Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

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.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5556
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 19 Sep 2014 21:30

The specification on internet link says "Phazotron Zhuk AE AESA radar (or other members of the Zhuk radar family)" - sources link to 2012 by the way. I read some webpage earlier which said that Mig upgraded specs of Mig-35 - increase in range, modular AESA radar, 7% more efficient RD33 engines and so on and so forth - is all I remember; other than usual optical radar for ground attack etc etc.
Last edited by vishvak on 19 Sep 2014 21:55, edited 1 time in total.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28722 » 19 Sep 2014 21:52

GeorgeWelch wrote:Not sending armored troops across the border and shooting down airliners for one.

Which is why if you want to counter China, you want the US on your side.

No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old. Besides US is economically more dependent on PRC than India.
Is anyone realistically expecting US to give us ToT for their cutting edge weapons and come to our side in case of an actual shooting war with China?
They are not giving ToT to UK
They are not being aggressive while backing Japan
This is for countries who have been their allies for 60 years.

Combat aircraft from US should be a strict no
If MMRCA is cancelled, going for 40 more Su30MKI or maybe getting some 40 Mig29SMT for IAF makes better sense for short term relief.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2014 22:00

well zhuk in not latest radar in comparison with say GaN or AlGaN t/r modules that Raytheon uses for the NG AESAs in SH or F22s. (assumption: it has gone into production already)

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5556
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 19 Sep 2014 22:07

Russians, if I remember correctly, did't have AESA earlier. So this radar, Zhuk or any other, has to be good enough (as compared with BARS on Su-30MKI); plus as an independent AESA tech would make a good entry in competition as well since Russians are just beginning with it so maintenance (screw driver tech) will be well understood right from the start for Russian AESA tech.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Sep 2014 22:10

We can always mix Mig 35 with gora AESA. But anyone other Khan has one? I am not sure. Also not sure how much will be cost and old bad habits of Mig people will not return in case of Mig 35.

But considaring the costs it would be better to examine all the options. Mig 35 which at present a model only will be more than sufficient for Pakis and may be adiquate for Lizard.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2014 22:17

if at all, only Israel has, but I think exports were banned. This is one of the thing Modi can inform Obama that they better have clean policies dealing with India. The khaans were scared to provide ELta 2052s to India for LCA. So, we might tailor something locally combined, but the current LCA one is a combo of LRDE and Elta 2032s technology.

DRDO lab must spearhead and invest more here.. can't wait for any external source to provide niche tech assets at throw away price or non-strategic reasons., even for good price.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_20317 » 19 Sep 2014 22:18

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old.


Today LCA gets mentioned like it is held up only because of Rafale or MKI.

But Russian maal is also a dependency creator with so many Sukhois and Mig UPGs already in the inventory. It would be crazy hosting any more. At this point we simply have to bite the bullet and buy Rafale. Focus should be on reducing the cost instead of filing in the full desired numbers. Just get in the minimum required numbers that would be required till the LCA Mk-2 and AMCA get into production.

Another important thing, IMO is to do something about the LCA/AMCA engines - either stock more or better still make more than one variants.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2014 22:24

If I read the news reports right, the contract for GE 414 IN version is for local production/assembly. This is one place where they can hit hard.. especially when pakis wag on the border.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Sep 2014 00:00

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old.


None of which had anything to do with China

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:Is anyone realistically expecting US to give us ToT for their cutting edge weapons and come to our side in case of an actual shooting war with China?


more likely than France

Here is a very simple question:

If there was a shooting war with China, which country would actually be willing to ship you more munitions?
a) France, who is trying its best to end the EU arms embargo of China
b) the US, who is doing everything it can to 'contain' China, who publicly committed to defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression, who has a history of standing by allies even when faced with very costly consequences (Israel and Arab oil embargo)

An even better question might be who is CAPABLE of shipping you adequate numbers of anything in a crisis?

In war, reserves deplete quickly and France is unlikely to have sufficient spares to send anything quickly. On the other hand if you had SH, the US has massive numbers of everything available.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28722 » 20 Sep 2014 00:27

GeorgeWelch wrote:
saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old.


None of which had anything to do with China

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:Is anyone realistically expecting US to give us ToT for their cutting edge weapons and come to our side in case of an actual shooting war with China?


more likely than France

Here is a very simple question:

If there was a shooting war with China, which country would actually be willing to ship you more munitions?
a) France, who is trying its best to end the EU arms embargo of China
b) the US, who is doing everything it can to 'contain' China, who publicly committed to defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression

Going a bit OT --> US relations with Taiwan have been defined by TRA long before PRC began its expansionist process of the current century. South Korea and Japan are under US security umbrella as major non-NATO allies. Whatever US does to contain PRC is a result of these treaties in place. No such treaty exists with India so I don't see how US actions in SE Asia have any relevance in an Indo-China conflict

Also my point was that we need to develop our homegrown capabilities. I don't see that happening from US. It can happen from France but at the cost of all our homegrown programs. Also France is very likely to sell to anyone who gives them money. If people point to Gorshkov deal as Russians shafting us, then Scorpene project is a prime example of Frenchies doing the same infact worse. At least we have got Gorshkov, we are yet to see the first Scropene.

We should not make IAF into a Sukhoi airforce, but going to US for SH or F-35 or going to France for Rafale will derail our local projects. If we have concerns for next 5 years some additional Su30MKI will solve them. 300+ Su30MKI plus Mig29 and Mirages is an overkill for PAF and enough to deter PLAAF for next 5 years. In the meantime focus on getting LCA numbers up.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28722 » 20 Sep 2014 00:29

ravi_g wrote:
saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:No you don't. 1998 sanctions and the beating taken by LCA program are not that old.


Today LCA gets mentioned like it is held up only because of Rafale or MKI.

But Russian maal is also a dependency creator with so many Sukhois and Mig UPGs already in the inventory. It would be crazy hosting any more. At this point we simply have to bite the bullet and buy Rafale. Focus should be on reducing the cost instead of filing in the full desired numbers. Just get in the minimum required numbers that would be required till the LCA Mk-2 and AMCA get into production.

Another important thing, IMO is to do something about the LCA/AMCA engines - either stock more or better still make more than one variants.


I am suggesting to getting a few more only if we have an immediate issue for next 5 years. If LCA goes into serial production next year, we don't need the extra Sukhoi/Migs

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Sep 2014 01:14

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:Also my point was that we need to develop our homegrown capabilities.


No one's denying that.

But you're not there yet, and while you're working on LCA, FGFA, and MCA, you need something else in the meantime to be a gap-filler that capable, affordable and efficient.

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:going to US for SH or F-35 or going to France for Rafale will derail our local projects.


No it wouldn't.

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:If we have concerns for next 5 years some additional Su30MKI will solve them. 300+ Su30MKI plus Mig29 and Mirages is an overkill for PAF and enough to deter PLAAF for next 5 years. In the meantime focus on getting LCA numbers up.


Maybe, maybe not, but LCA won't be ready in 5 years, as they've already pretty much said they want to put off large buys till Mk II.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2014 01:36

And, as time goes by, the chances of any "sanctions" diminish. The possibility of something like that occurring will depend on India.

That does not mean that India should import without any disregard. But, the fear of a sanction should not prevent looking into all options.

And, there is always the possibility to pick-n-choose too. Which seems to be the preferred way, anyways.

1998 is so long back. But, up to you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2014 01:38

BTW, pay the French, like India did to the Russians and India will get the Scorpions just the way Vicky came along. Simple as that.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 20 Sep 2014 02:20

Interesting data points here re 4Gen vs. 5Gen a/c including the Rafale.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/lock ... n-fighter/

Also WSJ (paywall) has the following:

"The steadfast commitment of the U.S. and many allies to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program made by Lockheed Martin Corp. is drying up funding for Boeing's fighters. Now, the head of Boeing's defense unit is preparing a road map that would concede the fighter market to Lockheed and pin the business's future on other aircraft, including military versions of its commercial jetliners.

"You have to face reality," Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing, Defense, Space & Security, said of the company's shifting focus in an interview in July.

Boeing's fighters are still heavily used today—its F/A-18 jets have been leading U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq. But it faces a dearth of new orders. Production of the F/A-18 could end in 2017, while the last batch of F-15s bound for Saudi Arabia are due to roll off the production line in 2019.

The company is considering slowing production to keep the F/A-18 line running a little longer in the hope it can persuade the Pentagon to fund some additional purchases for the Navy. This could also buy time for a handful of potential international customers—notably Canada and Denmark—to decide on planned fighter buys"

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-f ... itorsPicks

Maybe George could put in a word to Boeing that maybe the new strategy could be to get the LCA Mk2 up and running with a FMS lease of the SH as a bridging MMRCA so the $20-30bn on the Rafale could be redeployed on the AMCA.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Sep 2014 03:54

"More of the same".The mantra that has kept the IAF battleworthy for the last decade.In retrospect,the Sukhoi acquisition has probably saved the IAF's bacon.From the many posts,details,etc.,it allowed the IAF to further develop the fighter to a level where it is the best 4++ fighter in the sky.It has become the backbone of the IAF.If we can't afford the Rafale,then buying "more of the same" is one option.Here too there are options.Single seat SU-35 or dedicated bomber variant,SU-34.A cheaper option is to buy the similar but smaller and cheaper MIG-29/35.Single pilot,engines,etc. already being manufactured locally.IN MIG-29Ks came in at just $32M a pop.

An affordable Western alternative? The Gripen.SAAB has reportedly offered help to expedite the LCA MK-2.This could be a matchwinner as we need about 300+ light fighters to replace the hundreds of MIG-21s immediately and Bisons too in the future.There is enough volume to acquire a sizeable qty of Gripens accelerating the LCA MK-2 and if there are further delays,etc.,buy "more of the same,Gripens to keep numbers happy.

If the money is not there,there's no use dreaming about Raffys or Typhoons.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby SaiK » 20 Sep 2014 04:05

Fuji apple vs Honey Crispy compete in the same apple domain market. Gripen help with heavy hand massan strings attached is anyone's wildest guess. Even the well advertised Israel help for LCA AESA was driven with the same heavy hand. Unless India directly deals with massa, and goes for a subordinate intake of materials and exchange on strategic terms helping massan-nato alliance strategies, we will not have any move towards khaan platforms or even parts supply unless it is direct dealings, where massans can implant, control, monitor and have a choke point.

no way that is going to materialize, and is the wild dream of those platform sellers.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby member_28722 » 20 Sep 2014 06:04

GeorgeWelch wrote:No it wouldn't..

Spending money on developing a brand new line of fighters plus cost of supply chain line will not work unless its for LCA. With already 3 types of fighters, not including LCA, investing in another one defies logic
A stop gap option needs to be from existing lines of aircraft only.

GeorgeWelch wrote:Maybe, maybe not, but LCA won't be ready in 5 years, as they've already pretty much said they want to put off large buys till Mk II.

I guess we will have to wait till FoC till that clears up

I don't get logic of the pro SH, JSF lobby on this forum. Could anyone please clear my understanding if I am wrong

1. Of the 4500+ F-16s built only around 500+ have been built outside US under license and that too only by countries who are under US Security umbrella. Additionally all US equipment operators have never been involved in conflicts where US is not involved in the conflict themselves from their side.
2. Didn't Lockheed recently make a mockery of the offsets in C130 deal?
Lockheed offsets mock MoD norms
3. US is not used to dealing with countries with their own agenda. Its either NATO countries or states like TSp or Saudi/UAE who are never going to question US policies or restrictions.
4. All recent US aircraft purchased came without critical electronics which were put in India. Essentially we took airframes off the shelf. That works when you are buying 20 or so aircraft. Won't work for a 200 combat aircraft deal.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Sep 2014 08:33

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:No it wouldn't..

Spending money on developing a brand new line of fighters plus cost of supply chain line will not work unless its for LCA.


Again, that's simply not true.

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:With already 3 types of fighters, not including LCA, investing in another one defies logic
A stop gap option needs to be from existing lines of aircraft only.


Even though there are great differences, we can still draw some parallels with airlines, specifically in regards to fleet commonality. Every time an airline adds a new model of airplane, it adds costs of starting a whole new supply chain and training issues, so they tend to stick with as few models as possible. But, they noticed an interesting thing: Once fleet sizes reached a certain critical mass (approx 70 planes in this particular example), it didn't matter. By this I mean having a fleet of 70 Plane A's and 70 Plane B's was no more expensive than just having 140 Plane A's.

As far as reasons for NOT investing in existing planes, there are many. Given that Mirage is no longer available, you only have 2 choices, Su-30MKI and Mig-29. So why invest in something like say SH instead?

- In regards to the MKI in particular, the SH is cheaper to buy and cheaper to run, which is a major consideration here
- SH has the largest manufacturing capacity so can get here quickest in the largest numbers
- Independence from Russia.
-- A tremendous amount of your fleet already depends on Russia, simple prudence suggests diversifying suppliers is wise.
-- Russia has been 'problematic' (to put it charitably) with deliveries in the past, how much do you trust them to come through in the clutch?
-- With Russia being cut off from the West, they have been getting cozy with China and will only get cozier.
- Diversity of tech. Just like diversifying suppliers is prudent, so is diversifying tech base. They have different radars, different weapons, different surveillance pods, different capabilities. When the enemy might have an answer for one, perhaps they don't for the other. Having more tools helps make sure you have the right tool for the job available.

I will also point out that for ToT or offsets, you wouldn't be getting ANYTHING if you ordered additional MKI or MiG-29. All the proposals for additional MKI purchases have been for straight purchases from Russia as the local line is already at capacity. So anything additional with the SH deal would be a bonus.


saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:I don't get logic of the pro SH, JSF lobby on this forum. Could anyone please clear my understanding if I am wrong

1. Of the 4500+ F-16s built only around 500+ have been built outside US under license and that too only by countries who are under US Security umbrella.


1. For the purposes it needs to fill (fast delivery+quantity+cost), I think it would make the most sense to buy directly from Boeing
2. However, if local production is desired/required, obviously it's possible or they wouldn't have bid on the MRCA deal on the first place.


saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:All recent US aircraft purchased came without critical electronics which were put in India. Essentially we took airframes off the shelf. That works when you are buying 20 or so aircraft. Won't work for a 200 combat aircraft deal.


'Critical electronics'? Hardy, they were some minor comm+sat systems that weren't required.

Again, I will point you back to the MRCA deal. Obviously both Boeing and Lockheed strongly believed all the required systems would have been available for India. They invested too much to simply get to the end and be like, 'Oops, guess we can't sell it to you anyways, oh well.'

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 20 Sep 2014 09:19

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:
I don't get logic of the pro SH, JSF lobby on this forum. Could anyone please clear my understanding if I am wrong
...
2. Didn't Lockheed recently make a mockery of the offsets in C130 deal?
Lockheed offsets mock MoD norms

According to Ajai Shukla? :mrgreen: That proven lifafa gasbag is as usual trying to earn his keep without very tight morals. The training modules were ordered separately for $38 million by GoI on purpose, not because they were somehow tricked by the Americans. This was not a 'contract' per se as it was a govt-to-govt deal which did not include such side items. And the offsets are off to a good start.
Lockheed Martin Seeks Private Partners to Meet 30 per cent offsets for C-130J
“The Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures ltd, at Hyderabad manufactures C-130 empennage products and also C-130 centre wing box spares, which is the backbone of the aircraft.” The facility will provide the spare parts for all the C-130J aircraft in different parts of the world apart from the Indian aircraft.

Also, we didn't get 'empty airframes with engines' but fully baseline aircraft with the following (Link):

6 spare AE 2100-D3 turboprop engines
8 AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE III surveillance and targeting turrets with Special Operations Suites (2 are spares)
8 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems (2 are spares)
8 AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning Receivers (2 are spares)
8 AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems (2 are spares)
3200 flare cartridges
8 AN/ARC-210 Radios (Non-COMSEC; vid. Oct 6/10 entry)

That's all the good stuff.

The only things left out (due to non-signing of CISMOA) were radios, IFF transponders and satcom stuff that we could easily get elsewhere and cost peanuts.

The current C-130 and C-17 buys have been an excellent purchase experience. The IAF would not have placed a follow-on order of another 6 C-130s if they were not totally happy with the planes and the contract.

Krishnakg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 01:16
Location: hyderabad
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Krishnakg » 20 Sep 2014 11:22

Philip wrote:
What did they do in the Ukraine?


Not sending armored troops across the border and shooting down airliners for one.

Reply to GeorgeWelch,

Please remember Iran Air Flight 655, an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the Vincennes. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

So you know what is the difference between, premeditated cold blooded murder of Iranians in their own airspace, within their territorial waters openly and blatantly, and what happened in Ukraine, MH 317 being shot down accidentally overflying a war zone, by one of the still unidentified warring parties. All parties using similar surface to air missiles.

Talking about sending armored troops across border are we ? forgotten Bay of pigs-Cuba, Contras-Nicaragua? US has sent more troops than any other country, and even into non contiguous borders of several countries both officially and clandestinely. Too long an official list to even bother writing about. Look it up here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Philip wrote:
It's "realpolitik" all the way.


Which is why if you want to counter China, you want the US on your side.


Reply to GeorgeWelch,

In a realpolitik, we would definitely want the US on our side, not specifically so for the brand of democracy they bring, but because they are like bouncers in a pub, they are THE goto people with military brawn you need in a rough neighborhood like the one we are in.

We respect your economic, technical achievements and resourcefulness as a nation over the years but, its high time that you guys raised your heads from the hole in the ground, looked around and read a bit of history to understand that your country is at fault for trampling roughshod over multitude of nations, cultures and people. We are currently witnessing the after effects, of your efforts in bringing your brand of democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. My point being, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others.

Admins: Sorry for one time OTT post. Back to thread.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Sep 2014 11:33

Krishnakg wrote:
Philip wrote:
What did they do in the Ukraine?


Not sending armored troops across the border and shooting down airliners for one.

Reply to GeorgeWelch,

Please remember Iran Air Flight 655


Not in Ukraine.

Krishnakg wrote:So you know what is the difference between, premeditated cold blooded murder of Iranians


This is the kind of pure, malicious flamebait that has no place in the forums.

Krishnakg wrote:Talking about sending armored troops across border are we ? forgotten Bay of pigs-Cuba, Contras-Nicaragua?


Surprisingly enough, neither of those are in Ukraine either.

Krishnakg wrote:In a realpolitik, we would definitely want the US on our side, not specifically so for the brand of democracy they bring, but because they are like bouncers in a pub, they are THE goto people with military brawn you need in a rough neighborhood like the one we are in.


Exactly

Krishnakg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 01:16
Location: hyderabad
Contact:

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Krishnakg » 20 Sep 2014 11:45

Surprisingly enough, neither of those are in Ukraine either.


"Surprising" indeed ! that you feel interested in plight of Ukraine. But, in the war against terror, you have not done anything against the main perpetrators of 9/11. ( aka Saudi's and Pakistani's) to qualify to talk about Ukraine.

Surprising, I was hoping people can atleast read wiki.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby GeorgeWelch » 20 Sep 2014 12:33

Krishnakg wrote:"Surprising" indeed ! that you feel interested in plight of Ukraine.


Surprisingly it keeps coming up on a Rafale thread

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5556
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 20 Sep 2014 22:07

Purchasing USA jets means headaches will increase manifold - not just political sanctions and meddling in the Indian subcontinent, but also soft psyops (Red Flag 2008 video BRF link), a general tendency to lecture( Malabar 2011 with USS Stethem and AMA on Reddit.com), wartime strutting around ( 7th fleet during Bangla independence war dictating what to do post genocide), etc etc.

In fact, depending on USA goodwill will defeat whole purpose of hedging.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Sep 2014 00:06

Yes we must also buy a bird that production-wise is being pensioned off! The SH has come to the end of its lifespan.There is very little left that can be squeezed out of the design,unless one turns it into a kamaikaze UCAV!

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Sep 2014 00:20

Political convenience is secondary. The first consideration for any defence import always has to be its military utility. Bitter as it may be, the fact still remains that we can at best only fight China to a stalemate today. 15 years from now, we WILL lose a war against it. They have superior logistics, they spend four times as much as we do, and they get better-bang-for-their-buck. We could make a fight of it with highly cost-effective products like the Tejas, which we've duly sidelined, but blowing away funds on the boutique priced Rafale is a recipe for failure.

As far as political reliability goes, again we need to face up to the fact that there is a superpower rising in the north. It'll be the biggest economy in the world in real terms by the end of decade. Their already substantial influence/leverage over the Russians will only inflate in the years to come. The US policy vis-a-vis China on the other hand is evident from the Pacific pivot and its stance with regard Senkaku Islands.

MarcH
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 10:32

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby MarcH » 21 Sep 2014 01:23

Considering that India needs those jets yesterday at a reasonable price the best options have always been the Typhoon and the Shornet. Dassault won the competition by creative pricing. The product they offer is of course excellent, and my impression is the Rafale has been the prefered choice due to its strike capabilities.

From a more practical point of view it has always been doubtful if Dassault could deliver at the required production rates. Only Boeing and Eurofighter have the production capacities ready.

Now that precious time has been wasted playing the French game (M2K upgrade, Scorpene anyone ?) Things are even more in favour of EF imho. EF can offer T1 aircraft at fire sale prices yesterday. T1 had disproportionally high percentage of doubleseaters, which would be ideally suited for forming an OCU. With 3 1/2 active production lines Eurofighter can without much issues deliver a squadron a year until local production is ready.

Spanish assembly line has been suspended, and I doubt they will resume production. So, there is the assembly line India could get in record time.

I doubt this will happen, but the options are there.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Sep 2014 15:05

The emerging policy across the board of "manufacturing in India" is having its effect on our def. acquisitions.The crisis reg. ASW helos to replace ancient Sea Kings and Kamovs,has had a major setback with the decision to manufacture anything selected in India.By the time we set up manufacturing units for the same another generation would've passed out of school! Across the board the services are keeping preparedness afloat with the bare minimum of resources and using duct tape methods of maintaining the life of obsolete weapon systems. If a conflict were to break out now,from available media reports,we will not be able to fight for longer than 2-3 weeks.The LCA MK-2 is still yet to be unveiled let alone flight tested.

Had the M-2000 been in production still,there would've been no MMRCA requirement.The only comparable aircraft of its capability and much cheaper to upgrade is the MIG-29.The 35 variant to be produced perhaps from next year onwards.The IAF has already exhausted its upgrade options,with every type upgraded or being upgraded.There are no more upgrade options in the store.New aircraft have to be acquired and if in a fly-away condition all the better.With the kitty almost empty,it is going to be very interesting to see how the IAF/MOD squares the circle.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Sep 2014 17:08

Philip, the M-2000 was in production in 2004 and thats the aircraft IAF wanted, before UPA raised the bogey of corruption and single supplier and created the MMRCA circus, rather than negotiating and acquiring 126 M-2000-5/9's. Net result what could have been an under USD 10 Billion with India acquiring around 90 aircraft by now.

Thats why I think it seems UPA was working towards defanging India. Remember in Kargil we had a grand total 4 Prithvi and 1 Agni missile with no orders, it was then 300 Prithvi missile production was ordered. Similarly, Barak-1, 155mm shell indegenous manufacture and whole of host crtitical requirements were sidelined. Only C-130 and C-17 non lethal acquisition was given priority.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Sep 2014 18:10

Victor wrote:...

That's all the good stuff.

The only things left out (due to non-signing of CISMOA) were radios, IFF transponders and satcom stuff that we could easily get elsewhere and cost peanuts.

The current C-130 and C-17 buys have been an excellent purchase experience. The IAF would not have placed a follow-on order of another 6 C-130s if they were not totally happy with the planes and the contract.


That is absolutely correct

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby sattili » 21 Sep 2014 18:35

Aditya_V wrote:Thats why I think it seems UPA was working towards defanging India. Remember in Kargil we had a grand total 4 Prithvi and 1 Agni missile with no orders, it was then 300 Prithvi missile production was ordered. Similarly, Barak-1, 155mm shell indegenous manufacture and whole of host crtitical requirements were sidelined. Only C-130 and C-17 non lethal acquisition was given priority.

For discussion's sake:
What about 2 regiments of Brahmos, Pinaka, Smerch, Chakra II, increasing MKI's, Agni-3, (no I am not bringing Tincans into discussion)- were all these non lethal too?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Sep 2014 20:15

SaiK wrote:If I read the news reports right, the contract for GE 414 IN version is for local production/assembly. This is one place where they can hit hard.. especially when pakis wag on the border.


You're right about the sanctionability but I differ on the trigger. It is not an Indo-pak war but a nuke test. In this event, more than just the F414 is at stake. The upcoming Indo-Japanese nuke deal is predicated on no nuke tests.

BTW, if push came to shove and unkil felt particularly strongly, even the Rafale will be delayed just like the Frenchies delayed the Mistrale to Russia and it had a ~30% Russian component.

You can't live with unkil and you can't live without unkil. The Israelis though have found a way.

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

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Victor » 21 Sep 2014 20:29

Cosmo_R wrote:BTW, if push came to shove and unkil felt particularly strongly, even the Rafale will be delayed just like the Frenchies delayed the Mistrale to Russia and it had a ~30% Russian component.

And we can also say goodbye to the LCA which runs on GE404/414.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5556
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby vishvak » 21 Sep 2014 23:06

You can't live with unkil and you can't live without unkil.

That leaves only one option which is Mig-35. There won't be any political baggage then. To hedge against risk of buying from only Russia, we must not add a much bigger headache which is to deal with USA sanctions, real politic and blackmail in the Indian subcontinent. Or as Philip states, buy more Su-30MKIs and put monies into LCA, AMCA, Su-34 etc and finalize deals with France for the French subs.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Sep 2014 01:41

vishvak wrote:
You can't live with unkil and you can't live without unkil.

That leaves only one option which is Mig-35. There won't be any political baggage then. To hedge against risk of buying from only Russia, we must not add a much bigger headache which is to deal with USA sanctions, real politic and blackmail in the Indian subcontinent. Or as Philip states, buy more Su-30MKIs and put monies into LCA, AMCA, Su-34 etc and finalize deals with France for the French subs.


With Russia, there is no need for sanctions—their supply chain is so broken and their after sales service so poor and extortionate, the stuff just won't arrive. Gorky is a prime example. The tires for the indigenous MKI could not be sourced in India.

The only real alternative right now is work on high availability of existing a/c, roilling out the LCA and designing AMCA engine first.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2014 02:03

the stuff just won't arrive


It will arrive.

As long as Gorky prices are paid.

I think one of the problems with the MMRCA was that the word was out that the IAF did not want a Russia n option. That with a delinked process and very bad contract writers, the fate was set.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2014 02:06

designing AMCA engine first.


In the ..........US.

The question, posed by none other than a Calcutta guy, about concerns about sanctions, was fully answered by none other than AC.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Sep 2014 04:44

NRao wrote:
the stuff just won't arrive


It will arrive.

...


Of course it will arrive in the long view. There is a precedent:

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

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions-9 August, 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Sep 2014 04:46

NRao wrote:
designing AMCA engine first.


In the ..........US.

The question, posed by none other than a Calcutta guy, about concerns about sanctions, was fully answered by none other than AC.


No comprende senor??


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests