MRCA News and Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Feb 2010 03:18

Kartik wrote:the MiG-35's airframe is exactly the same as the MiG-29M2 (the one that had MRCA painted on it). the MiG-29M2 demonstrator was converted into a MiG-35 prototype. OTOH, all MiG-29K/KUBs are new builds and I think that shows in their build quality.

and the source for this is someone who was held in the highest regard at BRF, JCage.

Yes, to some extent at least one can understand IAF misgivings re. the airframe. However, this perspective may change when they evaluate the 35 in Russia, which is essentially a MiG-29K with the 35's sensor suite. In some ways this could be a good thing - the IAF keeps making greater demands of the russians, and so far, they keep delivering. Perhaps it indicates the IAF's somewhat aloof interest in it.

First it was the lack of multirole ability in the fulcrum, and the russkis brought out the M platform, then the smoky engines, which too has been resolved via the RD-33MKs, then that caustic "khoka" comment by ACM Tyagi and the russkis responded with the new OLS and the Zhuk - A. Now the airframe quality, well the K is considerably better.

Irrespective, the IN should be pleased with all these improvements because such upgrades can eventually find their way onto the K.

CM

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Feb 2010 05:42

Carl_T wrote:How can one determine whether a plane's build quality is "good" or "bad" etc.?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... C-542.JPEG
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rd_arp.jpg

vs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... S_2009.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 05:52

Carl_T wrote:How can one determine whether a plane's build quality is "good" or "bad" etc.?

It's done on BRF. We look at pictures and decide on that don't you know..

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 06:17

shiv wrote:
Carl_T wrote:How can one determine whether a plane's build quality is "good" or "bad" etc.?
It's done on BRF. We look at pictures and decide on that don't you know..

Right...but how do you decide?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 19 Feb 2010 06:35

Carl_T,
I think Shiv Sir was just kidding.

I do not know the various parameters to decide the quality of airframe. But airframe life can be safely used as a yardstick to measure quality of airframe.
Eg: Mig 29K is said to have improved airframe quality (as Kartik mentioned). This can be seen from the fact that it has much longer airframe life, growing up from 2500 fly hours or 20 years(of vanilla Mig-29) to 5000 f/h or 30 years (Mig-29K). Also, Mig-29K uses nearly 15% composites. These things do point out towards better quality of airframe, don't they?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Feb 2010 08:32

more features, more quality.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 19 Feb 2010 08:43

^^^^Dear Carl_T, although Shiv Jee has pointed out things rather well, there is another easier way of doing that. See, first take a good pic of any western fighter and then post it side by side with a high-res grainy pic of a Russian fighter and Presto! you have a good & bad airframe determination. Oh yes, and dont forget to point out rivets on the latter as much as possible.

(P.S: the same "test" can be applied to show "ugly" weld lines which supposedly show on indegenous warships from time to time)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 08:53

Ping Pong balls are smooth and are of good build quality. Golf balls have bumps and depressions and are of poor build quality. I can tell you that without knowing anything about Ping Pong or Golf.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Feb 2010 09:53

shiv wrote:Ping Pong balls are smooth and are of good build quality. Golf balls have bumps and depressions and are of poor build quality. I can tell you that without knowing anything about Ping Pong or Golf.

ROTFL

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 10:00

SaiK wrote:
Carl_T wrote:How can one determine whether a plane's build quality is "good" or "bad" etc.?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... C-542.JPEG
or
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rd_arp.jpg

vs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... S_2009.jpg

I don't get it, they look the same to me.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 10:04

shanksinha wrote:^^^^Dear Carl_T, although Shiv Jee has pointed out things rather well, there is another easier way of doing that. See, first take a good pic of any western fighter and then post it side by side with a high-res grainy pic of a Russian fighter and Presto! you have a good & bad airframe determination. Oh yes, and dont forget to point out rivets on the latter as much as possible.

(P.S: the same "test" can be applied to show "ugly" weld lines which supposedly show on indegenous warships from time to time)

Ok, from wikipedia. Why does the MKI have bad build quality? I think the F-16 looks not so good.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 10:10

Gaur wrote:Carl_T,
I think Shiv Sir was just kidding.
I do not know the various parameters to decide the quality of airframe. But airframe life can be safely used as a yardstick to measure quality of airframe.
Eg: Mig 29K is said to have improved airframe quality (as Kartik mentioned). This can be seen from the fact that it has much longer airframe life, growing up from 2500 fly hours or 20 years(of vanilla Mig-29) to 5000 f/h or 30 years (Mig-29K). Also, Mig-29K uses nearly 15% composites. These things do point out towards better quality of airframe, don't they?

I understand that, how do you then determine build quality for planes that are not that old, like say Rafale.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Feb 2010 10:33

Cain Marko wrote:Yes, to some extent at least one can understand IAF misgivings re. the airframe. However, this perspective may change when they evaluate the 35 in Russia, which is essentially a MiG-29K with the 35's sensor suite.

Are you sure its a 29K with 35 avionics suite ?

My understanding is they will be the real Mig-35 that will do weapons trial in Russia that will have larger wings and 10 hardpoints. They are building 2 prototypes right now one single seater and the other twin seater.

You may be right that it could be a 29K convert but any source ?

I agree with the view that spending $100 million on a fighter thats as good as Su-30MKI is not worth the money , considering that few years from now we will get a 5th gen fighter for the same or slightly more amount.

I feel spending less on a capable fighter is worth ( any thing between $40 - 45 million not a single penny more that that with all TOT ) and increasing the numbers of MMRCA to 200 - 250 fighter to meet the requirement of numbers , either F-16IN or Mig-35 should be a good choice price/cost effectiveness.

Its also worth pursuing Su-35 in 2 to 3 more squadron as the Su-35 will outclass all the 4++ gen fighter in most combat regime and will have supercruise capability and get AESA fit on all MKI/35

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 19 Feb 2010 11:58

Carl_T wrote: I understand that, how do you then determine build quality for planes that are not that old, like say Rafale.

First of all, let me point out something. I see that you posted pics of F-16 and MKI for comparison. Again, let me say that people are just joking (at least Shiv and shanksinha are). One "cannot" determine build quality merely by looking at the pictures.
As to your question in quote, the basic things to look for to gauge the build quality are airframe life and use of titanium alloys and composites(in modern airframes). At least this is what I know. There may be other parameters but that is for gurus to educate us about.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 19 Feb 2010 12:11

shiv wrote:Ping Pong balls are smooth and are of good build quality. Golf balls have bumps and depressions and are of poor build quality. I can tell you that without knowing anything about Ping Pong or Golf.

While I understand the point you're making, thats a remarkably inappropriate analogy from somebody who is an avid golfer. As you well know, golf ball dimples or as you put it "imperfections" are deliberately put there to create a certain kind of flight - helping the golf ball to travel further and with defined spin characteristics - sort of like fixed canards on an aircraft. If anything, the complex structure of a golf ball is technically much more advanced then the relatively simple construction of a ping pong ball - but I understand the point you're making.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 12:16

Oooo gotcha...so it is not just by looking at pictures. Thank you for the info.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Feb 2010 12:37

US ambassador visits HAL & BEL facilities.. jittery about EF's media campaign?

US Ambassador Timothy J Roemer on Thursday visited defence public sector undertakings Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).
Roemer, who was on a two-day visit, was given a brief presentation about the two companies which also showcased their products. Roemer’s visit to HAL assumes significance as two US companies — Boeing’s F/A-18IN Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Super Viper IN — are among the six contenders

Meanwhile, at the ongoing Defexpo 2010 in New Delhi, Eurofighter Typhoon is grabbing all the attention with many dignitaries including Defence Minister AK Antony testing the Eurofighter Typhoon simulator.
This apart, last month an Indian diplomat had stated that the Eurofighter Typhoon is “leading the race” to win the contract from the Indian government. These could make the US a bit jittery though they are widely believed to bag the contract following the growing Indo-US ties.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... UTQ==&SEO=

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Feb 2010 12:41

Carl_T wrote:Oooo gotcha...so it is not just by looking at pictures. Thank you for the info.

cut the crap. if you've seen a MiG-21 or 29 from up close you'd know what build quality it had. this has nothing to do with which country it originated from. looking at pictures that show a fighter from far won't even show its rivets. to use that to compare them is ridiculous.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 19 Feb 2010 12:50

Austin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Yes, to some extent at least one can understand IAF misgivings re. the airframe. However, this perspective may change when they evaluate the 35 in Russia, which is essentially a MiG-29K with the 35's sensor suite.
Are you sure its a 29K with 35 avionics suite ?

My understanding is they will be the real Mig-35 that will do weapons trial in Russia that will have larger wings and 10 hardpoints. They are building 2 prototypes right now one single seater and the other twin seater.

You may be right that it could be a 29K convert but any source ?

I agree with the view that spending $100 million on a fighter thats as good as Su-30MKI is not worth the money , considering that few years from now we will get a 5th gen fighter for the same or slightly more amount.

I feel spending less on a capable fighter is worth ( any thing between $40 - 45 million not a single penny more that that with all TOT ) and increasing the numbers of MMRCA to 200 - 250 fighter to meet the requirement of numbers , either F-16IN or Mig-35 should be a good choice price/cost effectiveness.

Its also worth pursuing Su-35 in 2 to 3 more squadron as the Su-35 will outclass all the 4++ gen fighter in most combat regime and will have supercruise capability and get AESA fit on all MKI/35

I have been to seminars organized by the MOD and CII and have talked to people in the know about the MMRCA contract.
Here is what I have gathered over the years...
1. This is the only chance that india has to give a major push to indigenous aerospace industry by technology transfer and offsets that have till now only been in name. For ex.. financial offsets commitments for aircraft parts have been made up by exporting basmati rice, spices and such. Past chances to develop an industry have been wasted and this time they do not want to let it happen.

2. this is why you see boeing, LM, Saab and Dass have been going around announcing JV's with various indian companies and telling the govt that they are getting ready to deliver on the offset commitments.

3. Indian companies do not have the really high end manufacturing capabilities (I know of companies in blr that were making parts for HAL that were audited by the contenders and were failed). So there is a long way to go and this is the time to make it happen.

4. They also know that the govt DPSU's cannot deliver and are really pushing the pvt sector to come forward and make these parts. I also got the sense that they were fed up with the russians for all the unkept promises on MiG manufacture TOT etc.

5. If you know about the past experiences during the '65 war with china a lot of the IAF inventory was crippled by the lack of components that were not supplied by US/UK/France etc. After the war there was a huge push to make electronic components in India. Until 1975 there was not a single company approved to even make a lowly power resistor to defence standards in India. It was all UK, Fr and German companies only. Things are not so bad now and the state of mfg in precision machining is better, but the design experience is lacking. this is what the MOD wants to rectify and hopes that this time the vendors will absorb the tech know how and then become capable of supporting indigenous efforts in the future.

Apart from the above points, Aircraft mfg by HAL in the past has not really succeeded in creation of an industry that can support indigenous manufacture. Local companies cannot afford to invest in facilities for HAL as the volumes have been non existent and there is no guarantee on ROI. At the company i work for now I see RFQ's from HAL for 25 to 50 passive components with a total value of two or three hundred rupees and when we have specified a MOQ of 500 pcs. Then they want to negotiate the price !!! so no help from the DPSU to local manufacturers.

Anyways sorry for the long message but the point is this deal is more than just low price and capabilities, it has much more importance for the entire nascent aerospace industry in india.

cheers..

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 12:52

Kartik wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Oooo gotcha...so it is not just by looking at pictures. Thank you for the info.
cut the crap. if you've seen a MiG-21 or 29 from up close you'd know what build quality it had. this has nothing to do with which country it originated from. looking at pictures that show a fighter from far won't even show its rivets. to use that to compare them is ridiculous.

Crap? I posted pictures because a poster above me suggested posting pictures to compare them.

And no, I have not seen a Mig 21 or a 29.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Feb 2010 13:02

French escapade to upgrade PAF's JF-17...weary of backlash from US, China and especially India.

(Barriers to the deal -US worry of tech in Chinese hands, China would be deprived of lucrative avionics package on potential exports, Pak funding and last but not least, snubbing India and negating any future sales..)

The Pakistan air force wants to develop a “Westernized” version of its Chinese-made JF-17, fitted with European avionics, fire-control radar and weapons systems. The upgraded aircraft is intended not only for domestic service, but also for export.

A team led by ATE—a Paris-based company specializing in integrating systems and weapons onto military aircraft airframes of different origin—is tipped to develop and market the upgraded version of the JF-17 Thunder.

The upgrade would involve 50 aircraft, plus another 50 on option, that would go into production in 2013, following delivery of the first batch of Pakistani air force JF-17s. The project could be worth up to €1 billion ($1.36 billion), more than double the $500 million that the JF-17 development reputedly cost. The principal target markets for export are in Central Asia and Africa. Any sale would require case-by-case approval by the French government. Up to 400 JF-17s may ultimately be built.

While the exact makeup of the modernization package is not known, it is thought to include Thales RC400 fire- control radar and the MBDA Mica medium-range family of air-to-air missiles, as well as air-to-surface weaponry.

Paris is insisting on a complete package approach to try to protect against leakage of design secrets to China or other unauthorized users. However, Islamabad is also known to be discussing the separate supply of specific additional items, such as South Africa’s A-Darter short-range imaging infrared-guided air-to-air missile. ATE was previously headquartered in South Africa and most of its 400 employees are still based there.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... er%20India

If this is indeed in the pipeline, it would be the final nail in the coffin for the Rafale..

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Feb 2010 13:15

vcsekhar wrote: I have been to seminars organized by the MOD and CII and have talked to people in the know about the MMRCA contract.
Here is what I have gathered over the years...
1. This is the only chance that india has to give a major push to indigenous aerospace industry by technology transfer and offsets that have till now only been in name. For ex.. financial offsets commitments for aircraft parts have been made up by exporting basmati rice, spices and such. Past chances to develop an industry have been wasted and this time they do not want to let it happen.

2. this is why you see boeing, LM, Saab and Dass have been going around announcing JV's with various indian companies and telling the govt that they are getting ready to deliver on the offset commitments.

3. Indian companies do not have the really high end manufacturing capabilities (I know of companies in blr that were making parts for HAL that were audited by the contenders and were failed). So there is a long way to go and this is the time to make it happen.

4. They also know that the govt DPSU's cannot deliver and are really pushing the pvt sector to come forward and make these parts. I also got the sense that they were fed up with the russians for all the unkept promises on MiG manufacture TOT etc.

5. If you know about the past experiences during the '65 war with china a lot of the IAF inventory was crippled by the lack of components that were not supplied by US/UK/France etc. After the war there was a huge push to make electronic components in India. Until 1975 there was not a single company approved to even make a lowly power resistor to defence standards in India. It was all UK, Fr and German companies only. Things are not so bad now and the state of mfg in precision machining is better, but the design experience is lacking. this is what the MOD wants to rectify and hopes that this time the vendors will absorb the tech know how and then become capable of supporting indigenous efforts in the future.

Apart from the above points, Aircraft mfg by HAL in the past has not really succeeded in creation of an industry that can support indigenous manufacture. Local companies cannot afford to invest in facilities for HAL as the volumes have been non existent and there is no guarantee on ROI. At the company i work for now I see RFQ's from HAL for 25 to 50 passive components with a total value of two or three hundred rupees and when we have specified a MOQ of 500 pcs. Then they want to negotiate the price !!! so no help from the DPSU to local manufacturers.

Anyways sorry for the long message but the point is this deal is more than just low price and capabilities, it has much more importance for the entire nascent aerospace industry in india.

cheers..

good post Vcshekhar. some very pertinent points are made by you !

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Feb 2010 13:25

Carl_T wrote: Crap? I posted pictures because a poster above me suggested posting pictures to compare them.

And no, I have not seen a Mig 21 or a 29.

because you cannot really see the finish on an aircraft by looking at low resolution pics taken from hundreds of ft. away. if you go close to any aircraft, say in a museum, you'd be amazed at how they look from up close. on some of the older Russian MiGs I've seen, there were panel gaps that were large enough to slide a wire though and I've even seen some panels that did not sit flush with the rest of the mould line. Western fighters for a long time excelled in this, and you have got to see them up close to know what I'm talking about..for instance, a Tornado I once saw in a museum- very good fit and finish. a lot of attention is paid to those details. And when I spoke to a Serbian guy that works with me and worked on Fulcrums when they joined the Yugoslavian air force initially, he said that these things didn't matter to Russians- they said that what drag ? boundary layer is so thick near the skin that it won't matter at higher speeds. not worth the additional expense of chem milling machines and so on. the new MiG-29K's fit and finish is far better, as can be seen from the close up pics that Shiv Aroor has posted on his blog. obvious attention to detail as Radar Cross Section is now an issue and poor fit can cause increases in that- it wasn't an issue in the 1970s or 80s so no one seemed to bother. quantity and affordability were bigger priorities for the Russians then. the Su-30MKI for instance has better quality finish and fit than older Su-27s whose walk-around pics are available on the net.

and the increased use of composites on fighters also is a factor that adds to the overall improvement in their build quality. that's the reason the Tejas' build quality and finish seem so good since a very large portion of its skin is composite. earlier generation fighters had metallic panels that required a lot less care, and could be repaired a lot easier- for instance a dent in a metallic panel can be taken care of far easier than in a composite panel which requires the technician to go refer to a Structural Repair Manual to see if it can be used or repaired- and composite repair is a very involved process and not a instant jiffy patch up job.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Feb 2010 13:28

Thank you, that is what I wanted to know. Appreciate the info.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 14:17

khukri wrote: While I understand the point you're making, thats a remarkably inappropriate analogy from somebody who is an avid golfer. As you well know, golf ball dimples or as you put it "imperfections" are deliberately put there to create a certain kind of flight - helping the golf ball to travel further and with defined spin characteristics - sort of like fixed canards on an aircraft. If anything, the complex structure of a golf ball is technically much more advanced then the relatively simple construction of a ping pong ball - but I understand the point you're making.

That was of course a rhetorical trap that is meant to ask "If a smooth surface causes sticking of airflow to a surface and increased drag, and a dimpled surface is better for airflow, how come people on here are making such a big deal out of "bad build quality rivets seen" and "smooth no rivets seen good build quality"?

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 19 Feb 2010 14:19

Kartik wrote:
good post Vcshekhar. some very pertinent points are made by you !

Thanks kartik,

cheers
chandrasekhar

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 14:22

Carl_T wrote: Ok, from wikipedia. Why does the MKI have bad build quality? I think the F-16 looks not so good.

The problem lies with you. You are being unbiased. Why not come with a pre defined bias that something is better than the other because they said so on Discovery channel? Then you will begin to come to grips with the scientific process involved in build quality judgments.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Feb 2010 15:17

Who said Russians birds are not beautiful. Agreed they are skinny but they are beautiful too. Ofcouse europeans and americans birds are beautiful too. Dont have to state that overtly. But you cant compare these three and say one is beauty and other it not....It is not like beauty pagent...OMG...are you people talking about aircrafts ?

Sorry...

While F-16 can be physical beauty, Mig -29 could be a aerob(at)ic beauty... its all in the eyes

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Feb 2010 16:35

I think Mig-29 with the hooded look is the most beautiful of 4th gen fighter, the single seater Mig-29K of IN looks stunning and now the new PAK-FA looks more beautiful than any other 5th gen fighter out there.

BurhanGabaji · Post by **BurhanGabaji** » 19 Feb 2010 16:47

Why cant we scrap the whole MRCA tender and work hard on JV wht we did for PAK FA with Sukhoi.
FOr MCA with Boeing
LCA with EADS.
As in MRCA we are definately planning for non russian planes.This is all because of technology & quality.SO why cant we partner with these manufacturers and get our indeginious plane ready.At the end they alll are looking for money which we are ready to give.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 19 Feb 2010 17:28

shiv wrote:

That was of course a rhetorical trap that is meant to ask "If a smooth surface causes sticking of airflow to a surface and increased drag, and a dimpled surface is better for airflow, how come people on here are making such a big deal out of "bad build quality rivets seen" and "smooth no rivets seen good build quality"?

I think the point is that if airflow is to be disrupted, it should be for a specific control purpose. If that is the objective then any incidental disruption from a bad finish should be eliminated first and then the disruptive elements (e.g. canards, LERX's etc) added on so the disruptive effect can be controlled precisely - would you agree?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2010 17:53

vcsekhar,

Out of curiosity, is the emphasis (in your opinion) on dramatic improvement in all aspects of technologies or a combo of that + cost effectiveness?

No matter what this is going to take a real long time - 10-20 years at least before India can be fairly independent in most technologies.

Ouch.

Actually even on the FGFA front I have my doubts that India would benefit too much. I feel that India will have to fight for reach screw driver - which is fine, as long as the technology is absorbed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Feb 2010 18:12

That was the key point about the MMRCA deal which has morphed into soemthing more than making up numbers/capability-the chance to acquire key aerospace tech. for the future.

It appears that the roadmap for the future for the IAF has two parallel lines or programmes.The first,which will take care of the "heavyweights" in the IAF's inventory,will be predomiantly Russian engineered with Indian input where possible.Russian expertise in aerodynamics,robust engines with TVC and a host of lethal weaponry unique to Russian industry,with a heritage of MIG and Sukhoi fighters will converge into the PAK-FA variant for India.

The second line will be of predominantly western origin tech,based upon the LCA tech we've acquired,composites,FBW,avionics,and earlier aircraft like the Jaguar,M-2000 and their upgrades, and whatever comes with the MMRCA TOT (AESA radars,engines,weaponry,etc.).These two programmes of lightweight and medium sized aircraft,will eventually converge into the AMCA as it is now reportedly being labelled.Eventually we will have post 2020+ ,perhaps just three or four main types in service,with a UCAV-sorely needed too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 18:27

khukri wrote:
I think the point is that if airflow is to be disrupted, it should be for a specific control purpose. If that is the objective then any incidental disruption from a bad finish should be eliminated first and then the disruptive elements (e.g. canards, LERX's etc) added on so the disruptive effect can be controlled precisely - would you agree?

Who would know better about the actual effects of those incidental disruptions than the people who do wind tunnel tests and assess fuel consumption and aerodynamic characteristics of the individual design in question?

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 19 Feb 2010 18:48

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE6 ... arketsNews

India speeds up $11 bln fighter jets purchase

NEW DELHI, Feb 19 (Reuters) - India will narrow down the number of bidders by mid-2010 for its $11 billion fighter jet tender, a minister said, in a closely watched deal where diplomacy and strategic interests will play a big role.

Lockheed Martin's F-16 is competing with Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault Rafale, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab (SAABb.ST) JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies.

The acquisition of 126 air and ground attack fighters will elevate India's air force to a super-power status, with deployments planned near the western and northeast borders to tackle any threats from Pakistan or China, officials say.

India fears China could be trying to strategically encircle it as they jostle for resources and global influence, while Pakistan has the U.S. F-16 fighters in its fleet, forcing New Delhi to buy planes that can shoot at targets 30 miles away.

"The trials should conclude by the middle of this year," Pallam Raju, India's junior defence minister, told Reuters on the sidelines of an arms fair in New Delhi this week.

"Once the trials are concluded, then we will be looking into the financial bids. We are speeding up things."

While Lockheed's F-16 has completed trials which began last August, the other five, including the MiG-35 from Russia, India's traditional supplier of weapons, and Sweden's Gripen, are in the midst of field trials. The phased trials will end by April.

Interest into the lucrative deal picked up worldwide after India's ambassador to Italy told reporters in Rome last month that the Eurofighter Typhoon, conceived and built by Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain, was leading in the race.

This week, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony took some flying lessons at the New Delhi fair in a cockpit simulator of the Eurofighter, which defence officials privately acknowledge is a frontrunner to win the contract.

New Delhi is also keen to diversify its weapons acquisition from European countries, said Brahma Chellaney, a professor on strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research.

"By engaging in this campaign, India would ensure virtually a partnership, a strategic partnership on the political level with the rest of Europe," Matthias Schmidlin, campaign director of the Typhoon, told Reuters.

DEEPENING U.S. TIES

Security experts say New Delhi's growing ties with Washington, seen as a counterweight against China, might tilt the scale towards the two U.S. companies in the fray.

India and the United States signed a landmark civilian nuclear deal in 2008 and another pact in July last year, facilitating the entry of U.S. companies like Lockheed and Boeing into India's lucrative defence market.

"Over the last few years, the U.S.- India relationship in the defence sector has strengthened significantly and we are very optimistic regarding the future of this relation," said Vivek Lall, head (India) of Boeing defence.

Indian Air Force officials were also seen getting into cockpit simulators of the F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed's F-16 -- two stalls located near each other at the arms fair.

"But we are not together on this one (trials). It is a keenly fought contest," a Lockheed official said, underlining the fierce contest by defence companies lined up at India's door for a share of the $100 billion defence market pie.

Some experts say the U.S. government's refusal to transfer full technology to India could turn out to be a roadblock when it comes to choosing the fighter India wants.

Russia's MiG-35, and France's Rafale are also keenly watched by experts, and are equally strong contenders, officials say.

"The decison will be based on multiple matrices. First it must match user requirements and then it will go to the political arena," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, a New Delhi-based defence think tank. (Editing by Paul de Bendern and Ron Popeski)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2010 19:33

saptarishi wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE6 ... arketsNews

India speeds up $11 bln fighter jets purchase

er pardon me.. does this mean that the decision will come this decade itself?

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 19 Feb 2010 19:41

NRao wrote:vcsekhar,
Out of curiosity, is the emphasis (in your opinion) on dramatic improvement in all aspects of technologies or a combo of that + cost effectiveness?
No matter what this is going to take a real long time - 10-20 years at least before India can be fairly independent in most technologies.
Ouch.
Actually even on the FGFA front I have my doubts that India would benefit too much. I feel that India will have to fight for reach screw driver - which is fine, as long as the technology is absorbed.

I would have to say it has to be a combo of cost effectiveness and improvement of tech. Since money does not grow on trees

However, if we have partners who know how to make these things and can transfer technology properly we can do something with it. Else it will all be a big waste again.

What we need to do is to improve the facilities for design and design validation in India, we just do not have the facilities and whatever expertise in these facilities (ex ETDC's and ERTL's) that have been created over the years have basically disappeared with the retirement of the trained people without passing on of knowledge.
I agree that it will take a long time to become totally independent. However, do we need to become totally independent? Is Israel totally independent, are france, germany, or for that matter any country other than the US or Russia? We should take the same approach that france or germany take and make what we can and buy what need till such time that we can make our own. As long as it is not a fully integrated system that we are purchasing and we keep the work of integrating various systems in house then we should be ok. Like the MKI I suppose.

Take for example the LUSH upgrade done by HAL and IAI and how much trouble that BAe gave us and you will realize how much we have to gain by integrating in house rather than buying fully integrated systems.
Same goes for FGFA, we need to integrate the avionics and sensor suites inhouse to keep the edge to ourselves and not share it with anyone else. So what if we did not design the airframe. If you look at commercial airlines, Boeing really designs the airframe, the avionics comes from honeywell, the engines from PW,RR etc.. but Boeing holds the key as they integrate the whole thing and so they remain on top.
The LCA is an amazing example of what is possible when pushed, FBW, composite airframe, design of airframe this is something that only a few countries have been able to do till now. it needs to be built on and expanded to make use of the capability developed.

cheers.. chandrasekhar
apologise for length of response

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Feb 2010 19:57

$10,11,12 b .. it keeps increasing per year.

Mig35 since 2001 had enough time to have deployed an entirely new puppy by this time la pak-fa junior and beat the western nation by a large margin in this MRCA contract.

They sleep a lot on vodka.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2010 21:06

While the MMRCA process continues we have plenty of time to discuss such matters. So, do not worry about long posts.

vcsekhar wrote:
I would have to say it has to be a combo of cost effectiveness and improvement of tech. Since money does not grow on trees However, if we have partners who know how to make these things and can transfer technology properly we can do something with it. Else it will all be a big waste again.

Certainly regarding the growing on trees aspect. However, India is in a much better situation today than even 10 years ago. Anyways, a diff topic I guess.

What we need to do is to improve the facilities for design and design validation in India, we just do not have the facilities and whatever expertise in these facilities (ex ETDC's and ERTL's) that have been created over the years have basically disappeared with the retirement of the trained people without passing on of knowledge.

Shooting oneself in the foot or BR-speak "self goal".

The LCA is an amazing example of what is possible when pushed, FBW, composite airframe, design of airframe this is something that only a few countries have been able to do till now. it needs to be built on and expanded to make use of the capability developed.

Hmmmm...... This puppy is great, but could have been greater. We have discussed that topic earlier so I will not touch upon it again.

I agree that it will take a long time to become totally independent. However, do we need to become totally independent? Is Israel totally independent, are france, germany, or for that matter any country other than the US or Russia? We should take the same approach that france or germany take and make what we can and buy what need till such time that we can make our own. As long as it is not a fully integrated system that we are purchasing and we keep the work of integrating various systems in house then we should be ok. Like the MKI I suppose.

This is what I am confused about. You cannot say that India needs design/design-validation and then go on to say we cannot be totally independent. Point being in what area is India behind AND needs to catch up AND which of these areas can/would the MMRCA "ToT" (whatever that is) would help. Forget the technology areas that India can afford to import.

ALSO, on the topic of "what we can buy" - I assume that the design will be in India? Or is the thinking buy a designed product?

Take for example the LUSH upgrade done by HAL and IAI and how much trouble that BAe gave us and you will realize how much we have to gain by integrating in house rather than buying fully integrated systems.
Same goes for FGFA, we need to integrate the avionics and sensor suites inhouse to keep the edge to ourselves and not share it with anyone else. So what if we did not design the airframe. If you look at commercial airlines, Boeing really designs the airframe, the avionics comes from honeywell, the engines from PW,RR etc.. but Boeing holds the key as they integrate the whole thing and so they remain on top.

Yeah. System integration was one of the goals. And, I suspect India is getting rather close to that. ?????

On FGFA, my gut feel is that India will get burnt. (I just hope that India has started funding universities in some aspects that matter.)

Thanks tho.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 19 Feb 2010 22:02

If the news of Typhoon leading the race is true than it seems like the MoD is in the splurge mode. Antony said that they defense expenditure is going to increase this year and it seems like they are ready to pay the extra buck for the extra performance or is it the lucrative 5th partner offering giving the Typhoon a edge? Hard for me to guess[rookie, non professional

].

What ever it is the Typhoon could be a great buy considering its performance in various DACT exercises with the USAF. I think the Typhoon offers a great deal of situational awareness which provides the edge in A2A combat. To tackle the superior strength PLAAF this capability could be handy.