MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Sep 2018 12:06

Regarding the Request for Information released for 114 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA), with a Request for Proposal that will be issued late next year at the earliest and implemented after three to four years, there is cynicism among many OEMs who feel that this, too, might experience the fate of the earlier MRCA that was canceled by the previous government. Additionally, 85 percent of the MRCA project has to be “Made in India” by a Strategic Partner (SP)/Indian Production Agency. While it has a straightforward intent, the perplexing SP model is slow with decision-making and the final draft has yet to be implemented, leaving future vendors in a state of uncertainty.

from Tejas dhaaga

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2018 20:03

The Swefes now say that India is free to choose its partner for the Gripen, following in the Raffy's footsteps!

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 20 Oct 2018 15:53

Buy US-made F-16s to avoid sanctions, Washington tells New Delhi after S-400 deal. 20 Oct 2018.

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-b ... al-2677195

How can India avert the US sanctions following the mega million S-400 Triumf deal? Ahead of the deadline, there are reports that Washington has offered a solution to New Delhi.

According to an Indian Express report, the US has told India to buy the F-16 fighter jets to avoid the sanctions.

However, the report also added that this offer was made earlier in October and not during the meeting between Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and her US counterpart James Mattis in Singapore recently.

It should be noted that the waiver report comes days after US President Donald Trump had cryptically said that ‘India will soon find out’ about his decision of the sanctions.

Under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act or CAATSA sanctions, which was amended early this year, only Trump has the authority for the presidential waiver to India on weapons deal with sanctions-hit Russia.

India inked a $5 billion deal to purchase S-400 Triumf air defence system from Moscow. The mega deal was sealed in New Delhi during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the annual summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Asked about the agreement between India and Russia, Trump while interacting with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House, said, "India will find out. Aren't they?" ‘India is going to find out,’ he reiterated in response to India specific question. Asked when, he said, "You will see. Sooner than you think."

The White House had also said that the US presidential waiver on weapons deal with sanctions-hit Russia is intended to "wean" countries like India off the Russian equipment.

"The (CAATSA presidential) waiver is narrow, intended to wean countries off Russian equipment and allow for things such as spare parts for previously-purchased equipment," a White House National Security Council Spokesperson had said after the conclusion of the S-400 contract.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Oct 2018 11:12

Wow, so instead of gun boat diplomacy, USA has resorted to caatsa diplomacy..

This threatening before we bought them, god forbid if we buy them, what will happen

So much for strategic convergence and natural partnership as was bet upon here.. some moons ago

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Oct 2018 11:31

Please continue this discussion in the CAATSA thread...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2018 00:10

Locked the thread.
ramana

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Nov 2018 18:51

Ramana-ji, I am unlocking this thread due to this new development.

-------------------------------------------

I am pleased with this development. As predicted by everyone on BRF, the RFP has now been moved to post 2019 elections. The longer this delays, the better. Increased Tejas production (and FOC) and Rafale induction are coming in 2019. Once these two birds come into the IAF stables, the RFP might be reworked or cancelled altogether. Hoping better sense will prevail and the Air Force will continue with the Tejas and a follow-on order of the Rafale (44 - 64 birds or two to three more squadrons).

MMRCA 2.0 RFP pushed to 2019
https://www.stratpost.com/mmrca-2-0-rfp-pushed-to-2019/

While it is not impossible that the IAF might have made some progress to achieve clarity on the technical parameters it will require from its selected aircraft, the formulation of the industrial and partnership program is outside its area of expertise.

It is also not clear who will be responsible for putting together the industrial and partnership program. “HAL has a vested interest, DRDO doesn’t want it to happen at all,” commented one bemused representative of a fighter aircraft manufacturer, who added, “IAF has no idea about industrializing the program. Nor is it the task of an air force.”

How many times was this said on BRF? No really, how many times? A few in here were drooling over F-16 production in India and how the IAF would be so darn interested in such a thing. Job Creation, upgrading other nations F-16s, exporting F-16s to other countries, etc. All nonsense!

So that leaves only the technical part of the contest to the IAF. Honestly, what does the F-16 or F-18 bring to the table that the Rafale already cannot do for the IAF? What game changer is there on either of these planes to justify the horrendous cost of this contest?

Read the rest of the piece, even more doubts are being sowed, courtesy of the "yeoman service" that Rahul Gandhi and his Congress Party has provided

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 Nov 2018 01:07

Looks like a propaganda piece to me. Safe to ignore.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Nov 2018 01:41

I tried everything to cut-and-paste, but the website will NOT allow. So click away and read!

With 5 new stealth features, Rafale F4 will be a fighter to beat in MMRCA 2.0
https://globaldefencewatch.com/with-5-n ... mmrca-2-0/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Nov 2018 01:48

One does not have to be a genius to figure who these frustrated representatives are. With successive senior IAF officials defending the Rafale (especially on technical merits), executives at the "other" firms are questioning the validity of this contest. They do not want this contest to go through. They would rather go in for a G2G deal instead.

This same frustration was there on BRF as well, among a few. Rafale caused a lot of takleef to a few on BRF. Trump winning the Presidency in 2016 killed any grandoise ideas of a strategic Indo-US partnership. Thus the rhona-dhona on BRF when Trump won. Anything to kill the deal and go in for F-16 and F-18.

Rafale Scam: Fallout on MMRCA 2.0
https://www.stratpost.com/rafalescam-fa ... mmrca-2-0/

Doubts about MMRCA 2.0

StratPost spoke to a number of such representatives and asked them what they thought of the new contest in the context of the new details that have emerged. Here’s what they had to say on condition of anonymity.

“Yes, I have concerns about the integrity of the upcoming IAF fighter contest. (But) even more than the Eurofighter v/s Rafale aspect, I’m concerned about whatever side-deal was cut at the onset,” said one executive.

He added, “We spend a lot of intense personal work, company treasure… flight demos, etc…and immense govt resources to compete on something like this. Honestly, we dig very deep… long nights, miss birthdays and anniversaries. And if the whole process is rigged, they deserve an inferior ‘superior’ fighter plane…and to go to jail. Just create an easier process and award it to the bribing froggies. Don’t make it so enormously complex for the sake of ‘transparency’ and indigenisation. We play fair.”

“That’s part of what offends me. The process is so elaborate, difficult and expensive. If you’re permitting cheating, at least have the decency to not make the rest of us work so hard,” he said, concluding, “If/when these things become known, I’d expect there is also risk of lasting diplomatic resentment, as well.”

A second executive said, “IAF always wanted to buy a specific platform and they bought it. No great surprise here.”

Did he think the French might be shown preferential treatment in the new contest?

“Of course we are concerned. They are already laying the arguments (in favour of more Rafale fighters) – great aircraft, pilots trained, common infrastructure, fleet simplification,” he admitted.

He’s not alone.

A third executive said, “In theory, you could still run a fair competition. They have to make sure there is a level playing field in the RFP. The Government of India has already paid for infrastructure costs for the Rafale. They have to account for any advantages that the French would have in the new contest and ensure a level playing field.”

He also shook his head at how the government handled the original MMRCA contest and the order for 36 Rafale fighters. “They should have cancelled the previous MMRCA contest before they announced the Rafale order. All they had to was send a fax to everyone,” he said.

A fourth executive warned, “Just the thought of it being tailored to one of the contestant would discredit the whole idea of a competitive bidding process.”

Executive No. 5 said, “We’re not taking this very seriously. Sure, we’ve responded to the RFI – but the IAF has demonstrated its preference very clearly, for whatever reason. So we’ll look at the RFP once it comes out and see if it’s worth our time.”

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Nov 2018 03:04

Rakesh wrote:One does not have to be a genius to figure who these frustrated representatives are. With successive senior IAF officials defending the Rafale (especially on technical merits), executives at the "other" firms are questioning the validity of this contest. They do not want this contest to go through. They would rather go in for a G2G deal instead.

Question is, are we going to have a contest? Its quite obvious that none of the contenders have a real shot of winning the race, given the Rafale's huge head start. Putting myself in their shoes, I can't see the upside of engaging in the expense of actual competition when the outcome is almost a foregone conclusion. And if so, where does that leave the MoD? Single vendor deal or GtG with France, perhaps?

(The only aircraft that can beat the Rafale in India is the F-35, an unlikely prospect unless the GoI pushes for it.)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Nov 2018 03:05

^^ Angad Singh more or less confirms the above article. Click on the link below to read replies to the tweet....

https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 5087248384 ---> Lines up quite cleanly with a lot of conversations over RIAT/Farnborough this summer. No one really wants to come out and play any more.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Nov 2018 03:08

Viv S wrote:Question is, are we going to have a contest? Its quite obvious that none of the contenders have a real shot of winning the race, given the Rafale's huge head start. Putting myself in their shoes, I can't see the upside of engaging in the expense of actual competition when the outcome is almost a foregone conclusion. And if so, where does that leave the MoD? Single vendor deal or GtG with France, perhaps?it.)

Which is what they want Viv. They want a single vendor situation, which will cause the deal to collapse and then go in for a G2G deal. Their best best of winning lies there. Everyone under the sun now realizes that to win in the Indian defence market, G2G deals are the best bet.

The frustration is not surprising, but the excuses provided are laughable.

Viv S wrote:(The only aircraft that can beat the Rafale in India is the F-35, an unlikely prospect unless the GoI pushes for it.)

F-35 is done, no matter how much the GOI pushes for it. With the S-400 arriving (a forgone conclusion), it seems unlikely Lockheed Martin would allow the F-35 to operate in the same airspace as the S-400. Waiver is one thing, the F-35 is another.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Nov 2018 03:58

Rakesh wrote:Which is what they want Viv. They want a single vendor situation, which will cause the deal to collapse and then go in for a G2G deal. Their best best of winning lies there. Everyone under the sun now realizes that to win in the Indian defence market, G2G deals are the best bet.

The frustration is not surprising, but the excuses provided are laughable.

No what I mean is, isn't it already a de facto single vendor situation? Keeping all the politics & scheming aside, none of the other vendors seem to be in a position to compete given that a huge chunk of Dassault's costs have already been amortized by the 36 aircraft deal.

A single vendor deal seems inevitable, in which case the GoI isn't left with a great deal of leverage to squeeze down the margins. A G2G deal with France would seem inevitable.

F-35 is done, no matter how much the GOI pushes for it. With the S-400 arriving (a forgone conclusion), it seems unlikely Lockheed Martin would allow the F-35 to operate in the same airspace as the S-400. Waiver is one thing, the F-35 is another.

Probably not, unless they can arrive at some sort of agreement on S-400 specific operating protocols/data transfers. Unfortunately that leaves us without any LO capability against a PLA with rapidly proliferating A2/AD systems.

The outcome of the Turkish affair will be quite interesting. There's been a slight thaw following the release of the pastor (and the Kashhoggi business) and Turkish companies have an important role within the F-35 supply chain, wherein finding replacement could delay the program by upto 24 months. Surprisingly, its the Mattis-led DoD that's opposing the Congress-driven sanctions. Meanwhile, Turkey has invested $1 bn in a Juan Carlos-based light carrier and their Navy is preparing to issue a request for 16 F-35Bs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2018 05:23

For long-term, we need to seriously think about JSF-ish platform though. Sea Harriers are missed a lot!

However, there is nothing stopping our young boys in IITs and IISc to begin constructing homegrown JSF with the same amirkhan engines.

our dealings can be different as we are not seeking platforms, but techs. Certain stealth skins and critical electronic areas as well, we need to focus. I think MMRCA can be a stage player for these techs. [I am thinking different, with different kind of #chabi]

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Nov 2018 00:42

Gripen E flies with 2 Meteor missiles for the first time

link

In October, Saab successfully completed a test flight by a Gripen E aircraft with the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) for the first time.

The flight included two Meteor missiles and the Gripen E aircraft (designated 39-8) was operated from Saab’s airfield at Linköping, Sweden.

“The aircraft continues to perform as smoothly as we have seen throughout the whole flight test phase flying with external stores. I’m really looking forward to the upcoming steps in the flight test programme, taking us closer and closer to completing weapon integration. Meteor makes Gripen E extremely capable in the air dominance role”, says Robin Nordlander, Gripen experimental test pilot, Saab.

This test with Meteor is a part of the weapon integration progress in the Gripen E test programme and marks an important milestone in the agreement with the Swedish customer. The next step is to continue to fly with different configurations and gradually expand the flight envelope.

..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Nov 2018 01:04

Rakesh, Thanks for re-opening the thread to face new facts.
The comments of the five executives are laughable. They want IAF to tailor it for their convenience.

We can easily guess who the five executives represent.
The third guy in most pragmatic.
The first guy could be Eurofighter.

But it all goes back to how the 114 number was arrived at.
At 18 aircraft/squadron it represents 6 squadrons with 6 head quarter attrition spares.
What do these 6 squadrons mean to IAF combat power?
Lets start with a bottoms up assessment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Nov 2018 01:34

Viv, the Turks pragmatism in leveraging their JC amphib is what I've been advocating for a lobg time for our amphibs too.Sadly it appears that even the L&T/Navantia JC amphib comes without its ski-jump! I can't believe the shortsightedness of the IN which operated SH's for 3 decades but suspect that the ski-jump omission was deliberate given the obsession and pressue for a large ( unaffordable) CV with EMALS, etc. which the US would like us to build to counter the Chins beyond the IOR.

Back to the IAF.It too has been short-sighted in not pursuing the STOVL option when for decades the UK based its Gr. Harriets in German woods as airfields in a war with the USSR would be rendered inoperable with sustained attacks. STOVL birds would be invaluable in mountainous terrain.During Kargil,when initial air attacks to take out the summit entrenched Paki pigs,I advocated at a mil.function using IN SHs as the Viraat was in refit at that time. The V.Adm. C-in-C of a command I mentioned it too, said that the IN was ready if the IAF wanted them, but his IAF counterpart present didn't look too happy, perhaps not wanting the IN to steal their thunder.
A great opportunity missed to try out STOVL in the mountains.

Lockheed later bought some Yak 141 Freestyle tech to develop the JSF we're told.That bird was seen in 1992 at Farnborough.Worth taking a look at again and developing our own STOVL bird too in a JV perhaps.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Nov 2018 01:40

Philip, Do visit the Navy thread for me.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 15 Nov 2018 08:07

Philip wrote:
Back to the IAF.It too has been short-sighted in not pursuing the STOVL option when for decades the UK based its Gr. Harriets in German woods as airfields in a war with the USSR would be rendered inoperable with sustained attacks. STOVL birds would be invaluable in mountainous terrain.During Kargil,when initial air attacks to take out the summit entrenched Paki pigs,I advocated at a mil.function using IN SHs as the Viraat was in refit at that time. The V.Adm. C-in-C of a command I mentioned it too, said that the IN was ready if the IAF wanted them, but his IAF counterpart present didn't look too happy, perhaps not wanting the IN to steal their thunder.
A great opportunity missed to try out STOVL in the mountains.

Lockheed later bought some Yak 141 Freestyle tech to develop the JSF we're told.That bird was seen in 1992 at Farnborough.Worth taking a look at again and developing our own STOVL bird too in a JV perhaps.

We don't have the black forests of Bavaria to hide and even if we did, they can be targeted just like our auxillary and satellite fields.
The dispersal model is well known for PAF and IAF.
I have seen IL-76 lose 2/3rds of their carrying at take off capacity at Leh on a great clear summer day with 19 Degrees C. Yes the temperature in Ladakh in June or July.

I think we need to get off this line of thinking of a slow hovering OMNI POTENT Jet like a helicopter with rockets , pulverising large peaks at will. This is not the red alert game.

1. We don't employ Arnold Schwarzenegger in the IAF.
2. he load carrying capacity of the Sea Level Flier would go down like crazy if he tried to use his STOVL in the mountains.
3. Srinagar and Pathankot server adequately. (Note not even Leh was used as launch platform for Mud movers, carrying capacity at take off would be horrible. )
4. Arnold Schwarzenegger hovering at slow speeds would have been a wet dream come true for Musharraf's Stinger on a Peak Deterrence Model.
5. Dispersing IN assets in the valleys around Kargil would have required infrastructure and maintenance folks to be re-tasked. Not an easy task.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Nov 2018 08:20

The idea was to test the fighters in the mountains.the SHs viffing capability - ability to stop mid-air and accelerate to height v.quickly would've made them avoid missiles with ease.They would not have been slow targets for the Pakis, but would've taken them by surprise.Anyway its of academic interest now as the SHs are no more with us.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Nov 2018 09:44

ramana wrote:Rakesh, Thanks for re-opening the thread to face new facts.
The comments of the five executives are laughable. They want IAF to tailor it for their convenience.

We can easily guess who the five executives represent.
The third guy in most pragmatic.
The first guy could be Eurofighter.

But it all goes back to how the 114 number was arrived at.
At 18 aircraft/squadron it represents 6 squadrons with 6 head quarter attrition spares.
What do these 6 squadrons mean to IAF combat power?
Lets start with a bottoms up assessment.

Ramana-ji, this is nothing more than a carry over from the first MMRCA contest. The first contest was for 126 fighters over 7 squadrons (and that number was carried over from the Mirage 2000 proposal from 2001) which never saw the light of day. As you are well aware, 36 Rafales were bought instead. So now, a new RFI for 110 fighters. As a side note - in the 80s - the proposal was for HAL to license produce 110 Mirage 2000s. Then the MiG-29 came along and that proposal went out the window.

Once the Rafale enters service, what capability does the Eurofighter, MiG-35, Gripen E, Su-35, F-16 or F-18 bring to the table....that the Rafale already cannot do? What game changer is present on those aircraft that justifies the cost of setting up new infrastructure, a new maintenance program, a new set of operational requirements and everything else that goes into acquistion of a modern jet fighter? The IAF is just better off going in for a repeat order of the same aircraft. And that is what has got those executives all worried. The other aircraft in the contest "complement" the Rafale, rather than provide any significant technical advantage over the Rafale.

In terms of combat power, six additional squadrons bring a significant amount of firepower and the right aircraft - as in the IAF's choice, the Rafale - can dramatically alter the air power balance vis-a-viv Pakistan and China. The real question to ask is there money for such a purchase? This is going to cost nothing short of $20 billion. So that money has to be invested wisely.

Infrastructure

The IAF will look at the cost of infrastructure that has to be invested to support these 110 fighters. Anything other than the Rafale, involves the IAF having to spend infrastructure to support at minimum three airbases to house six squadrons (110 fighters), going by the calculation of two squadrons per airbase. Now Hasimara and Ambala are being set up to house two full Rafale squadrons each (and six additional squadrons are planned as per RFI). If the Rafale gets selected again, the IAF has to now invest in infrastructure only at two additional airbases versus three airbases for a complimentary type. The savings are significant.

Training, Weapons and Spares

Pilot conversion on one type of aircraft is much easier on the OPEX than training on multiple, complimentary types. The same holds true for the stockpiling of spares and weaponry. Again - in all three areas - the savings are sizeable and they do add up in the Total Cost of Ownership. With the Su-30MKI being a heavy fighter, the Rafale being the medium figher and the Tejas serving as the light fighter, why does the IAF need another type of medium fighter that "complements" the Rafale?

Maintenance

Training ground crew to maintain one medium fighter - the Rafale - is not going to be inexpensive. And just because the Rafale is coming, the IAF cannot willy-nilly retire every other combat aircraft that is currently in the IAF inventory. All the upgraded Jaguars, MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s and Su-30MKIs also need ground crew to maintain them, till they retire. What incentive exists for the IAF to get a set of ground crew to maintain another medium fighter that "complements" the Rafale?

--------------

So the point is that it is not just the aircraft, but a whole host (the above is just a few) of other investments that the IAF has to make to induct another 4++ generation fighter. In light of this, it makes little sense to acquire another type.

A future IAF - early 2030s - could look like this (assuming 110 fighters are acquired in MMRCA 3.0). I have retired all the Jaguars, MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s. The MiG-21s and MiG-27s will be long gone as well;

Su-30MKI: 15 Squadrons (272 aircraft)
Rafale: 8 Squadrons (146 aircraft = 36 + 110)
Tejas Mk1/Mk1: 6 Squadrons (123 aircraft = 40 + 83)
Tejas Mk2: 10 Squadrons (201 aircraft)*
*as announced by Defence Minister Sitharaman in Feb 2018, but numbers will change.

The above comes to 39 squadrons, three short of the magic number of 42. But numbers alone do not tell the whole picture. Just envision the firepower capability those 39 squadrons will give India.

If for whatever reason the Tejas Mk2 does not come on time, the IAF will be in quite a pickle. And in the early 2030s - many of us will be old and senile

- the IAF may very well launch MMRCA 4.0 and start the tamasha all over again. That Tejas production better get a move on and development timelines need to be adhered to for the Mk2!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Nov 2018 13:13

3 squads of 5++ gen fighter jets - most likely a gov-gov. Either Russkies or Khans, but most likely, Dassault/franco-german with DRDO combines?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Nov 2018 18:27

Rakesh wrote:Once the Rafale enters service, what capability does the Eurofighter, MiG-35, Gripen E, Su-35, F-16 or F-18 bring to the table....that the Rafale already cannot do? What game changer is present on those aircraft that justifies the cost of setting up new infrastructure, a new maintenance program, a new set of operational requirements and everything else that goes into acquistion of a modern jet fighter? The IAF is just better off going in for a repeat order of the same aircraft. And that is what has got those executives all worried. The other aircraft in the contest "complement" the Rafale, rather than provide any significant technical advantage over the Rafale.

Exactly. The other manufacturers don't have a serious shot. Trouble is, unless they participate when the RFP is issued next year, we're going to run up against procedural pitfalls (single vendor) and pricing issues, which will inevitably lead to more delays, possibly delaying deliveries to 2025.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Nov 2018 18:44

SaiK wrote:3 squads of 5++ gen fighter jets - most likely a gov-gov. Either Russkies or Khans, but most likely, Dassault/franco-german with DRDO combines?

Unlikely, the Dassault-Airbus thing is still a paper project with plenty of issues to be sorted out before they can even start development. (See: Export constraints emerge as sticking point for future German-French combat aircraft). Its not entering service before 2040.

Meanwhile the Russian & American projects are still just 5th gen.

The Su-57 is still stuck in a weird sort of stasis. The Russian MoD has ordered 2 units so far (to be delivered 2019-20) and committed to 14 more. Might be a viable option by 2025, but its certainly resource-constrained, at least compared to the J-20.

As for the F-35, who knows. Maybe the S-400 has killed its prospects, maybe not. Given that its cheaper than the Rafale and far more capable, and has a fairly secure upgrade to 5.5 gen, it should have otherwise been an obvious choice.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Nov 2018 19:06

Viv, if the SC gives the Modi Govt the clean chit for the present Rafale deal, they are better off doing a repeat order of 2 - 3 squadrons more. It will work out cheaper for the Govt. And then launch a new contest for 5th gen aircraft that can assist in the development of the AMCA. The current MMRCA contest is a waste of time. But the real clincher for AMCA (and more importantly Tejas) is a certified Kaveri turbofan. We need to get that yesterday.

And apart from the F-35, perhaps these programs can offer their wares? Just guess work on my part....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAI_TF-X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_X-2_Shinshin

nits · Post by **nits** » 15 Nov 2018 19:09

Viv S wrote:
SaiK wrote:3 squads of 5++ gen fighter jets - most likely a gov-gov. Either Russkies or Khans, but most likely, Dassault/franco-german with DRDO combines?
Unlikely, the Dassault-Airbus thing is still a paper project with plenty of issues to be sorted out before they can even start development. (See: Export constraints emerge as sticking point for future German-French combat aircraft). Its not entering service before 2040.

Meanwhile the Russian & American projects are still just 5th gen.

The Su-57 is still stuck in a weird sort of stasis. The Russian MoD has ordered 2 units so far (to be delivered 2019-20) and committed to 14 more. Might be a viable option by 2025, but its certainly resource-constrained, at least compared to the J-20.

As for the F-35, who knows. Maybe the S-400 has killed its prospects, maybe not. Given that its cheaper than the Rafale and far more capable, and has a fairly secure upgrade to 5.5 gen, it should have otherwise been an obvious choice.

As we discussing 2030 time frame dassult 5th gen will be a serious contender; one of the reason for Rafale selection was the good experience IAF had with Jaguar and that experience will continue with Raffale

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Nov 2018 19:45

nits wrote:As we discussing 2030 time frame dassult 5th gen will be a serious contender; one of the reason for Rafale selection was the good experience IAF had with Jaguar and that experience will continue with Raffale

The Dassault-Airbus project will not enter full-scale development before 2025. That's the minimum time it'll take to arrive at decisions about the capabilities required, the division of development workshare, the division of production workshare, consensus on export policies and drafting of a myriad of contracts with suppliers. In the mean time, the OEMs will have to carry out pre-development & risk-reduction exercises before the customers signs off on the project. For all you know the program might just fall apart on a disagreement about costs - I suspect Germany is looking for a cheaper and less ambitious aircraft, while France wants to try and compete with the American PCA/FA-XX.

Assuming all that gets done, we're still talking at least 15 years to deliver an F1/Blk 1 variant of the aircraft. That's what all 5th gen aircraft took, which was longer than 4.5 gen fighters, which in turn took more time than 4th gen fighters. There's no reason to assume a 5.5G fighter will be any quicker.

So we're looking at a 2040 in-service date for the FCAS at the earliest. More likely to be 2045, when they run into inevitable technical hurdles (or funding crunches).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Nov 2018 19:54

Rakesh wrote:Viv, if the SC gives the Modi Govt the clean chit for the present Rafale deal, they are better off doing a repeat order of 2 - 3 squadrons more. It will work out cheaper for the Govt.

Yeah I'd say another two squadrons is pretty much a sure thing, given the investments in base infrastructure.

And then launch a new contest for 5th gen aircraft that can assist in the development of the AMCA. The current MMRCA contest is a waste of time. But the real clincher for AMCA (and more importantly Tejas) is a certified Kaveri turbofan. We need to get that yesterday.

And apart from the F-35, perhaps these programs can offer their wares? Just guess work on my part....

Trouble is, none of these will fructify in any time-frame that works for us, if at all they do (the T-FX for one is very unlikely to yield anything). The only options for us over the short-to-medium term are the F-35 & the Su-57.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Nov 2018 07:13

So best option is to get 110 Rafales and push for the Tejas mk2 and drive for Kaveri/M88 engine plant.

Can the 57 In requirement be also Rafale for common parts?

And co-develop the follow on to Rafale?

i thought there is an order for 40 odd Su-30MKI to add to the 272.
So there is your 42 squadrons.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Nov 2018 08:19

ramana wrote:So best option is to get 110 Rafales and push for the Tejas mk2 and drive for Kaveri/M88 engine plant.

That is the ideal situation.

a) 110 Rafales (present MMRCA contest) + 36 Rafales would give the IAF a clear edge over China, especially in the F4 variant. Not sure where the money is going to come from though. But perhaps there is.

b) Tejas Mk2 has to come into reality. Otherwise, the IAF will be facing squadron shortage all over again.

c) Kaveri has to fly and get certified. *EVERYTHING* is riding on Kaveri - Tejas Mk1, Mk1A, Mk2, AMCA, etc. Snecma-Safran has done the audit. Now GTRE has to make her fly. Prestige and Indepedence are on the line. Failure is not an option. I am glad that the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) came to an abrupt end. The Americans were never going to give us engine tech anyway and neither is anyone else, including the French.

ramana wrote:Can the 57 In requirement be also Rafale for common parts?

And co-develop the follow on to Rafale?

Oh yes, for sure in relation to the 57. The savings will be great for the Govt if both can be combined.

The only problem - and it is a big one - the Rafale cannot fit in the lifts of the Vikramaditya or the Vikrant. Perhaps in the follow on aircraft carrier. Perhaps Dassault can come up with foldable wings to overcome the issue.

I also have not read anything about the Rafale M's ability to operate from a ski jump versus a steam catapult.

ramana wrote:I thought there is an order for 40 odd Su-30MKI to add to the 272.
So there is your 42 squadrons.

There was a proposal to order another 40 Rambhas, but nothing has come out of it....yet.

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Nov 2018 10:00

Rakesh wrote:
ramana wrote:So best option is to get 110 Rafales and push for the Tejas mk2 and drive for Kaveri/M88 engine plant.
That is the ideal situation.

a) 110 Rafales (present MMRCA contest) + 36 Rafales would give the IAF a clear edge over China, especially in the F4 variant. Not sure where the money is going to come from though. But perhaps there is.

Admiral Saar, we already have an OVERWHELMING advantage over Cheen right now and for the forseeable future. Along the borders and in the IOR, our advantages are hundreds of fighters versus their dozens. Unless we are invading the PRC’s eastern provinces we will never see more than a rump force of the PLAAF. Both geography and geo-politics dictate it.

We both know where that money will come from. It will come at the expense of our own MIC.

b) Tejas Mk2 has to come into reality. Otherwise, the IAF will be facing squadron shortage all over again.

c) Kaveri has to fly and get certified. *EVERYTHING* is riding on Kaveri - Tejas Mk1, Mk1A, Mk2, AMCA, etc. Snecma-Safran has done the audit. Now GTRE has to make her fly. Prestige and Indepedence are on the line. Failure is not an option. I am glad that the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) came to an abrupt end. The Americans were never going to give us engine tech anyway and neither is anyone else, including the French.

They WILL work if the nation commits to them. You put all available resources on them. Don’t dilute an already strained budget on phoren competitors. And you accept that initial marks will be less than perfect but continue working on them tranch after tranch.

The chinis have J-10s and WS-10s in service in the hundreds today because they were commited to them. The record in blood and treasure lost to those systems during development and initial deployment were far worse than the Tejas and Kaveri. Yet the J-10 is now flying with a TVC WS-10 at airshows.

The nation needs to commit locally. The likes of the Rafale will always be better than a nascent home industry. But that phoren chit is expensive overkill when we enjoy OVERWHELMING advantages. The 42 squadrons ideal never mentions how many chini squadrons are within range of our borders. It could be as little as three or four. I’d take my chances at 32 or 34 against 4 and build our MIC by using those billions on the Tejas and Kaveri.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Nov 2018 08:21

No more F-35 discussions in here please....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Nov 2018 15:29

Sorry, me culpa. My intention was to throw F35 price coming to less than $100 million whereas our favorite Frenchie is above and way beyond actuality.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Nov 2018 18:52

We can't dismiss the executives frustration, that feeling will be mirrored by their respective governments. And all their feelings will have to be assuaged - by buying other weapons from them (a.k.a hafta).
In hindsight I think the original Rafale deal was cancelled (under influence of some too-clever-by-half elements in the government) so that US gets a bigger share of the pie via single engine fighter, while keeping the French happy with 36 Rafale.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2018 01:39

SaiK wrote:Sorry, me culpa. My intention was to throw F35 price coming to less than $100 million whereas our favorite Frenchie is above and way beyond actuality.

While true, we can get to F-35 discussion....when F-35 is actually offered for sale. Till then, even if LM is selling each aircraft for a mere $1 to the USAF and to her allies....it matters little to India.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2018 01:46

abhik wrote:We can't dismiss the executives frustration, that feeling will be mirrored by their respective governments. And all their feelings will have to be assuaged - by buying other weapons from them (a.k.a hafta).
In hindsight I think the original Rafale deal was cancelled (under influence of some too-clever-by-half elements in the government) so that US gets a bigger share of the pie via single engine fighter, while keeping the French happy with 36 Rafale.

The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet will be a strong contender, but not the F-16. But the question still remains, what can the F-18 do that the Rafale cannot? It is not just a matter of unit cost (which the F-18 clearly tops the Rafale), but all the other associated costs that come with it.

See this post ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2305553#p2305553

In India, military hardware/platforms are not purchased to fulfill a strategic alliance but rather to address the requirements of the armed forces. Until the MIC in the US understands that, they will always come up short. Strategic alliance matters little to the armed forces. Admiral Lanba underscored that very point, when he said that the Quad is not a military alliance.

* In the C-17 vs IL-76 contest, the C-17 won because it was the technically more capable transport.

* In the AH-64 vs Mi-28 contest, the AH-64 won for the same reason.

* In the CH-47 vs Mi-26 contest, the former obviously won.

In all the above three, the Armed Forces made the technical call. Not the Govt of the day. Now, one can argue to kingdom come on the technical merits of the F-18 vs the Rafale, but now the investment has already been made for the Rafale. What is the cost advantage for the IAF in a similar fighter like the Rafale? That having being said, I doubt there is money for 110 fighters of any type. A follow on order of 2 - 3 more squadrons is more realistic.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2018 02:12

Here is a data point to consider....

Requests for proposals: Indian Navy looks to buy 57 fighters for Rs 95,000 crore
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... e/1136675/

Rs 95,000 crore works out to around US $13.5+ Billion. That is *JUST* for 57 fighters and all the additional goodies that come with it ---> tools, base infrastructure, simulators, weapons, spares, etc, etc, etc.

Now imagine how much 110 fighters (almost double of 57) will cost the GoI with the much maligned term of ToT + factory for screwdrivergiri, tools, base infrastructure, simulators, weapons, spares, etc, etc, etc.

The GoI is *NOT* bankrolled by the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Nov 2018 11:11

@Rakesh the number 1 deciding factor is political (both internal and external) - the examples you mentioned, the other contestants had no chance.

Regarding the 110+57 it's quite clear there is no money, don't know who the government is trying to fool.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Nov 2018 04:32

Another good analysis..IAF is right on the money if...

- Upgrade MKI to Su 35++ with stealth skins of LCA/AMCA. A good platform and skins project for our lab boys as they did for MKI like Vetrivel, Brahmos, EWS, etc.

- Again bullyeye on Rafale, but certainly EF2K features needed in certain areas. Better source LRUs from Raptor or F35 componentry.

- Unique MMRCA config.. AMCA stager it shall be. This is the only way to make this thread meaningful like MKI.