MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 01 May 2018 00:27

Philip wrote:...and finally the cost factor! A $200M+ Rafale vs a $40-60M Gripen.We already have our supreme air dominance fighter the MKI-to be upgraded to even more fearsome SS std.,so why the desperate req. for more Rafales when cheaper options are available? No contesto!

$100 million for a Gripen E with no spares, no spare engines, no training, no simulators, no ground equipment and definitely NO CUSTOMIZATION.

add all those to the flyaway costs of a Gripen and you'll be more likely to see a Gripen E cost around $120 to 150 million if not more. If you had done a cursory check of the Gripen NG/E/F deal with Brazil, you'd know that the contract was signed for $5.4 billion for 36 Gripen E/Fs. Works out to a neat $150 million each. :roll: And that was in 2014 terms, with inflation you'll see it cost more today.

Of course, both deals are different, with different things included, just as the classes of aircraft are different, so one cannot make direct comparisons but please stop peddling blatantly wrong figures. I'm sure you know that already, yet you keep repeating the same $200 million $200 million tag for the Rafale again and again. Rather intellectually dishonest. :roll:

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 742
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Vips » 01 May 2018 18:09

This for an aircraft which depends on uncle Sam to get airborne in the first place!!! For that kind of money we would get meaningful TOT from other contenders.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Khalsa » 02 May 2018 06:03

Gripen IMHO directly competes with Tejas Mk1A and Mk2 and must not be purchased ever.
Its must be the F-18 for possible dual role with the Navy.

If you want Rafael then you might as well get the F-35.
You breaking the bank with both of them, so go for F-35.

The future for India is only possible via continuation of the Tejas Bloodlines to the Air Force and Navy.
Navy now needs to step up and order 4 or 6 of tejas Mk1 as development platforms and become the leaders of the Mk2 project.

Meanwhile the Air Force needs to start thinking of AMCA and use Tejas Mk2 as the stepping stones.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 02 May 2018 13:21

The deal costs "$8.7B" for just 36 aircraft.That's $1.5B over and above my "$200M" per aircraft for infra,etc. Facts are facts.
Let's see what the French offer per aircraft for future sales,as there can't be padded costs for infra,etc. this time round!

https://www.firstpost.com/politics/what ... 10108.html
The much-awaited €.7.9 billion ($8.7 billion) deal for 36 fighter jets was inked at last on Friday by defence ministers Jean Yves Le Drian and Manohar Parrikar.
The delivery of the fighter aircraft is expected to begin in 2019, with an annual inflation capped at 3.5 percent.


Now let's look at the Gripen NG for the same no. of aircraft for Brazil.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... al-416586/
10 SEPTEMBER, 2015 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC
Brazil has finalised a $4.68 billion deal for 36 Saab Gripen NG fighters after concluding more than 20 months of negotiations over pricing and industrial cooperation against the backdrop of a deepening economic and political crisis.Saab announced late on 9 September that the full value of the contract is now internally booked in the company’s order backlog.

Brazilian engineers and technicians will travel to Sweden in October to begin training to assemble components and full aircraft. Saab plans to deliver all 36 Gripen NGs between 2019 and 2024


The same no. of Gripen's are almost only 55% of the price of the same no. of Rafales!
So even theoretically if the Rafale cost per unit for extra aircraft comes down to an absurdly low of just $100M,the Gripen for extra aircraft would cost around $55-60M" at the most!

The saving in buying another 36 aircraft is a staggering $4B! Imagine just $2B invested in LCA production.We would get another 80-100 aircraft!
Therefore for any reason if we want another affordable Western firang type to augment MIG replacements apart from the LCA,the Gripen appears to be a better bet than the Rafale. Almost double the number for the same price.

But,as said before,what's stopping the GOI from starting a third LCA prod. line in the pvt. sector or at Sulur,a BRD?

QED.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 02 May 2018 23:47

Gripen deal cost $5.4 billion, not $4.7 billion and was signed in 2014.

So if you're going to keep crying "$200 million $200 million" each time you refer to the Rafale, make sure you also repeat "$150 million $150 million" each time you talk about the Gripen E. Clearly, you're not understanding the difference between flyaway costs versus program costs. And last I checked, $150 million is not 55 % of $240 million - its 62.5%.

BTW, the Rafale is twin engined, carries more payload and has greater range. In general, twin engine jets cost more to build than single engine jets, with the engine alone accounting for several million $ in cost difference. More systems on board, more labor to build it, more raw material. They also cost more to operate and more to maintain but bring more capability across the board.

I don't know how on earth you come to using such accounting to bring Gripen E prices down to $50-60 million. Even the Tejas Mk2, with Indian labor prices is likely to cost $50 million and you're expecting that price for an imported Western jet? You expect Saab to not want to make a profit on each of their jets?

Simple logic is that we let Tejas Mk1A and Mk2 to be our only single engine fighter jets post 2030 and imports to bring that much more bang and capability for the buck. The Gripen E doesn't get us that much more payload or range to make it worth it, when compared to the Tejas Mk2. The Rafale does.

Would be best NOT TO REPEAT the mistake made in the 1990s of not expanding Mirage-2000 fleet by going in for licensed production of that type when that option was available.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 03 May 2018 00:52

Well said Kartik! +108!

In addition, a follow on order of 36 - 44 Rafales will not be anywhere close to $9 billion USD spent. See below.

a) 36 Rafales x $105 million USD/bird = $3.8 Billion USD
b) Weapons = $1.2 Billion USD
c) IAF Specific Enhancements = $2 Billion USD

Total of the above is $7 Billion USD. If 44 Rafales are ordered, the numbers will go a bit higher. I would prefer 44 just for attrition reserves at 2 per squadron. Hate seeing squadrons operating at under strength, like No 9 Squadron with the Mirage 2000. But the point is, a follow on batch of Rafales will not come anywhere close to $250 million/bird of the first Rafale order. That is nonsense being peddled by Philip Saar.

Now how much is this MMRCA expected to cost? Nothing short of $20 Billion USD. India saves $13 Billion USD *JUST* in acquisition costs from a follow on Rafale deal. I know the numbers (36) are much less than 110 birds, but I can have (and am game) that argument all over again in terms of timeline and deliveres. And just get them off the shelf. I would rather see offsets in components (radar, sensors, weapons, engines, etc) than screwdrivergiri.

How much does a third Tejas line cost? Rs 1350 crore or $200 Million USD. Any sane person can figure out the foolishness of MMRCA 3.0

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 03 May 2018 03:48

Boeing wants the US Navy to get more Growlers as the existing fleet of 160 Growlers is not adequate in their opinion for the demands of the USN and USAF.

Analysis- Boeing pitches doubling Navy's EA-18G fleet



Stretched thinly by escort jamming responsibilities not only for its native US Navy, but also for the US Air Force and soon the US Marine Corps, the nation's 160-strong fleet of Boeing EA-18G Growlers may need to grow. That is the belief of the type's manufacturer, which is eyeing a gap in the Department of Defense's escort jamming capabilities and pitching the EA-18G as the plug.

An electronic warfare version of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, the Growler has taken on a joint service role since its introduction in 2009, covering for the USAF's lack of escort jamming aircraft: a result of the retirement of its General Dynamics EF-111A Raven without replacement in 1998. The EA-18G's role is expected to grow further as the USMC plans to retire its Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowlers in 2019.

The USN says it currently has five EA-18G Growlers per squadron, with each air wing containing one such unit.

"Boeing believes the navy needs eight to 11 Growlers per air wing and expeditionary squadron," says Dan Gillian, the company's vice-president of F/A-18 and EA-18G programmes. "We believe there will be a need for additional Growlers to be added into the budget in upcoming years."

The Joint Staff, which is responsible for assessing cross-service needs, could not be reached for comment. The USN says its fleet of Growlers is sufficient for its own missions, but that it cannot speak for the other services.

Boeing also contends that the airborne electronic warfare platform has broader appeal than with the USA alone. So far, Australia is the only export customer to have purchased the type, with its air force taking 12.

"Any nation that faces an advanced anti-access/aerial denial threat needs a Growler,” says Gillian. “Finland, Germany, Japan, Poland and the United Arab Emirates are some of the countries that have interest in the Growler.”

INCAPACITATING FORCE

Designed to blind an enemy by interfering with and blocking its radar and communication systems, Boeing boasts that the EA-18G is the only tactical jamming aircraft in production in the USA today.

Introduced almost 10 years ago as the navy's replacement for the EA-6B – which retired in 2015 – the Growler is built alongside E/F-model Super Hornets at Boeing's production facilities in St Louis, Missouri. The manufacturer has delivered 153 examples to the USN so far, and the last is currently expected to be received by February 2019, the service says.

The Growler has one pilot and one weapons systems officer, as opposed to its predecessor the Prowler, which had a crew of four: a pilot and three electronic countermeasures officers.

"The four-person-crew Prowler is a 1970s design and is much more aircrew-intensive," notes Cdr David Rueter, the USN's deputy programme manager for the EA-18G, who has flown both aircraft. He also notes the increased reliance on computer systems in the Growler, stating: "The aircraft does a lot more for you."

Stripped of the Super Hornet's Vulcan 20mm cannon and the wingtip-mounted Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, the EA-18G is a flying transmitter. Instead of weapons, it sports an ALQ-99 jamming pod under its belly and ALQ-218 radar warning receiver pods on its wingtips. The aircraft can also carry additional ALQ-99 jamming pods under its wings, which Rueter says can be swapped out in 15min on the carrier deck to meet different mission requirements.

The aircraft also carries weapons such as the Raytheon AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile for use against enemy radars and two Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs for self-defence.

ADVANCING THREATS

Boeing's pitch to add new Growlers to the US arsenal comes as war planners are being prompted to reconsider electronic warfare after a period of neglect and in the face of new threats.

"There was limited attention paid to electronic warfare in the 1990s across the Department of Defense," says Nicholas O'Donoughue, an engineer at Rand Corp, who specialises in radar signal processing. "The US Army, for example, got rid of its Combat Electronic Warfare Intelligence brigades, and chose not to modernise any of their equipment until it became necessary to counter IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in Iraq and Afghanistan, at which point they rapidly acquired and deployed vehicle-based jammers."

In recent years, new, sophisticated radars manufactured in China and Russia are also becoming increasingly difficult for US forces to jam, O'Donoughue says.

"The progression of improved analogue to digital converters, high-power microwave and millimetre-wave components, and active electronically scanned arrays means that a modern radar is capable of generating much more dynamic signals, which are more difficult to recognise and to counter," he says.

"This dynamic nature, and the increasing number of benign signals in the electromagnetic spectrum, makes it very difficult to accurately identify incoming signals." Improved range on surface-to-air-missiles is also making electronic warfare all the more critical, he adds.

But as adversaries' systems are improving, so, too, are the EA-18G's capabilities.

"Growlers will receive the first significant hardware upgrade in 2021," says Rueter. "This includes an improved ALQ-218(V)3 receiver system and addition of improved datalink capability provided by the Tactical Targeting Network Technology terminal and the Distributed Targeting Processor – Network.”

Boeing and the USN are also eyeing adding Super Hornet Block III upgrades to the Growler, including an advanced cockpit system and conformal fuel tanks, which would increase the range of the aircraft, allowing it to fly longer alongside strike platforms.

And both entities are also eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Next Generation Jammer, which will come in three frequency ranges and replace the ageing ALQ-99. Production of the new mid-range jammer has been awarded to Raytheon, while low- and high-band contracts have yet to be assigned.

Forthcoming improvements aside, the USN declines to comment specifically on countering adversaries' increasingly sophisticated defences with the EA-18G. It does acknowledge, however, that the changing nature of electronic warfare presents difficulties to its current fleet.

"It’s certainly a challenge, but we do the best we can," says Rueter. "It’s a cat-and-mouse game."

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 03 May 2018 03:58

I pray that the IAF stays as far away as possible from the white elephants that are the Eurofighters. Damn expensive to acquire, operate and maintain.

(Source: Deutsche Welle German Radio; posted May 02, 2018)
Only a handful of the German Air Force's Eurofighter jets are combat ready, according to a report in the magazine Der Spiegel published Wednesday.

Due to a technical problem with the defense system of the combat aircraft, only 10 of the Luftwaffe's 128 Eurofighters are mission ready, according to the report.

The problem stems from a cooling liquid leak in the aircraft's wing pod sensors, which are used to recognize hostile jets or incoming attacks. Without the defense system the Eurofighter jets are not combat ready.


The shortage of aircraft means that Germany is unable to fulfill its NATO obligations to have 82 combat ready jets for crisis situations.

The wing pod issue is only one problem facing the Luftwaffe. Der Spiegel reported that there are only enough missiles to make only four Eurofigher jets ready for combat.

The German military confirmed to Der Spiegel the technical problems with the Eurofighter, but would not comment on the number of combat-ready aircraft, given that this information is classified.

The revelation in Der Spiegel is the latest report to cast doubt on Germany's military readiness and capabilities. The report is the latest to cast doubt on Germany's military capabilities and readiness. It raises questions of whether Germany is really meeting its NATO commitments.

Accounting tricks

In a Bundeswehr document provided to the German parliament last year, the military classified 39 of 128 jets as combat ready.

A Bundeswehr spokesperson told Der Spiegel that the "daily actual availability" of the Eurofighter right now is better than last year.

However, Der Spiegel said that the military appeared to count any Eurofighter that can fly as ready, even if they are only available for training or for maneuvers without missiles or defense systems.

"These jets are barred from participating in real deployments, such as air patrols in the eastern flank of NATO," Der Spiegel wrote.



link

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 03 May 2018 14:10

The extra money in the Gripen deal was for maintenance,around $1.5B. Rafale setting up of maintenance cost is $0.5B extra in the table given above.

The JAS-39NG reportedly ranked 1st in the FAB’s technical trials, had strong support from Brazilian aerospace firms, and offered a complete package worth about $6 billion (about 10 billion Reals), of which $1.5 billion was for maintenance.


But,as I've also said,ideally setting up a 3rd prod. line for the LCA asap with some incentives for pvt. industry or at the Sulur BRD, will prevent yet another type in the inventory and all the support/spares issues associated with it,not to mention the higher cost.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 03 May 2018 23:09

Philip Saar, I give up. You Win! :roll:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 05 May 2018 05:45

My winning isn't important as long as the IAF win!

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 742
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Vips » 05 May 2018 07:49

Which is not going to happen till the Natasha lobby is active!!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 09 May 2018 02:35

Obama: Leaving Iran deal 'misguided'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics ... index.html

"In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next," Obama's statement continued. "But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America's credibility, and puts us at odds with the world's major powers."


COMCASA sound familiar? :)

Be wary of Santa bearing gifts via the F-16 and F-18. Today it is Iran. Heaven only knows, who Mr Stable Genius has next in his crosshairs.

To the Americans, agreements are - to quote late US Vice President John Nance Garner - not worth a bucket of warm spit. Never before have I seen a country, with such a wishy-washy foreign policy. Even Porkistan has a more stable foreign policy. Across party lines - they all hate India and want to liberate Kashmir.

If this is America's attitude over an important nuclear agreement, what value should we expect that the Americans will place over an agreement - of *ZERO* significance to them, other making a bucket load of money - for 110 fighters?

Tejas all the way. The only true path to self reliance is a strong MIC.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 09 May 2018 06:34

‘The Future Of Defence Tech Will Be Defined By Smart Software’
http://businessworld.in/article/-The-Fu ... 18-148458/

Jan Widerstrom, Chairman and Managing Director, SAAB India Technologies tells BW Businessworld’s Manish Kumar Jha that the company had a comprehensive Make in India programme, complete with a manufacturing facility, transfer of state-of-the-art technology and creation of an aerospace ecosystem.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cybaru » 10 May 2018 01:38

:roll: IMO anything saab says is probably "Fake". TOT will come at such a price that we will opt to not want it.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 10 May 2018 01:39

These dudes at Saab are either high or seriously believe their own lies.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 10 May 2018 17:08

Hope order for fighter jet is actually  placed, says Boeing
https://www.livemint.com/Industry/lcdJt ... oeing.html

Boeing, which is competing with several global majors to clinch the Indian Air Force’s order for 110 fighter jets, is investing millions of dollars to create an ecosystem for making its product—F/A-18 Super Hornets—in India. The US-based company hopes that the order is actually placed, as it could otherwise derail the government’s plan of indigenizing its defence programme. Building a modern weapons system like a fighter aircraft is a very complex endeavour, Boeing India president Pratyush Kumar said in an interview. “Firms pitching for the product need to work for few years to build partnerships, stitch together an ecosystem, to be able to build the product in the country. This costs millions of dollars,” Kumar said. “Major companies (pitching products) will be frustrated if the order does not happen, though the actual investment will be made only after the order is in place.”

Failure to place the order could see the collapse of various partnerships and ecosystems set up for indigenizing the defence programme, he said. The Indian Air Force had in April set in motion the process of acquiring a fleet of 110 fighter jets, one of its largest orders in recent years, to shore up its fast-depleting squadron strength. The order for 110 fighter jets is estimated to be worth $15 billion, according to a Bloomberg report. Leading military aircraft producers, including US firms Lockheed Martin and Boeing, Sweden’s Saab and France’s Dassault Aviation, are among those likely to bid for the mega deal. For the potential airforce order, Boeing has tied up with Mahindra Defence System and state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) for producing F/A-18 Super Hornets. It has also spent millions of dollars to create an ecosystem around building the product in India, by building a supplier network.

Kumar estimates that Boeing would need up to 400 suppliers to make the aircraft in India, compared with about 800 suppliers stationed in the US that help the company build the fighter jet in that country. “A lot of capabilities need to be created in India to build and support the ecosystem around the aircraft (F/A-18 Super Hornet). We need test and assembly centres, which we plan to establish with partnership with our partners. Then comes training the crew, maintenance, providing ground support to maintain the aircraft, modernisation and repair, engineering capabilities, which would need a huge ecosystem, creating which is costing us millions of dollars,” Kumar said. The company’s investment in India to build its product here could run into billions of dollars and would depend on the number of aircraft the government finally decides to purchase, he said.

Boeing has also responded to the Indian Navy’s Request for Information (RFI) in 2017 to purchase 57 fighter jets, which is estimated to cost about $5-6 billion, Kumar said. The company has pitched its F/A-18 Super Hornets for the navy’s fighter jet requirements. “The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a multi-role fighter jet and will not require change of platform for the air force and navy. The deal size is about $6 billion, according to the navy,” Kumar said. “Recently, we have seen a much more over leaning stance of US government, that makes me confident that there will be something compelling on the table,” Kumar said. Boeing expects the Indian commercial aviation space to grow rapidly as more Indians belonging to the middle class start flying, which is expected to drive up growth for decades to come. “The government’s regional connectivity scheme is getting more people to fly especially from the smaller towns and cities,” Kumar said, adding that unless something dramatic happens like oil prices going to $150 a barrel, India’s growth story is expected to continue.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 10 May 2018 17:09

^^^ Few comments based on the interview above...

1) How many years is "few" years to be able to build the product in the country? Industry standard is three years from contract signature to delivery of the first plane. And RFI stipulates the first batch of planes are to arrive in flyaway mode. We are in RFI stage and the IAF is depleting squadrons fast. Just saying.

2) $6 billion for 57 naval fighters, works out to $105+ million unit cost. As per wiki chacha, the unit cost of the F-18E/F was $70.5 million in 2017. So around $35+ million extra to factor in weapons, tools, spares, base infrastructure, etc. The follow-on batch for 29 MiG-29Ks cost the Indian Navy $1.2 billion, which worked out to a unit cost of $41+ million. Piss poor pathetic she may be, but to the bean counters at the MoD - who look primarily at cost - that is going to be a hard sell.

3) Using the $105 million (overall acquisition cost) figure, one can estimate 110 fighters for the Indian Air Force to be $11,550,000,000 or $11.5 billion. That is *JUST* the acquisition cost. Now the RFI wants - I read the document - tech transfer on virtually everything on the plane. A few notable examples include;

- RAM Coating & Processes (page 60 of RFI document)
- Single Crystal Blade Manufacturing Process (page 62 of RFI)
- Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar, T/R module fabrication, Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology (page 63 of RFI)
- Technologies for minimising RCS & IR signatures, special coatings & measurement technologies (page 68 of RFI)
- Pages 58 to 73 of the RFI will give anyone asthma + angina + heart attack, all at the same time

How much is the MoD expecting to pay for these technologies? How did this RFI even get cleared by the MoD?

How much does a third Tejas line cost? Rs 1350 crore or $200 Million USD. Just saying.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby darshhan » 10 May 2018 18:25

Rakesh wrote:- Pages 58 to 73 of the RFI will give anyone asthma + angina + heart attack, all at the same time



Lol. Our bureaucrats will ensure that there is no option besides the indigenous one, even if unintentionally. :lol:

By the way who are the guys drafting these documents. I am actually starting to like them.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby darshhan » 10 May 2018 18:34

Rakesh wrote:......

- RAM Coating & Processes (page 60 of RFI document)
- Single Crystal Blade Manufacturing Process (page 62 of RFI)
- Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA) radar, T/R module fabrication, Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology (page 63 of RFI)
- Technologies for minimising RCS & IR signatures, special coatings & measurement technologies (page 68 of RFI)
- Pages 58 to 73 of the RFI will give anyone asthma + angina + heart attack, all at the same time
.......


I mean is there anything more MOD could have asked the interested bidders. Probably a striptease cum lap dance performance from the Bidder's CEO himself. Way to go MoD.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby JayS » 10 May 2018 19:01

Rakesh wrote:Hope order for fighter jet is actually  placed, says Boeing
https://www.livemint.com/Industry/lcdJt ... oeing.html


Paid psy-Ops. Even if India cancels all the tenders in the last stage of procurement, these companies will still flock to send response to RFI for the next one. No partnership is breaking due to this or no real impact will happen on the ecosystem development without imports. Else they would not have responded to this RFI itself given MMRCA history and would be willing to participate on "no cost no commitment" basis.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 10 May 2018 22:16

Perhaps the shelving of the large carrier and with it the extra aircraft is worrying Boeing. The rising tide of opinion that we must leverage the LCA programme to the max. instead of hugely expensive firang birds is gradually impinging itself upon the GOI which is also facing an eco crisis with rising oil prices, rupee weakening by the day and the after effects of Demon. and GST still affecting the sluggish economy.

In any case any major movement on the MRCA is unlikely before the next the election.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 10 May 2018 23:34

darshhan wrote:
Rakesh wrote:- Pages 58 to 73 of the RFI will give anyone asthma + angina + heart attack, all at the same time

Lol. Our bureaucrats will ensure that there is no option besides the indigenous one, even if unintentionally. :lol:

By the way who are the guys drafting these documents. I am actually starting to like them.

RFI was written by the air force onlee. I do not want to speculate as to why it has been written in this manner. IMHO, this RFI will never see fruition. No OEM will give what the RFI asks for...no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 11 May 2018 15:13

In the immortal words of Omar Sharif in McKenna's Gold, "is that so?"......that the IAF is actually responsible for the RFI is whatever, or is there a babu foster-father?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby JayS » 11 May 2018 15:28

Rakesh wrote:
darshhan wrote:Lol. Our bureaucrats will ensure that there is no option besides the indigenous one, even if unintentionally. :lol:

By the way who are the guys drafting these documents. I am actually starting to like them.

RFI was written by the air force onlee. I do not want to speculate as to why it has been written in this manner. IMHO, this RFI will never see fruition. No OEM will give what the RFI asks for...no matter how much money is thrown at them.


Rakesh, RFI is just for information collection. Its like one visits 5 shops for best deal before buying. Ask as many questions as you can and get as much data as possible. Based on the responses they get for RFI they will formulate SQR and then RFP which will be more realistic and closure to the actual program. As ans example, say in case of ToT, if they see that say for RADAR ToT everyone is asking for min $1B, they may choose to drop the requirement in RFP. Or if they see that no one is willing to provide ToT, they may drop it from requirements as it would be useless to include it if no one is gonna qualify. So on and so forth. Or if they see

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 14 May 2018 06:25

JayS wrote:Rakesh, RFI is just for information collection. Its like one visits 5 shops for best deal before buying. Ask as many questions as you can and get as much data as possible. Based on the responses they get for RFI they will formulate SQR and then RFP which will be more realistic and closure to the actual program. As ans example, say in case of ToT, if they see that say for RADAR ToT everyone is asking for min $1B, they may choose to drop the requirement in RFP. Or if they see that no one is willing to provide ToT, they may drop it from requirements as it would be useless to include it if no one is gonna qualify. So on and so forth. Or if they see

Saar, why ask for something, that you will likely *NEVER* get? I mean seriously, who is going provide Single Crystal Blade Manufacturing Process OR Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology? Why would an OEM want to create a future competitor?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby JayS » 14 May 2018 19:47

Rakesh wrote:
JayS wrote:Rakesh, RFI is just for information collection. Its like one visits 5 shops for best deal before buying. Ask as many questions as you can and get as much data as possible. Based on the responses they get for RFI they will formulate SQR and then RFP which will be more realistic and closure to the actual program. As ans example, say in case of ToT, if they see that say for RADAR ToT everyone is asking for min $1B, they may choose to drop the requirement in RFP. Or if they see that no one is willing to provide ToT, they may drop it from requirements as it would be useless to include it if no one is gonna qualify. So on and so forth. Or if they see

Saar, why ask for something, that you will likely *NEVER* get? I mean seriously, who is going provide Single Crystal Blade Manufacturing Process OR Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology? Why would an OEM want to create a future competitor?


Well we got SCB tech for Su30, didn't we..? Where did that take us to..? Western OEM can play the same game too.

Anyhow, nothing should hold you from gathering info. Its not costing us anything. The more informed you are the better final requirements will be. Getting small additional info post RFI stage might take months with the glacial pace of our babudom. Better ask some more useless questions now than to have to reissue RFI later no..? Worst case they will say NO as answer.

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

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby GeorgeWelch » 15 May 2018 18:48

Rakesh wrote:2) $6 billion for 57 naval fighters, works out to $105+ million unit cost. As per wiki chacha, the unit cost of the F-18E/F was $70.5 million in 2017. So around $35+ million extra to factor in weapons, tools, spares, base infrastructure, etc.

. . .

3) Using the $105 million (overall acquisition cost) figure, one can estimate 110 fighters for the Indian Air Force to be $11,550,000,000 or $11.5 billion.


As you mentioned the $105 million includes a lot of one time costs including supplier startup and facility building, so additional units would cost less than $105 million

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 17 May 2018 02:56

Stratpost- "We are happy to meet anyone at altitude"- Vivek Lall of LM

..

4 minute read‘We’re happy to meet anyone at altitude’
Lockheed Martin looks forward to an open Indian contest for 110 fighters
by Saurabh Joshi • May 12, 2018

F-16 Block 70 | Photo: Steve Otte/Lockheed Martin

Vice President, Strategy and Business Development (Global) at Lockheed Martin, Dr. Vivek Lall spoke to StratPost at DefExpo 2018, where he welcomed the competition and outlined why he thinks the F-16 makes a good case for the new Indian Air Force (IAF) contest for 110 fighter aircraft.

Asked about the apparent conversion of the contest from one that was expected to be a single-engine fighter acquisition to plausibly all six MMRCA (Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft) contenders, Lall told StratPost, “We’re happy to meet anyone at altitude,” adding, “I’m happy that the RFI is out and we’re happy to respond to it.”

“It looks like a fairly detailed RFI, which is great. This is a Request For Information and so the net has been cast wide and that’s appreciated. I think the more the competition, the better. India can then home in on exactly the capability it wants. But the RFI is detailed enough, where it’s quite clear in terms of what kind of operational capability is required,” said Lall.

But the RFI could also result in a clarification of the IAF’s requirements and paring of the competition. “I think the key is at some point the RFI will be converted to — go to the next stage of RFP. That would be interesting to see. Once the collection of information is done, that’s a critical step in the process — where you go from there,” he said.

Lall has a three-point pitch for the F-16. “There are three elements to why we have a very competitive proposal that addresses, not only the Indian Air Force’s requirements, but also the Government of India’s initiatives for Make in India and export,” he said.

F-16 Block 70

“One is the aircraft itself — the F-16 Block 70 — its performance, its capabilities match with what the air force desires and I think we have a very compelling capability especially with its mission systems, AESA radar, its commonality with F-22 and F-35 and so I think it’s the most capable platform in the competition form a capability standpoint. The other aspect of it is that a single engine fighter is 30 to 40 percent less expensive, operationally, than a twin engine. And there’s a US DoD Comptroller report on that. So the data is out there,” he emphasized.

..

MMRCA Rerun?

So is this going to be a rerun of the MMRCA? Lall puts it like this: “The Block 70 is significantly more capable than the F-16IN that was part of our offering back then, so that’s probably a piece of information they (IAF) want from all the competitors, as to how technologies and capabilities have changed since that time.”

‘Block 80’?

Is this the last variant of the F-16? “This is the F-16 Block 70 but if India chooses — a ‘Block 80’ always a possibility. It gives India the opportunity to take over exclusive production and be the epicenter of the supply chain. But Block 70 will not be the last block,” he said.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Kartik » 17 May 2018 03:03

More on the capabilities of the F-16 Block 70 offered for the MRCA competition
Image

Detailed- LM's F-16 offer to India

Balserak first explained how the Block 70 was different from the previous Block 50 and Block 60 versions of the fighter.

“What makes a Block 70 a 70? Let’s start with structure first. So the Block 70, structurally, is based on a Block 50, with one exception. We’ve incorporated full-scale durability testing results into the design of the Block 70 to change the service life from 8000 hours to 12000 hours. So structurally, it is physically different from a Block 50,” he said.

‘Elvis’ explained further, “It is not a Block 60. A 60 is only operated by one customer (U.A.E.) and there are specific structural differences between a 50, a 60 and a 70. It was specifically designed for that customer and specifically designed to accommodate a GE-132 engine. It was also designed to house a customer-unique electronic warfare and radar suite — liquid-cooled AESA radar.”

“If you look at the U.A.E. customer’s airplane, you’ll see that it’s got air scoots and pumps that aren’t present in normal F-16s. And the reason those are there is to accommodate the electronic warfare suite and the liquid cooling for the AESA radar,” he said.
Paint-job

The Block 70 also has a distinctive paint-job called Uniform HAVEGLASS that serves two purposes.

“One of the things they did on the Block 60s — was they did a coating on the Block 60 that’s got the texture of about 40 grit sandpaper — 60 grit sandpaper. It’s very, very rough. It was designed for RCS (Radar Cross Section) reduction. Since then for the Block 70 what we’ve done — from the exterior, if you look at the normal F-16 — most of the world’s F-16s — although they have country-unique paint jobs and in this case we made up an Indian paint-job, one of the thing the United States Air Force — particularly our Air National Guard, has started to implement is this coating called Uniform HAVEGLASS,” said Balserak.

The Indian configuration of the F-16 Block 70 will also be capable of refueling via probe and drogue as well as by receptacle.

“One of the things that makes the Indian airplanes completely unique — no other F16 on the planet will have this — one of the Indian requirements is, we had to make the airplane capable of doing probe and drogue refueling,” he said, explaining, “F-16s on the planet right now do not do probe and drogue refueling — we do what’s called receptacle refueling. We fly around with our air refueling boom. The Indian airplanes — there’s a retractable probe inside the right conformal wing tank. In this depiction, the probe is not fully extended. If you go look at our model outside you see how long it is — it extends out so that it’s just to the right of the pilot’s helmet,” he said.

“Now the really cool thing — the Indian Air Force airplanes, from a refueling perspective will be bisexual — you can refuel either via boom or via probe and drogue. And the reason why that’s important from a coalition inter-operability perspective — you can take fuel from anybody,” explained Balserak.

“You could stay airborne indefinitely. I can pick up gas from any of the tankers out there — I don’t care what they are. That’s a unique capability — nobody else has that. Anything that either has a boom or a basket — I can take gas from in this airplane,” he said.

“We’ve already done it. We’ve already built the prototype — we had to do that for MMRCA. We demonstrated — we’ve flown with it, we physically connected. The only thing we haven’t done to date is physically transfer fuel because back in the days of MMRCA — that wasn’t a requirement, yet. But that’s the only difference,” he explained.

“And the Uniform HAVEGLASS does two things. What Uniform HAVEGLASS does — it is also a radar cross section reducing coating to go on to the outside of the airplane — that’s number one. But the number two reason — and the reason the Guard really likes this is that it’s significantly less maintenance intensive than the old traditional coatings. And that’s why they started to do it. So if you look at — if you go online and look at some of our Air National Guard airplanes a lot of them are starting to put this paint scheme — this Uniform HAVEGLASS on the airplane and this is what we intend to offer India,” he explained.
Indian Specs

“This is the baseline that India has told us they want as far as an airplane is concerned. So for India there are things that will be on the airplane most of the time. Those things are Conformal Fuel Tanks, a Sniper targeting pod, and an IRST pod — Infra Red Search and Track — this is infra red targeting, conformal fuel tanks and in this case we showed the Uniform HAVEGLASS,” said Balserak.

Image
Image
The Block 70 also features advancements in radar, mission computer, data transfer and display.

“Inside the airplane there are things that make a Block 70 a Block 70. Things that you can’t see. We’ll start with the radar. So on the front end of the airplane is this APG83 — it’s an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. Unlike the Block 60 airplanes, that are liquid-cooled, this is air-cooled, so there’s no need for all that plumbing that the Block 60 has. If you notice there’s no mechanical feature to this. There are transmitter-receiver modules all over the array and they can do multiple things all at once. So I can do air-to-air, air-to-ground, electronic warfare, synthetic aperture radar maps all at the same time. It is a significant difference in capability than what we had before,” said Balserak.

“To put it in comparison, the airplanes that I flew with the legacy APG68 radars — compared to this, it’s the difference between a rotary telephone and a smartphone. It’s that different. I can see from significantly further away — I can target multiple targets and I can do multiple tasks all at the same time. That’s a huge difference in capability,” he explained.

“One of the things you can’t really see here, but inside the structure — we have a new mission computer. So the new mission computer is significantly faster than the old mission computers that are in any other F-16 and they are connected via Ethernet into the airplane so what that means is no more 1553 buses — it means we can send very large amounts of data very, very quickly throughout the airplane. The big difference in the cockpit is the Center Pedestal Display — it’s essentially a high definition television set. It is not a touchscreen. And that was deliberate because in this configuration touching the screen when the pilot is maneuvering around manipulating things — you could actually physically touch and move something you don’t want. That was on purpose.


Image

“So let’s talk about air to ground,” begins Balserak, pointing to a 3D graphic of the aircraft weapons configuration playing on a screen.

“The versatility of the airplane — you see the hardpoints — the physical hardpoints on the airplane — in this configuration what we have here — I wanted to show some versatility — there are literally a thousand combinations you could do but in this circumstance, we have a center-line fuel tank, we have conformal fuel tanks on the top — these are small diameter bombs — 250 pounds a piece — these are laser-guided bombs. These are satellite guided bombs. These are Python 5 air-to-air missiles — and these are AMRAAM 120 missiles,” he listed.

“But the really neat thing about the airplane is that — alright you say ‘Well, this is cool if I don’t have to go very far’, but you can go quite a way even in this configuration. You can remove the weapons in there and hang fuel tanks on — so there are 370 gallon wing tanks, 300 gallon center-line tanks and the Indian Air Force has specifically asked for 600 gallon tanks. So this means I can go a long, long way and stay a long, long time. We have only a few customers that fly with 600 gallon tanks — the United States Air Force does not fly with 600 gallon tanks, to put it in perspective. So that’s air-to-ground,” explained Balserak.


Image
Balserak also says the Block 70 will have the ability to carry ten air-to-air missiles.

“This is the one that I really like — for the Indian Air Force we’re offering what are called triple rail launchers. So the standard F-16 that I flew in an air-to-air configuration or any other F-16 on the planet can carry only six missiles. That’s all you have. Just six. In this configuration you can carry ten air-to-air missiles. So, what does that mean in air-to-air combat?” he asked.

And answered, “Any other F-16 on the planet (including Pakistani) can only carry 6 missiles right now. This will enable you to have ten missiles. You have a radar that far outdistances any other F-16 radar out there — so I can see you first, I can shoot you first, I kill you first — it’s a significant difference in capability from any other F-16.”
Engine

Lockheed Martin is also offering the Block 60 GE 132 engine for the Indian Block 70.

“A Block 50 baseline has either one of two engines — you either have a Pratt and Whitney — it’s called Pratt and Whitney 229 — that’s called the Block 52 — the airplanes that are powered by GE 129 engines — are called Block 50s. We originally wanted to offer the Indians the 129 engine. They had some performance requirements that required a little bit more thrust. So we’re going to put the engine that was in the Block 60 into the Block 70. So we’re going to put the GE 132 inside the Block 70. It will be — and this is from a man who has flown every version of the airplane there is and every motor we’ve ever put in the airplane — this airplane will be a rocketship. It will be an absolute rocketship,” he emphasized.

So how is the current Block 70 offer different from what Lockheed Martin offered in the IAF’s MMRCA contest?

“The IN configuration was based on a Block 60 not on a Block 50. It was a different airplane. Many of the requirements from the IN configuration back in MMRCA were applying to this – there were some specific things that they asked for in MMRCA. Some auto-throttle improvements, auto-pilot improvements, some — the Indian Air Force calls them carefree handling capabilities — so there are some differences from the original offering,” explained Balserak.


Image
A final feature Balserak wanted to touch upon was the Auto GCAS in the F-16.

“The United States Air Force — we created a system — and we started this a long time ago — but we implemented this system in the airplane called Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System. And what Auto GCAs does is when you do mission planning — inside that data transfer cartridge, you load a digital base of wherever it is you’re flying around — right. And what Auto GCAS does is — in circumstances where the pilot’s not paying attention or the pilots incapacitated — let’s say G-induced loss of consciousness — and the airplane is pointed to the ground — imminently getting ready to hit the ground. Auto GCAS calculates the aircraft’s nose position, airspeed, angle of attack, current G and the digital terrain beneath it on its own and will initiate a recovery above the ground before the airplane and the pilot impacts the ground,” he said.

“Today, if I have the number right, the United States Air Force has recorded seven ‘saves’ from Auto GCAS. Seven. That’s in the two-ish plus years since we implemented it in the airplane. That’s amazing. It gives me goosebumps because in my career, I’ve lost a couple of students because of G-induced loss of consciousness,” explained Balserak.

“I wouldn’t call G-induced loss of consciousness common, but it does happen, which is why we put it on the airplane. The airplane is very, very high performance — 9Gs does significantly challenging things to your body and if you’re not prepared when you pull on the airplane you can go ‘night-night’ — you can ‘G-induced loss of consciousness’ yourself and if nobody’s flying the airplane then the airplane will go in the last place you led it — and if that happens to be straight down, then you’re going to hit the ground,” he elaborated.

“It’s unfortunate. One of our customers recently lost two airplanes and unfortunately they elected not to have that in their airplanes — that customer by the way has since decided that they want that in their airplanes and we are putting it in their airplanes now,” he said, explaining further, “They’re retrofitting it in their airplanes now. It’s a software fix. So all you have to do is plug the software in the airplane — it communicates with the flight controls. We’re in the process of doing that right now.”

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3052
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 17 May 2018 07:28

^ okay, I have to admit even though I really am not a teen fan, this is the ultimate f16. Triple mijjile launchers, aesa, wide variety of weapons, tried and rested platform, fantastic support and supply system, and the clincher for me, the GE F132 engine.

My guess is that we are looking at a block 50 weight spec solah with BLK 60 spec engines. That solid twr will not be matched by any single engined bird that I can think of.

I think they just pulled out all the stops, this one is my fave teen in the race.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19105
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Philip » 17 May 2018 08:29

Cost per teen vs LCA MK-2?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby JayS » 17 May 2018 12:56

So blk-70 AESA radar is air-cooled while that on blk-60 is water cooled. Why..? Blk-60 one looks like more powerful one.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby pravula » 17 May 2018 13:26

JayS wrote:So blk-70 AESA radar is air-cooled while that on blk-60 is water cooled. Why..? Blk-60 one looks like more powerful one.


Cooling mode usually has nothing to do with over all performance unless both blocks are the same generation. IOW, you could have a air cooled system, with more power because of technological advances, than a water cooled one.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21128
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Austin » 17 May 2018 13:45

On paper the F-16 Blk 70 looks very capable and perhaps other contenders would be putting their best to get this deal

But it would boil down to who is willing to give the most technology at the lowest price , The new figher deal is all about maximum TOT with no strings attached , Production

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 742
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Vips » 17 May 2018 18:25

One way a competitor can gain is offer to supply from existing flying stock to take care of the immediate falling numbers and then replace them with the new birds on order as they are delivered.Does not matter even if they are inferior versions of the one they will be offering in the tender. There will be some lead time to do the pilot/conversion training. I am surprised IAF has not made this a condition for the contest.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby pravula » 17 May 2018 20:45

Vips wrote:One way a competitor can gain is offer to supply from existing flying stock to take care of the immediate falling numbers and then replace them with the new birds on order as they are delivered.Does not matter even if they are inferior versions of the one they will be offering in the tender. There will be some lead time to do the pilot/conversion training. I am surprised IAF has not made this a condition for the contest.


IAF did exactly this with MKI, so am sure they are aware of this option and will include it in RFP if needed.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Rakesh » 17 May 2018 22:47

Naah, I have a feeling they might exercise HAL's offer for additional Su-30MKIs. Easy politically, easy financially and easy logistically.

This MRCA purchase will be new. Nothing till post 2019 elections anyway. Hopefully by that time, the IAF changes its tune to acquire 4th generation fighters.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3052
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Cain Marko » 18 May 2018 04:31

Philip wrote:Cost per teen vs LCA MK-2?


Awful I'm sure, but one can oogle at the American eye candy a bit can't one?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

Postby Khalsa » 18 May 2018 07:58

Where is the Naval 57 aircraft thing at ?
Canned (in secret) ?
Or Cancelled
or consolidated with the Air Force one (in stealth) ?

Honestly where is the Naval 57 aircraft deal at ?
I ask I because I cannot believe that it does not influence the Air Force deal.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: g.sarkar and 38 guests