircraft as per the definition of 4.5 Gen Aircraft, it doesn’t have a working AESA Radar.

In addition if there is something called “REAL ToT”, why is it that India did not go for “REAL ToT” when India went for ToT for license manufacturing of the following engines in India AL-31FP, RD-33 (from Russia) and GE F414 ( from US) ? Even why are we not going in “REAL ToT” from Snecma in Kaveri – Snecma JV ? Last heard some where, that GTRE will take another 5-6 to have SCB and blisks incorporated into Kaveri despite the consultation from Snecma (Hopefully, I am proved wrong here )

What makes you confident about the Swedish “REAL ToT” ? Why can’t we have “REAL ToT” from Russians? There are some good Russian examples like Brahmos and Arihant.
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1159
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by nits »

'For heaven's sake, don't buy Russian MiG-35' - Ashley Tellis
For heaven's sake, ultimately whichever aircraft you finally choose, please, please do not buy the Russian MiG-35 is the plea from strategic affairs expert Ashley Tellis to the government of India with regard to the $11 billion deal for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft that the European, Russian and American manufacturers are vying for.

Tellis -- Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- pilloried the Russian aircraft saying it was the "weakest of the contenders"."It does not have the sensor suites that the Indian Air Force would like to see," he said, adding, "It brings no new weapons to the game from an Indian Air Force point of view." There are no order of magnitude improvements and its mission performance in terms of readiness, maintenance, traditionally has been horrible.'

"And, I am not sure that the Russians have figured out how to build a machine that is really efficient in terms of spending more time in the air rather than spending more time in maintenance," he said.Thus, Tellis predicted confidently that "the Indian Air Force is unlikely to think of the MiG-35 as essentially the answer to its problems."
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Singha »

who took those moon shots? truly sinister and must have needed a bazooka zoom to make the moon so big.

retail price of a nikon f2 300mm is north of 2.5L :(( and 400mm/500mm even more. thats the kind of lightning quick focus, wide aperture pro kit needed to regularly grab shots like these.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by rajanb »

Does Mr. Tellis know what he is speaking of?

[quote]"And, I am not sure that the Russians have figured out how to build a machine that is really efficient in terms of spending more time in the air rather than spending more time in maintenance," he said.Thus, Tellis predicted confidently that "the Indian Air Force is unlikely to think of the MiG-35 as essentially the answer to its problems."[quote]

His statement implies that even the MIG21/23/27 and the SU30 MKI are white elephants?

Or pray, are there lobbies at werk?
:rotfl:
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

For heaven's sake, ultimately whichever aircraft you finally choose, please, please do not buy the Russian MiG-35 is the plea from strategic affairs expert Ashley Tellis to the government of India with regard to the $11 billion deal for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft that the European, Russian and American manufacturers are vying for.
Should we be giving so much importance to Ashley Tellis in deciding our MMRCA? He is an American after all who will naturally not like Russians. If we buy F -18, F- 16 or Gripen, money will directly or indirectly flow into Unkil’s pocket. So, it’s best to knock out only other aircraft with AESA Radar Mig – 35 some how. Mig – 35 is a big threat to F – 18 and F – 16 both in turns of capability and cost. American are not much concerned about Typhoon and Rafale as they don’t have AESA Radar in their production model and both of them costs a fortune.
Tellis -- Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- pilloried the Russian aircraft saying it was the "weakest of the contenders"."It does not have the sensor suites that the Indian Air Force would like to see," he said, adding, "It brings no new weapons to the game from an Indian Air Force point of view." There are no order of magnitude improvements and its mission performance in terms of readiness, maintenance, traditionally has been horrible.
If the IAF evaluators thinks that Mig – 35‘s avionics and sensors are not really up to the mark, then we can go in for a Mig – 35 MKI with Indian, Western and Israeli sensors and avionics. This would be a cost effective solution for IAF.
"And, I am not sure that the Russians have figured out how to build a machine that is really efficient in terms of spending more time in the air rather than spending more time in maintenance," he said.Thus, Tellis predicted confidently that "the Indian Air Force is unlikely to think of the MiG-35 as essentially the answer to its problems."
How does Mr. Tellis (being American) knows so much about a Russian fighter which has not been inducted into any Air force? Do we have such problems with Naval Mig – 29K ( nearest configuration to Mig – 35 ) ?
Never heard any complaints from Indian Navy about Mig – 29K anywhere.
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by rajanb »

Just as I thought.
Or pray, are there lobbies at werk?
So I had a look at this

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/ ... fa=funding

And as you scroll down you find
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of State
:rotfl:
Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Gurinder P »

OMG MR. TELLIS! It sounds like America is desperate for some business.
And did Uncle Vladimir leak info on the 35 to you?
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

Karan M wrote:Yeah, the same way many "didnt see" why the T-90 would cancel out the Arjun, as they were entirely different classes of equipment. Now tell me, how many T-90s were ordered & what hurdles the Arjun has had to pass just to overcome the entrenched opposition from the first mover... Have you considered that any vendor will try to expand his products chances of a repeat order at the cost of any other market which it sees as attractive? Or did all those articles criticizing the LCA and praising Gripen appear in a vacuum The Gripen is a program struggling for a future, Sweden at best can order a few dozen more, and with the JSF, EF, Rafale and others etc around, the international market for fighters is very competitive. India in contrast, offers a lucrative market for such products, as it has a long history of placing repeat orders & the LCA is a direct threat for today and tomorrow. Sweeten the deal by offering cooperation in some "future program" as well

India should be buying LCAs and making them into newer variants a la the NG, not acquiring aircraft barely superior in 1-2 criteria for such a critical issue
Thatz the nail on the head.
Doddel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 16:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Doddel »

Sancho wrote:
Hi, besides that this is a purly mathematic comparison, it uses many wrong, or at least debatable figures.
It mathematics is not allowed... How is it possible to make calculation of how cost effective a fighter is?

Almost all numbers that can be found is debatable.
From the Brazilian competition it is known that the Gripen NG costs $50 million, the F18SH $55 million (without the proposed options of a higher thrust engine, as well as MAWS and LWR, which needs additional fundings makes it costlier in India).
Regarding the cost per flight hour, you also choose mainly figures from older versions that are not on offer in MMRCA.
Again from Brazil it is known that the Gripen NG (not the older Gripen C/D that the Swedish air force uses) costs around $8000, the F18SH $10000 and the Rafale $12300:

http://translate.google.de/translate?js ... -dos-cacas
figures.

EF for example, the version offered to India (T3), costs over $100 million fly away:

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/ ... igned.html
Probably true... I took my number from wiki, A few days ago it was ~85 mil. Now it is over 100 mil

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

I can not see the source of the other two numbers ($10000 and $12300) from the article. They sounds really low. Do you have a source for these number?
The F16IN is based on the UAE F16 Block 60 and they paid a total of $8 billion (including $3 billions for R&D) for 80 fighters, which makes it also more expensive:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1
(8-5 billion)/ 80 = 62,5 million per fighter
Exactly what is included in this order? Do they get weapons and support. I stated 50 millon.

My point is that the total cost (all included) of the fighter is very important. A lot of people seems to forget about it. IAF will probably acquire 126 fighters at the first batch but this probably increase (as some people write) to about 260. If the fighter is too expensive to buy and support it will only be 126.
The 127-260 fighters will also be cheaper because support structure etc. is already in place.

Some people only compare specific data of the fighters like payload, nr. of hard points, range, TWR, TDR, RCS etc. to decide which aircraft IAF should buy. If the fighter is cheap to buy and support it will be possible to aquire more of them and thus lower the gap in payload etc. The cheaper aircrafts can also be loaded with less weapons per aircraft and thus reduce weight, drag and RCS and still deliver the same amount (or more) of weapons on the mission. They will also have more "lives".

A cheaper fighter will outnumber the expensier ones and thus give a lot of tactical advantages.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Philip »

Why has Tell-us gone for the MIG-35? Does he know something that is confidential-has he been tipped off? His touting for the JSF-cum-F-16 (cheapest Yanqui bid) is because no other aircraft cost wise can match the MIG-35.AS the EF corner sasy,Tell--us is desperate because the F-16 is clearly coming in last and the carrot of the JSF being avaialble to it sometime in the far future is being dangled before IAF eyes! The IAF have already pooh-pooed the idea of acquiring the JSF as we are already well in with Russia in our JV for the FGFA,signed and sealed,only delivery left.

The MIG-35 has another advantage in that the earlier avatar the MIG-29K has been bought by the IN,45+ in the making,plus the RD-33 engines for the MIG-29s in service with the IAF being upgraded are already being manufactured here.After seeing the performance of the MIG-29K on the Kuznetsov,the Russian Navy is also supposedly ordering about 45 for their own needs.The MIG-35's AESA radar was flying at the last air show.IF the MIG-35 meets the parameters that the IAF have speciified,and comes in as the cheapest by far,then it will be very difficult for the MOD not to buy it,or in some qty. in a split decision,given the Finance Ministry niggardliness.

If 260 aircraft is the actual figure for MMRCAs and I've always argued that 126 was simply not enough,then this bears out my stand and it is most likely that the IAF will choose a European bird in preference over any US bird both for reliability of sales/after-sales service and cost.Acquiring 260 of just one single type before 2020 will be very difficult given the already heavy workload for HAL.If the IAF have plans to acquire MIG-35s to augment/replace earlier MIG-29s,then the Gripen (if it can deliver on the engine and AESA radar) has the best bet of the European birds.Tell-us is actually telling us through his shrill "advice" that the Yanquis are in dire straits!
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

Gurus, please pardon my speculations.

Unkil seems to have played its cards very well in the MMRCA deal. Out of 6 aircrafts in the fray Unkil has already got 2.5. If someone takes into consideration Mathematics then Probability can also be taken into consideration for calculating wining chance for Unkil. Its 2.5 out of 6.

Now, if (big if) Gripen wins the competition then Unkil may try to buy out the other “.5” i.e. SAAB. Already, BAE (UK) has brought out Swedish BOFORS ? What if Unkil buys out SAAB ? Probability of Unkil’s win becomes 3 out of 6.

Now, if Euro Fighter Typhoon wins, what if Unkil becomes a partner in Typhoon program seeing the lucrative business opportunity MMRCA deal would offer i.e. 5 th or 6 th partner considering the fact that EADS needs finance to sustain future R&D for Typhoon. Considering the fact, that Typhoon partners are all Unkil’s NATO partners.

Unkil is a huge propaganda machine. Unkil spends billions of dollars in propaganda alone. Unkil has proved Saddam is a dictator but Mubarak and Musharaf are Presidents with people's choice. How difficult it will be on Unkil’s part to prove Mig – 35 is not good enough for IAF ? Already guys like Ashley Tellis are in the business of influencing Indians.

Are we playing into the hands of Unkil already?
jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by jai »

260 ??

Ok, 130 EF and 130 Rafales should go just fine..

260 EF or Rafale would also be great choice 8) 8)

Move the production lines to India next :twisted: :twisted:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by SaiK »

People thinking Gripen NG will be awarded is asking for disaster having unkills and anti-es in the supply chain however it has trolled into MRCA thinkers minds. From a specification points alone, it does not match with the other two Euro giants.

Bringing down production cost, with ToT is the prime priority of the deal. It would have to be based on 18 a/c pricing + 100 odd manufactured in India pricing. The labor cost alone should bring down to about 25% of the cost.

That 260 number is a fancy... ill timed when Tejas Mk2 final version is going great guns. A Tejas Mk3-(MCA) with dual engined Rafale resemblance can shake the gripe out of many thinkers who are capitalizing on marketing for the agents.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Avid »

RSoami wrote:Also quite possible -
1. They will split the order.
2. Still take 10 years to induct
3. Want cutting edge technology in MCA when it comes along in 10 years time.
Time and again every source (IAF chief, MoD) has said that order for 126 will not be split.

The RFP also clearly states it will be single vendor for contract. All numbers/negotiations are based on this.

Splitting is easiest way to ensure long court battle.

Please, please, please.... don't restart what has been discussed numerous times here.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by SaiK »

yeah, why have not people read MRCA RFI that said, upon final decision, the losers can't go to the courts for splitting orders? :twisted:
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Singha »

imho buy 116 MRCA from one vendor and 2 each from the other five. use them for bollywood films and DACT training.
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

Singha wrote:imho buy 116 MRCA from one vendor and 2 each from the other five. use them for bollywood films and DACT training.
:rotfl: The 2X5 = 10 will give the Best ROI then I guess.
OT : How about seeing Shahrukh in F - 18 having a Dogfight with Salman in F - 16. This suggestion should go to the Humour Thread ;)
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Avid »

anirban_aim wrote:
sumshyam wrote:I think, The deal should be divided between two vendors. That should increase the rate induction and we also may get alternate technologies.
The above are the exactly 2 things I have been saying since long (at least a year now). 8)

Only yesterday I was amusing as to when will the first test balloons of expanding the deal will be let out. :mrgreen:

My view of the thing is:

1) The deal will be expanded.

2) The downlist will have atleast one single engine, one American plane and one plane which probably will be most aspirational for the IAF.

The single engined plane will be used as a bargaining chip to bring down prices. All shortlisted vendors will revise prices downwards to get a bigger slice.

The final order will be split between the American contender and the other twin engined shortlisted candidate.

All the above and the final price negotiations will take more than a year or so and the final deal with suppliers will be signed in the last days of the incumbent govt.

Though, if things don't turn out this way, I will sit quitely in a corner and eat fried crow with humble pie, :oops: but I'm willing to stick this out. Lets see.. 8)

Perhaps over 3 years ago when I had posted a summary of conversation with some folks from LM, it was dismissed as speculation.

Their take was like this -- based on emphasis on the RFP, it always said order of 126 will be given to a single vendor. Their discussions with MoD about needs (numbers and technology) continually emphasized on that aspect that it will be a contract for 126 and will be given to single vendor and will not be split. The dichotomy between numbers needed vs. emphasis on the granting 126 was to such an extent that they walked away thinking that the MoD/IAF was leaving a small loophole open -- i.e. expanding the contract to ~200+ but sticking to the provisions in MRCA tender to the letter.

They suspected that MoD was going to stick literally to the letter of MRCA, and do the following:
1. Engage in extensive negotiations with top contenders w.r.t. ToT and pricing.
2. Grant contract of 126 to MRCA winner (literally sticking to the entire MRCA tender process)
3. Grant a second contact of ~80 to second vendor

Reasons:
1. The situation would hedge risks associated with single-vendor situation. Continue to play two vendors against each other as induction continued and should there be a back-tracking on ToT or pricing, GoI would have greater leverage without the extensive risk that comes with having contracted 1 vendor to supply that many.

2. Number requirements of IAF. From their analysis of discussions, including increase SU-30MKI inductions, and fence-sitting on M2K upgrades for prolonged period of time, all indicated need of ~250-300 a/c. GoI would use the MRCA discussion to decide whether to operate M2K for another ~10 years and retire. Induction of second line of MRCA would allow closing the numbers gap in requirements also. A more rapid build-up to ensure IAF numbers are restored closer to strength requirements.

This meant that contracting ~(126 + option for 80) + (~80 + option for 70). Not all option would be exercised as has been the case in the past, but would be sufficient number to allow hedging risks between vendors, utilize the opportunity to gain ToT better than two separate individual contracts, not have to repeat the tender process and pricing, etc.
Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Henrik »

Drishyaman wrote:
Karan M wrote:Yeah, the same way many "didnt see" why the T-90 would cancel out the Arjun, as they were entirely different classes of equipment. Now tell me, how many T-90s were ordered & what hurdles the Arjun has had to pass just to overcome the entrenched opposition from the first mover... Have you considered that any vendor will try to expand his products chances of a repeat order at the cost of any other market which it sees as attractive? Or did all those articles criticizing the LCA and praising Gripen appear in a vacuum The Gripen is a program struggling for a future, Sweden at best can order a few dozen more, and with the JSF, EF, Rafale and others etc around, the international market for fighters is very competitive. India in contrast, offers a lucrative market for such products, as it has a long history of placing repeat orders & the LCA is a direct threat for today and tomorrow. Sweeten the deal by offering cooperation in some "future program" as well

India should be buying LCAs and making them into newer variants a la the NG, not acquiring aircraft barely superior in 1-2 criteria for such a critical issue
Thatz the nail on the head.
Hardly. If the program is supported into 2040, it's not "struggling". And Gripen is very competitive on the international market.
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Drishyaman »

Henrik wrote:Hardly. If the program is supported into 2040, it's not "struggling". And Gripen is very competitive on the international market.
Don't know why but when I saw the world "supported" in the above sentence, it just reminded me of being supported on a "Life support System" in an ICU (for critically ill patients) :)
Last edited by Rahul M on 14 Feb 2011 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: no need to flame.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Rahul M »

NRao wrote:SAAB ADA/India talks on consulting for AMCA.
oh that. it still is in 'talk' stage and not for consulting but as partner for AMCA.
if they need consulting they are more likely to go to UAC.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Rahul M »

SaiK wrote:Real ToT!
Real maza !

(now in 250 ml pack too) :P :lol:
Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Henrik »

Drishyaman wrote:
Henrik wrote:Hardly. If the program is supported into 2040, it's not "struggling". And Gripen is very competitive on the international market.
Don't know why but when I saw the world "supported" in the above sentence, it just reminded me of being supported on a "Life support System" in an ICU (for critically ill patients) :)
That's just stupid. Ok, the Swedish governments support, better?
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

Post by Juggi G »

Eurofighter Typhoon Weapon Load Out Options

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

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Henrik »

^^
Nice picture!

Here's for Gripen:

Image

Now, same kind of pictures for the rest of the contenders?
Doddel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 16:49

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Doddel »

Juggi G

About the Eurofighter...

When should it be able to carry all those weapons?

Today it can only carry a single bomb (Enhanced Paveway II/III laser guided bomb). No ground or naval strike missiles. How does it look with the A2A weapons?
The absence of such a capability is believed to have been a factor in the type's rejection from Singapore's fighter competition in 2005. At the time it was claimed that Singapore was concerned about the delivery timescale and the ability of the Eurofighter partner nations to fund the current capability packages.
source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ition.html

Isn't this one of the biggest drawback of the EF (together with the price)? How can it take so long to integrate some weapons? Is it something in EF's design that makes it extremely difficult and expensive to integrate weapons? Or it is a proof that the cooperation between the developing countries doesn't work?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Singha »

I think its because EF FOC was a decade after the Gripen-A FOC and half a decade after the Rafale FOC?

the Rafale also had advantage of having a focussed set of french weapons to work with - Mica IR, Mica RF, AASM etc whose integration with the RBE2 radar was probably done in parallel on M2K testbed?

and due to availability of Tornado with italy,uk,germany they did not seem too interested in making it fully multirole on a urgent basis. in A2G weapons the euros seem to have diversity - UK wants paveway/brimstone/storm shadow/J-series ; germany has taurus and maybe its own ASM, Italy has stuff like otomat...there aint no universal set of A2g weapons among the 4.
Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Henrik »

Singha wrote:I think its because EF FOC was a decade after the Gripen-A FOC and half a decade after the Rafale FOC?

the Rafale also had advantage of having a focussed set of french weapons to work with - Mica IR, Mica RF, AASM etc whose integration with the RBE2 radar was probably done in parallel on M2K testbed?

and due to availability of Tornado with italy,uk,germany they did not seem too interested in making it fully multirole on a urgent basis. in A2G weapons the euros seem to have diversity - UK wants paveway/brimstone/storm shadow/J-series ; germany has taurus and maybe its own ASM, Italy has stuff like otomat...there aint no universal set of A2g weapons among the 4.
Agree. Both the U.K and Germany had the Tornado for strike and the EF was developed with a focus on air interception.
MarcH
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 10:32

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by MarcH »

There is no need to hurry with a2g weapons integration for any of the 4 European eurofighter nations. The only ones that had any interest in accelerating the process were the British until Blackjacks and Bears became a common sight over the north sea. With the coming reduction in numbers I doubt the British Phoons will ever be tasked with anything besides QRA over the UK and Falklands.
Germany starts this year with eqipping a fighter bomber wing with Phoons. Will probably lead to integration of laser JDAM.
Avid
BRFite
Posts: 471
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Post by Avid »

MarcH wrote:There is no need to hurry with a2g weapons integration for any of the 4 European eurofighter nations. The only ones that had any interest in accelerating the process were the British until Blackjacks and Bears became a common sight over the north sea. With the coming reduction in numbers I doubt the British Phoons will ever be tasked with anything besides QRA over the UK and Falklands.
Germany starts this year with eqipping a fighter bomber wing with Phoons. Will probably lead to integration of laser JDAM.
It is a very good point. EF's function has been driven by need. The European members of NATO (barring French) have always worried about covering their own behinds and thus emphasized on A2A role in development of EF (with limited strike abilities). The strike role, they want to rely on Uncle Sam (as always). This is reflected in the development of their weaponry as much.
Locked