MRCA News and Discussion

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 23 Sep 2009 22:03

Raveen wrote:Unfortunately, both the IAF and I think we just might if they come 2 years after we need them

IAF claims they dont have sufficient numbers...can't argue with the end user's take on things

What IAF thinks, noone knows. Say what you think. We can discuss that only.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 22:05

Raveen wrote:But you forget the biggest thing going against the Mig...it's (self-admitted) inherent inability to meet India's RFP requirements

when did mig said this

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 22:08

vishwakarmaa wrote:
Raveen wrote:Unfortunately, both the IAF and I think we just might if they come 2 years after we need them

IAF claims they dont have sufficient numbers...can't argue with the end user's take on things
What IAF thinks, noone knows. Say what you think. We can discuss that only.

The IAF stands by the RFP therefore thats what they think
I don't wish to discuss opinions... but facts ONLEE
Appreciate the tone btw

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 22:09

Baldev wrote:
Raveen wrote:But you forget the biggest thing going against the Mig...it's (self-admitted) inherent inability to meet India's RFP requirements
when did mig said this

Why dont you quote the complete sentence and read it once again

then I'll just scroll back to yesterday's posts and remind you that you agreed to that statement when NRao sir stepped in

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 22:10

Baldev wrote:
Raveen wrote:Even if you were to extrapolate the timeline...since Mig wont even begin to setup the line till they win...they can never comply no matter which year it is

Example:
if the deal was to be signed in '09 and 18 delieverd in '12
they cant do it
even if we sign in '11 and therefore logically 18 to be delievered in '14
they still cant comply since they wont even begin to build the production line till '11
their claim of delivering in '14 is based on signing in '09-'10 which you are assuming is not going to happen anyhow...the logic is pretty clear it will take them nearly 4-5 years to setup line and deliver the 18 as per thier own calculations from the date of signing....irrespective of the year of signing
ok i agree

Just to refresh your memory

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 22:23

Raveen wrote:Why dont you quote the complete sentence and read it once again

then I'll just scroll back to yesterday's posts and remind you that you agreed to that statement when NRao sir stepped in

there are two different thing in RFP
1. timeline set for delivery of aircrafts(which itself depend on when contract is signed)
2.parameters set for IAF requirements

i agreed to first one

when phazatron jsc has said zhuk ae meets RFP parameters you don't even believe that,

what Mr Igorr has written in his blog about zhuk ae something which no other person will get you such information,even that you don't believe.

show us what RFP states in terms of capability IAF wants

all in all you guys know about the delivery time stated in RFP and you are circling about point # 1 shown above

only after that come to conclusion where mig lacks in terms of capability

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 23 Sep 2009 22:25

the SH deal for Brazil is worth $7 billion indeed but $190 million per aircraft includes, spares, targeting pods, life time service , targetting helmets, jammers and most importantly lots of weapons, the entire package is worth $ 7 billion which is still ok. Gripen package doesnt include weapons because most of the weapons if gripen is chosen in brazil will come from the US.

The Aussies deal just for the aircraft 2.9 billion Aussie dollars which is roughly $2.5 billion, the package also includes weapons, training and service support. the total value of the package is around $4.6 billion.

The initial Block ll package part of the $2.5 billion offered to the RAAF will include:
48 installed engines and six spares
APG-79 AESA radar in each plane
Link 16 connectivity with the AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System (MIDS)
LAU-127 guided missile launchers
AN/PVS-9 night vision goggles
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS)
AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys

yes its expensive no doubt but the Rafale f-3 and EF price estimates according to Dutch govt. including weapons, service, training all other extras is well over $230 million per aircraft.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 29037b3aa7

obviously these prices will fall since our order can go upto 200 and the initial order itself is 126 far more than any other at the moment.

IOC and FOC are crucial without which we simply dont buy, if IOC or FOC didnt matter by now the LCA mk-1 would have been mass produced, but thanx to defeciencies found in the aircraft Mk-2 was launched, without IOC and FOC when we are not buying more LCA why on earth will we buy the mig which has just begun long path toward IOC and eventually FOC. both are crucial to deem the platform safe to operate in combat. to see that the entire network of logictics and support systems are in place including for training and conversion. stop making naive remarks like IOC or FOC dont matter.

we certainly wont buy any aircraft that hasn't got FOC and certainly not migs with their shady record in IAF. people should be ashamed of themselves for even suggesting we go for an aircraft with out IOC and FOC. FOC is the final step before real learning curve on tactics begin.

Indian AESA for LCA will be ready within the next 2 or 3 years, so that way we dont need much input in R&D, its best we research more ourselves since MCA, FGFA will probably end up having our own home made 3rd gen AESA. thanx to a few EL-2052 we got our hands on we'll be able to even outclass Ruski radars soon.

besides we have almost completed the development of the new AESA for MKI with Russia, by the time the mrca starts arriving our AESA tech would matured too. not to mention on going work on home made awacs, we'll very quickly get the hang of it. F-16IN, Rafale , Gripen and SH can arrive on time, just like Aussies recieved their SH's 3 months early i am sure our production of 18 can be accomadated on the line easily. plus the high production rate will make sure all 18 could arrive in under 2 years. because the USN recieves its last SH in 2012.

well Russian deals are corrupt as well as the products that are often not working properly. looking at facts mig is out and just this afternoon i saw the AF chief on TV talking about low numbers, mig is out, hearing the urgency of his voice for getting new aircraft IAF seems like its going to sign the deal by end 2010 and will want delivery by late 2012 or early 2013. if deadlines are as crucial as i think SH, F-16IN, Gripen and Rafale stand the best chance to win. mig is simply out and i doubt they can squeeze any time. and please get this right only the first aircraft has to land in 2012 or 2013 if possible not all 18. only SH is capable of being delivered all 18 within 2 to 2.5 years.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 22:30

Baldev wrote:
Raveen wrote:Why dont you quote the complete sentence and read it once again

then I'll just scroll back to yesterday's posts and remind you that you agreed to that statement when NRao sir stepped in
there are two different thing in RFP
1. timeline set for delivery of aircrafts(which itself depend on when contract is signed)
2.parameters set for IAF requirements

i agreed to first one

when phazatron jsc has said zhuk ae meets RFP parameters you don't even believe that,

what Mr Igorr has written in his blog about zhuk ae something which no other person will get you such information,even that you don't believe.

show us what RFP states in terms of capability IAF wants all in all you guys know about the delivery time stated in RFP and you are circling about point # 1 shown above

only after that come to conclusion where mig lacks in terms of capability

That explains it Baldev
you have me confused with someone else
Please quote me commenting about the radar or the A/C's capabilities
my point was/is/will be
irrespective of when it is signed they will not be able to deliver the 18 as per RFP requirements...SIMPLE
and you agreed that is true irrespective of WHEN THE DEAL WAS SIGNED since there will not be a production line till we sign the deal...pls pls pls read before u type

I have never commented on the Radar and have no plans on either
neither have I commented on the A/C's capability
I have no illusions of being an authority on A/C tech or capabilities therefore I restrict myself to stuff I know which is pt 1

Please...as a recommendation...suggestion...advice...from BRFite to another...read what I have said before claiming I have dissed the Mig's radar or it's capabilities...and don't generalize...there is no 'you guys' here, at least I didn't get the memo/invite to join 'you guys' my parents gave me an acceptable name and I like to go by it...I am not a part of any alliance/clique or team...independent to the core

My arguments have been LIMITED to pt 1. since that is all I can prove and show and know...

I will patiently await your response as to where I commented on the Mig's radar/capabilites...

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Sep 2009 22:51

Anthony Hines wrote:
Decision on the winner will be determined to a large extent by the threat perception. If the current press comments from various officials is an indicator, China is considered the biggest threat. Chinese probably have a very good understanding of all Russian A/cs in India's inventory. Does it then make sense for India to add more A/c that China knows how to deal with?

Comments..

my fried our western neighbor already has very good understanding of f16blk60,m2000,typhoon and will have good understanding of RAFALE as well

but the avionics in chinese jets and indian jets are totally different

From your response, it is clear that they do not have info. about the SH avionics

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 22:53

RameshC wrote:the SH deal for Brazil is worth $7 billion indeed but $190 million per aircraft includes, spares, targeting pods, life time service , targetting helmets, jammers and most importantly lots of weapons, the entire package is worth $ 7 billion which is still ok. Gripen package doesnt include weapons because most of the weapons if gripen is chosen in brazil will come from the US.

The Aussies deal just for the aircraft 2.9 billion Aussie dollars which is roughly $2.5 billion, the package also includes weapons, training and service support. the total value of the package is around $4.6 billion.

The initial Block ll package part of the $2.5 billion offered to the RAAF will include:
48 installed engines and six spares
APG-79 AESA radar in each plane
Link 16 connectivity with the AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System (MIDS)
LAU-127 guided missile launchers
AN/PVS-9 night vision goggles
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS)
AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys

yes its expensive no doubt but the Rafale f-3 and EF price estimates according to Dutch govt. including weapons, service, training all other extras is well over $230 million per aircraft..

lots of weapons

plz count that for me how many weapons are there

my fried why are you showing how many engines,radars,HMS has been approved for sale, its obvious when jets are bought each jet will have 2 engines,1 radar, and HMS,data link,EW

look carefully in SAAB's offer to dutch competition they offered spares,training,ground infrastructure ,weapons,HMS,targeting pods,spares along with 85 gripens in 6 billion US $s,

if you don't belive me what was the SAAB's offer to dutch so i request someone on BR to post the info about SAAB's offer to dutch competition for Mr Raveen's satisfaction

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 22:55

Anthony Hines wrote:
Anthony Hines wrote:
Decision on the winner will be determined to a large extent by the threat perception. If the current press comments from various officials is an indicator, China is considered the biggest threat. Chinese probably have a very good understanding of all Russian A/cs in India's inventory. Does it then make sense for India to add more A/c that China knows how to deal with?

Comments..

my fried our western neighbor already has very good understanding of f16blk60,m2000,typhoon and will have good understanding of RAFALE as well

but the avionics in chinese jets and indian jets are totally different
From your response, it is clear that they do not have info. about the SH avionics

and same is true about mig35 avionics too

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 22:57

Baldev wrote:
RameshC wrote:the SH deal for Brazil is worth $7 billion indeed but $190 million per aircraft includes, spares, targeting pods, life time service , targetting helmets, jammers and most importantly lots of weapons, the entire package is worth $ 7 billion which is still ok. Gripen package doesnt include weapons because most of the weapons if gripen is chosen in brazil will come from the US.

The Aussies deal just for the aircraft 2.9 billion Aussie dollars which is roughly $2.5 billion, the package also includes weapons, training and service support. the total value of the package is around $4.6 billion.

The initial Block ll package part of the $2.5 billion offered to the RAAF will include:
48 installed engines and six spares
APG-79 AESA radar in each plane
Link 16 connectivity with the AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System (MIDS)
LAU-127 guided missile launchers
AN/PVS-9 night vision goggles
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS)
AN/ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys

yes its expensive no doubt but the Rafale f-3 and EF price estimates according to Dutch govt. including weapons, service, training all other extras is well over $230 million per aircraft..
lots of weapons plz count that for me how many weapons are there

my fried why are you showing how many engines,radars,HMS has been approved for sale, its obvious when jets are bought each jet will have 2 engines,1 radar, and HMS,data link,EW

look carefully in SAAB's offer to dutch competition they offered spares,training,ground infrastructure ,weapons,HMS,targeting pods,spares along with 85 gripens in 6 billion US $s,

if you don't belive me what was the SAAB's offer to dutch so i request someone on BR to post the info about SAAB's offer to dutch competition for Mr Raveen's satisfaction

While you are searching for the non-existant post from me dissing Mig's radar and capabilities
Please also look for where I said anything bout the SAAB offer or the Gripen

Baldev, naam toh bada Bal wala hai
lekin bina sar paar ki baatain karte ho woh bhi logon ke peeche chup chup ke

Please start reading before you post
this is my last post addressing you
unless until u change your ways and start reading before posting

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 23 Sep 2009 23:03

When we talk about ToT for MMRCA are we thinking about TOT for weapons also?
Did any supplier offered this as part of their reply to RFP?
ToT for PGM, if offered, will it give any additional points?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:04

rajeshks wrote:When we talk about ToT for MMRCA are we thinking about TOT for weapons also?
Did any supplier offered this as part of their reply to RFP?
ToT for PGM, if offered, will it give any additional points?

I don't think so
but would love to get a more accurate answer from the gurus

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 23:07

raveen ,my friend fell free don't be agitated

today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $7.0 billion.

This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to implement the sale. If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft,

72 F414-GE-400 installed engines,
four F414-GE-400 spare engines,
36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems,
36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems,
36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers,
144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS),,
and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods.

Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

here is how many weapons were offered to brazil

28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),
28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles,
60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM),
36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW),
10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles

if you consider these weapons as lots of weapons then you can keep thinking this

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 23:10

rajeshks wrote:When we talk about ToT for MMRCA are we thinking about TOT for weapons also?
Did any supplier offered this as part of their reply to RFP?
ToT for PGM, if offered, will it give any additional points?

this is very important though but unfortunately no one ever shares seeker technology for missiles

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 23 Sep 2009 23:10

Raveen wrote:
rajeshks wrote:When we talk about ToT for MMRCA are we thinking about TOT for weapons also?
Did any supplier offered this as part of their reply to RFP?
ToT for PGM, if offered, will it give any additional points?
I don't think so
but would love to get a more accurate answer from the gurus

When we reach a certain stage in the evaluation process, IAF can give a wish list of nice to have items and see how many companies responds..

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:14

Baldev wrote:raveen ,my friend fell free don't be agitated

today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $7.0 billion.

This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to implement the sale. If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft,

72 F414-GE-400 installed engines,
four F414-GE-400 spare engines,
36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems,
36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems,
36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers,
144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS),,
and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods.

Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

here is how many weapons were offered to brazil

28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),
28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles,
60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM),
36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW),
10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles

if you consider these weapons as lots of weapons then you can keep thinking this

Obviously reading is not one of your strong pts
That was not my post
nor did I say those were a lot of weapons
nor did you read my name anywhere close to that post
as a matter of fact I dont even know who posted it and where

for future ref: before you attribute a post to someone...double check

in the meanwhile,
if you think I posted that...you can keep thinking that

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 23 Sep 2009 23:18

Baldev wrote:
rajeshks wrote:When we talk about ToT for MMRCA are we thinking about TOT for weapons also?
Did any supplier offered this as part of their reply to RFP?
ToT for PGM, if offered, will it give any additional points?
this is very important though but unfortunately no one ever shares seeker technology for missiles

Not even for 10 billion $ ??

Forget about MRCA deal, everyone would love to share the cost of development of weapons.. Only thing is they need an excuse to tell the world about such a partnership. The image of India as a responsible democratic state will give an excuse to any nation other than US to partner with us... Only thing is we should know how to present such a proposal to them...

PPTs may help

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 23 Sep 2009 23:21

A simple question:

Why not just buy more Su30-MKIs, as it would cheaper than the F-18 (and maybe Rafale or Typhoon) and probably easier to integrate in the IAF.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:23

ss_roy wrote:A simple question:

Why not just buy more Su30-MKIs, as it would cheaper than the F-18 (and maybe Rafale or Typhoon) and probably easier to integrate in the IAF.

Why do we keep coming back to the same questions again and again?

simple...
cause we refuse to read what has been written in the past

*** EDIT ***
(Sorry for the tone buddy, there are others here on this page who have the same habbit and refuse to even read the name of the poster before attributing the post to me)

***
this question has been answered many many times
and the answer boils down to

logistical footprint
2 pilot requirement for MKI
cost of operations
varied roles

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 23:27

rajeshks wrote:Not even for 10 billion $ ??

Forget about MRCA deal, everyone would love to share the cost of development of weapons.. Only thing is they need an excuse to tell the world about such a partnership. The image of India as a responsible democratic state will give an excuse to any nation other than US to partner with us... Only thing is we should know how to present such a proposal to them...

PPTs may help

no one will ever share seeker technology even for 10 billion,when 126 fighter price exceeds 10 billion so TOT for weapons will add few billion extra to that excluding seeker and missile guidance tech

e.g seekers for MR SAM will be produced in Israel only and in india only missile frame,propulsion,fuel systems will be produced,along with radar,command communication systems this is situation when india needs 2000 such missiles

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Sep 2009 23:32

the best filler and graduating numbers of MMRCA could be well satisfied by EF2K, while about 250 LCAs and about 400 MCAs in the future to do the job for us. While, upgrades can continue wherever possible to maintain relationships with cold-war supplier/logistics.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:36

SaiK wrote:the best filler and graduating numbers of MMRCA could be well satisfied by EF2K, while about 250 LCAs and about 400 MCAs in the future to do the job for us. While, upgrades can continue wherever possible to maintain relationships with cold-war supplier/logistics.

Thought they had axed the MCA

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 23 Sep 2009 23:36

$7 billion package including weapons, full training, life time support put the price at $190 million per aircraft which is still way below the package price of he Rafale, Ef which runs well over $230 per aircraft. mig is out because timely deliveries are not possible, Gripen and F-16IN are the remaning options. F-16IN wins if price is really such a concern besides the only aircraft that can be tweaked with lots of Issy equipment is the F-16IN, its also the only aircraft that can deploy over 100 types of weapons including Issy, EU, US weapons. The fact that the line in the US is closing could push them to transfer full-line with full-tot to India besides LM will realise soon the only way we even think of the f-16IN as winner is if they provide full-tot and customization/adding to source codes, LM being both large, deep pocketed and powerful both in india and US can lobby hard enough to get congress to approve it. it comes with options like MATV, GCAS, embedded training etc.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... eopts.html

not to mention existing weapons in our inventory like magic, mica, As-30l, popeye, havenap, delilah can easily be used on it. its certainly a better option than the mig, its has CFTs, its fast and agile enough, its rcs is much lower than the mig and LM is giving a sprinkle of 5th gen tech on it. for now all that is sure is that the mig is out. IAF wont budge much on deadlines.

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 23 Sep 2009 23:38

Raveen,

If those factors are the reasons behind the MRCA competition,the saab gripen is the aircraft of choice. It is essentially an LCA replacement.

logistical footprint
2 pilot requirement for MKI
cost of operations
varied roles

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Sep 2009 23:40

my fried our western neighbor already has very good understanding of f16blk60,m2000,typhoon and will have good understanding of RAFALE as well

but the avionics in chinese jets and indian jets are totally different

From your response, it is clear that they do not have info. about the SH avionics

and same is true about mig35 avionics too

Yes.. true.. even the Russians do not have a clue about Mig35 avionics at this time..

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:42

ss_roy wrote:Raveen,

If those factors are the reasons behind the MRCA competition,the saab gripen is the aircraft of choice. It is essentially an LCA replacement.

logistical footprint
2 pilot requirement for MKI
cost of operations
varied roles

Roy, that can/had/will/is be/being argued for all the A/C involved
everyone has a fav and everyone has reasons for that choice
Gripen is as good a bird as any other real birds involved in the MRCA comp...hope the best bird wins for the IAF's requirements...irrespective of price

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Sep 2009 23:42

Raveen wrote:
SaiK wrote:the best filler and graduating numbers of MMRCA could be well satisfied by EF2K, while about 250 LCAs and about 400 MCAs in the future to do the job for us. While, upgrades can continue wherever possible to maintain relationships with cold-war supplier/logistics.
Thought they had axed the MCA

You mean shelved? How can one axe a paper plane?

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:43

Anthony Hines wrote:
my fried our western neighbor already has very good understanding of f16blk60,m2000,typhoon and will have good understanding of RAFALE as well

but the avionics in chinese jets and indian jets are totally different

From your response, it is clear that they do not have info. about the SH avionics
and same is true about mig35 avionics too
Yes.. true.. even the Russians do not have a clue about Mig35 avionics at this time..

ROFLMAO

I believe it comes with EVERYTHING you want
just not WHEN u want or need it
lol

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:45

Anthony Hines wrote:
Raveen wrote:
Thought they had axed the MCA
You mean shelved? How can one axe a paper plane?

Axed the development prog
shelved the idea and design
fired the committee and sub committees and cancelled all orders for chai-biskoot
all air tickets for "phoren resurch" have been cancelled as well

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Sep 2009 23:51

Raveen wrote:
Axed the development prog
shelved the idea and design
fired the committee and sub committees and cancelled all orders for chai-biskoot
all air tickets for "phoren resurch" have been cancelled as well

Ab kya karein? Kuch to time pass karna hain na? Why not ask them to join BRF?

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 23 Sep 2009 23:52

Baldev wrote: no one will ever share seeker technology even for 10 billion,when 126 fighter price exceeds 10 billion so TOT for weapons will add few billion extra to that excluding seeker and missile guidance tech

e.g seekers for MR SAM will be produced in Israel only and in india only missile frame,propulsion,fuel systems will be produced,along with radar,command communication systems this is situation when india needs 2000 such missiles

Agreed.. But even in this case, for a future development we need to worry only about the seeker rather than spending time/money/effort in developing everything for a missile...

In all probability MMRCA deal will cost atleast double of what we hear now.. a few billion extra may be justified if we get TOT for weapons also.. otherwise again its another dependency which may hurt us when we need the machines badly... afterall planes without weapons is as good as not having them ..

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 23 Sep 2009 23:54

Anthony Hines wrote:
Raveen wrote:
Axed the development prog
shelved the idea and design
fired the committee and sub committees and cancelled all orders for chai-biskoot
all air tickets for "phoren resurch" have been cancelled as well
Ab kya karein? Kuch to time pass karna hain na? Why not ask them to join BRF?

lol
last I heard they were assisting with the LCA project...HENCE the slow down and lack of news on the Yell Cee Yay

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 00:15

RameshC wrote: IOC and FOC are crucial without which we simply dont buy, if IOC or FOC didnt matter by now the LCA mk-1 would have been mass produced, but thanx to defeciencies found in the aircraft Mk-2 was launched, without IOC and FOC when we are not buying more LCA why on earth will we buy the mig which has just begun long path toward IOC and eventually FOC. both are crucial to deem the platform safe to operate in combat. to see that the entire network of logictics and support systems are in place including for training and conversion. stop making naive remarks like IOC or FOC dont matter..

IOC and FOC IS a matter of course, but it's a matter only when is achieved in acceptor country i.e. India. And MiG-35 has a good chance to gain IOC more quickly than any other contender with excepting may be Rafale. It due to its high commonality with current IAF stuff and common user philosophy&skills. So your argument is just against your conclusion. In reality, these are only two contenders able to ensure quick induction (IOC and FOC achievement) Rafale and MiG-35. Others are completely new birds in India, and need all new - from weapons to infrastructure and new skills for personal. Look for 'Grippen' history in Czech how long time took them to fix bugs in service with zero OC...

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 00:29

Igorr wrote:
RameshC wrote: IOC and FOC are crucial without which we simply dont buy, if IOC or FOC didnt matter by now the LCA mk-1 would have been mass produced, but thanx to defeciencies found in the aircraft Mk-2 was launched, without IOC and FOC when we are not buying more LCA why on earth will we buy the mig which has just begun long path toward IOC and eventually FOC. both are crucial to deem the platform safe to operate in combat. to see that the entire network of logictics and support systems are in place including for training and conversion. stop making naive remarks like IOC or FOC dont matter..
IOC and FOC IS a matter of course, but it's a matter only when is achieved in acceptor country i.e. India. And MiG-35 has a good chance to gain IOC more quickly than any other contender with excepting may be Rafale. It due to its high commonality with current IAF stuff and common user philosophy&skills. So your argument is just against your conclusion. In reality, these are only two contenders able to ensure quick induction (IOC and FOC achievement) Rafale and MiG-35. Others are completely new birds in India, and need all new - from weapons to infrastructure and new skills for personal. Look for 'Grippen' history in Czech how long time took them to fix bugs in service with zero OC...

what other contenders, the gripen NG and mig-35 are the only ones with no IOC or FOC...all the others have FOC, its a serious matter if mig doesnt achieve FOC in Russia and not India, dream on , India is not going to buy an aircraft without FOC.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 24 Sep 2009 00:53

RameshC wrote:
what other contenders, the gripen NG and mig-35 are the only ones with no IOC or FOC...all the others have FOC, its a serious matter if mig doesnt achieve FOC in Russia and not India, dream on , India is not going to buy an aircraft without FOC.

If listen to you the FOC abroad is more important than a quick induction (and thus FOC too) in IAF itself. It doesn't seem logically to me. If the decision was as you said, an existence of foreign IOC or FOC were described in the requests. It never happened indeed probably because IAF has no such pretense.

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Sep 2009 01:09

Baldev, Raveen,
Cut it.
1) stop referring to each other directly in your posts, half of the problems will be gone.
2) Baldev, it seems you mistakenly attribute/views some post to Raveen which he does not agree are his. So please stop pursuing this.
3) Kindly type in full sentences with punctuation marks. Please don't post as if you are writing a poetry, it is very hard for others to make sense.

One example:

Obviously reading is not one of your strong pts
That was not my post
nor did I say those were a lot of weapons
nor did you read my name anywhere close to that post
as a matter of fact I dont even know who posted it and where

for future ref: before you attribute a post to someone...double check

^^ This is not acceptable.
And..

Baldev, naam toh bada Bal wala hai
lekin bina sar paar ki baatain karte ho woh bhi logon ke peeche chup chup ke

Please start reading before you post

^^ This is a personal attack in my book. You cannot mock anyone's username. If this behavior continues, warnings will be awarded. Thanks.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 01:14

Igorr wrote:
RameshC wrote:
what other contenders, the gripen NG and mig-35 are the only ones with no IOC or FOC...all the others have FOC, its a serious matter if mig doesnt achieve FOC in Russia and not India, dream on , India is not going to buy an aircraft without FOC.
If listen to you the FOC abroad is more important than a quick induction (and thus FOC too) in IAF itself. It doesn't seem logically to me. If the decision was as you said, an existence of foreign IOC or FOC were described in the requests. It never happened indeed probably because IAF has no such pretense.

your getting the meaning of FOC and IOC wrong, both are required to be done in the home country by the home vendor, basic FOC is crucial in order for any vendor to give a couple of years gurantee on the aircraft, without which no one is going to buy it. look igorr i understand your sad that mig is out because its late but please go inform yourself and stop brining this ridiculous nuances here. just because it will be tested in India doesnt mean anything, its just an evaluation of its performance. IOC and FOC go way beyond that and that is Russians responsibility and not India. Russia is responsible to see if it performs according to design specs, software, algorithms, radars, avionics. we're just going to fly it, land it, study its flight envelope, see exactly how pathetically undergunned and late it is compared to the others and send the mig back home never to return again.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 04:42

RameshC wrote: Russia is responsible to see if it performs according to design specs, software, algorithms, radars, avionics. we're just going to fly it, land it, study its flight envelope, see exactly how pathetically undergunned and late it is compared to the others and send the mig back home never to return again.

Igorr all your labour done to get information about "zhuk ae" to the readers of BR has gone in vain.i feel bad