MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 00:58

kmc_chacko wrote:If India builds good relationship with US Govt. then it can ask F-35s & F-22s to counter PRC's numeric capacity. Presently US needs a country which is economically and militarily cooperate.

It’s true that US fighters will not be allowed to attack Pakistan since it is its non NATO alliance but it can be used against PRC.

Then why they deny F-22s to japan? It fits the profile equally well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2011 01:05

If they want to use against PRC, they can.. and if they are asking us a base to operate for such ops, then it is entirely different matter. Why that should happen on our $$$?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 01:41

Philip wrote:Loud thought here.Could a Gripen buy by the IAF see a possble JV/cooperation between Sweden and India for the AMCA? For the future,Sweden too would want a stealth fighter and use the experience/tech of the Gripen for the same.A single nation developing an aircraft imposes huge costs.Sweden could join in the AMCA programme for its own future reqirements.I say this becase the LCA and Gripen have similarities and the AMCA is clearly going to be a development of the LCA.The two requirements could merge into one aircraft.Sweden with its independent global viewpoint and India could wok together successfull.The FGFA is larger aircraft and the US will only want to sell the JSF,not help India develop its own aerospace industry.Just a thought,one never knows...!

It will definitely help us save some bucks by cost sharing (which may be re-invested to speed up things) BUT there are several downfalls of such a plan -

1. Saab (as in case of Gripen) is importing both the Engine and AESA radar, which coincidentally are also areas of bad experience in the LCA program. Hence both Saab and DRDO have common weakness.

2. In FGFA we are supposed to have a contribution of 30%, what will be our contribution here and will that be entirely different or inclusive of that 30% which we are already planning to do?

It won't make any point to contribute same 30% here as well because we want to develop our capability. Now if we are planning to do things apart from that 30%, we will be having a know-how of about 70-80% of fifth-gen technology. We can push on our own for the whole.

3. We already have similar agreement with Ruskis. We are almost sure that we will get a fifth-gen craft in time or before chinese do. That means we are not under pressure to match chinese move by AMCA.

The idea behind AMCA is to develop our knowledge and industry base so that in coming future we can be 'completely self dependent'. That cause will be lost if we develop both FGFA and AMCA in partnerships.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 01:58

jai wrote:
kmc_chacko wrote: It’s true that US fighters will not be allowed to attack Pakistan since it is its non NATO alliance but it can be used against PRC.
IMO, this is the problem - more severe than the age of the teen platforms or commonality with TSPAF.

Tomorrow, if Khan makes complete peace with the red devil, we will be stopped from using it against them as well.

SO if we develop deep enough friendship with unkil, they won't let pakis use there 16's against India

IMO as TSP is allowed to use F-16 to "defend" itself, elephant will also be allowed to hunt few pandas down.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 29 Jan 2011 02:21

MMRCA for IAF has to be independent of any american technology. There are higher chances of sanction when we will need them for. We do not need 126 acrobatic aircrafts. We need 126 frontline multi role aircrafts. I hope the indian government will decide as per the IAF choice

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Jan 2011 02:43

If this 3 more Scorpene submarines deal takes place (and considering the timing of it all), then Rafale is not winning this 126 MRCA deal.

India has already trimmed out the MiG-35 by signing the $30 billion PAK-FA deal with the Russian, who seem no longer interested in the MRCA deal.

With a series of multi-billion deal lined up with the US (i.e. C-17, C-130J+options, P-8I+options, AH-64D, CH-47F, M-777), it is likely F/A-18IN and F-16IN are no longer in the run as well.

So that just leaves the EF Typhoon and Gripen. Politically and technically, Typhoon carries more weight. Cost wise, Gripen holds the cards.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2011 02:54

US thorws this in as an incentive

US Says can sell F-35 to India

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 29 Jan 2011 06:12

Some serious BS seems to flow out of US officials regarding India these days. Oneday Obama says ISRO and assorted other Indian entities are off the sanctions list but the next day the US quietly puts stop to possible sale of Israeli AESA radar to India.

India signs deal to co-develop fifth gen fighter plane with Russia and suddenly Americans offering India partnership in the F-35 program. I am sure if India signs on into this program even before the ink dries the Indian participants in the program would be assigned to duties like making copies of stationaries of the program and their movements seriously restricted.

Some ally India is that they sell weapons systems to India at three or four times the price they charge Pak is Satan.

The litmus test would be to really see if the DRDO, ISRO and other entities are actually off the sanctions list or there are hidden restrictions still in place.

Avram

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 29 Jan 2011 06:42

Prevention of Elta ASEA sale appears to be a move to promote the teens in MMRCA as Elta is the only operational ASEA apart from Teens (?). So, removing Elta from the equation causes Typhoon and Rafale to lose the option of quickly getting ASEA. It could be that this was discussed in the Technical Meetings (or offered by either EADS or Dassault) and somehow leaked out to Unkil. So, no inherent malaise against India, just cut throat business policy. Happens all the time like Dassault opposing Isreali M-2000 offer or Ruskies bitching about DRDO sourcing T-72 simulators from somewhere else. Cannot say how big a factor was russian pressure in the cold shoulder given to Arjun by IA.

Dunno how much more than "making copies of stationary" will HAL do in PAKFA. We lack in engine and radar and both are russian.

Pakistan is broke, all weapons given to them come from US grants. So, US buys them (or at least heavily subsidizes them) for Paki's. Comparisons should be made on how much other nations like UK or Ausies paid for same stuff...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2011 07:10

The ban will be soon lifted once LRDE announce AESA-MMR trials. Perhaps it is better to keep it under the wraps till it gets integrated successfully on mk2. I am happy with the ban, and that is the only steroid injection we have for our performance.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Jan 2011 09:14

Fitting reply to US 5th gen offer BS

With own 5-Gen fighter project with Russia, India not keen on US jet
Times of India

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 29 Jan 2011 10:21

Henrik wrote:Well, SAAB is looking for a partner in both the NG project and future, more expensive projects .

Partner !! Can you please list down the technologies which SAAB is having and India is not having?
Does SAAB have Jet Engine Technology, AESA Radar etc?
India is better than SAAB in Jet Engine Technology, we have an engine which is under test but does give 70 – 75 KN Thrust as of now.
We have an AESA Radar under development.
What state of the art thing SAAB can offer India?

Henrik wrote:Sweden could bear the cost of NG by itself, but for a 5 gen we'll need to team up with someone.

Does SAAB have a 5 th Gen fighter project at least in paper? Any name for that?
We already are a partner with Russian in FGFA project and most important thing is we are having NGFA project for which feasibility study has began.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 11:20

US says can sell top-notch F-35 stealth fighter to Indiat

indianexpress.com wrote: Because of the dramatic transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourth-generation fighter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced stealth aircraft in the future," it said.

Just a speculation -

Assuming everything that he has written is based on facts, and that he will only use those facts which support and strengthen unkil's case in the MRCA.

Out of the three criteria this guy jotted down clearly teens are most 'mature' and 'comabt-proven' 4th Gen crafts. Now to suffice to his first criteria being "least expensive" does it mean that the IAF top three list includes EF, Rafael and SH. And hence SH being the least expensive!

As MiG and F-16 are not being considered, only Gripen is left which can challenge the price factor of SH. Hence if he has mentioned the word "least expensive" he must have some sources to believe that Gripen and SH are not on same list.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 29 Jan 2011 12:00

Boreas wrote:US says can sell top-notch F-35 stealth fighter to Indiat
indianexpress.com wrote: Because of the dramatic transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourth-generation fighter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced stealth aircraft in the future," it said.

Boreas wrote: As MiG and F-16 are not being considered

Mig – 35 is out of the race !!! When ?

Considering Mig - 35 as an next iteration of Mig – 29 which India has the experience of operating.

Least Expensive – Grippen, Mig – 35
Mature – Grippen, Super Hornet, F – 16, Mig – 35, Typhoon, Rafale
Combat Proven - Super Hornet, F – 16, Mig – 35

So, what is common among the above 3 criteria ?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 13:44

B_Ambuj wrote: Mig – 35 is out of the race !!! When ?

Considering Mig - 35 as an next iteration of Mig – 29 which India has the experience of operating.

When India signed the FGFA deal with ruskis, and when service chief said we don't want to put all eggs in one basket.
Is it logical to have all out dependency on ruskis?
We are already partnering in FGFA, won't it be better to have knowledge of western technology as well?

Least Expensive – Grippen, Mig – 35

Not to go else where, a lot of learned member here at BRF have said that overall life cycle cost of MiG-35 will be much higher. And there has been quite a detailed discussion on that.

Mature – Grippen, Super Hornet, F – 16, Mig – 35, Typhoon, Rafale

I am glad you said that, despite the fact that EF and Rafael are still testing various platforms. EF is aiming to have its own AESA radar by 2015.. an important requirement for MRCA! Also its TVN is still under testing phase.

I am more glad that you consider even Mig-35 to be a mature fighter ALTHOUGH its production is yet to begin. Ruskis are aiming for 2013-14, but am sure they will be pleased to learn it is already being considered a grown-up mature fighter.

Combat Proven - Super Hornet, F – 16, Mig – 35

Mig-35!!! How does it happened when there is no air force in the world which is currently using it!
Do enlighten us, during which combat it had proved itself?

So, what is common among the above 3 criteria ?

that options provided for the given criteria are not realistic.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 29 Jan 2011 14:06

When unkil pressurized Israel to stop selling us AESA, many of us viewed that perhaps our our AESA is bit far and hence the ban... Applying similar logic, can it be said that we are close to AMCA as US has hinted allowing us partnership in JSF or is it a mere marketing ploy to promote the oldies...

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 29 Jan 2011 14:24

Boreas wrote:When India signed the FGFA deal with ruskis, and when service chief said we don't want to put all eggs in one basket.
Is it logical to have all out dependency on ruskis?

So ???
Mig – 35 has packed up their bag and went back to Russia ?
Why is IAF then evaluating their aircraft still ?
Why is IAF clearly not stating that Mig – 35 is out of race and we are evaluating only 5 aircrafts now ?
Does the above questions makes sense ?
So such Speculations should stop !!

Boreas wrote:Mig-35!!! How does it happened when there is no air force in the world which is currently using it!
Do enlighten us, during which combat it had proved itself?

Did I mention on the top the below mentioned in bold or you did not read that –

B_Ambuj wrote:Considering Mig - 35 as an next iteration of Mig – 29 which India has the experience of operating.

Boreas wrote:I am glad you said that, despite the fact that EF and Rafael are still testing various platforms. EF is aiming to have its own AESA radar by 2015.. an important requirement for MRCA! Also its TVN is still under testing phase.

I am more glad that you consider even Mig-35 to be a mature fighter ALTHOUGH its production is yet to begin. Ruskis are aiming for 2013-14, but am sure they will be pleased to learn it is already being considered a grown-up mature fighter.

Which one of the 6 aircrafts are not in development at present and which of these has stopped further development ? Which one of the 6 aircrafts manufacturer has said that their aircraft has become enough matured and need not mature further ? Please do you mind naming the aircraft ?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 29 Jan 2011 15:15

B_Ambuj wrote:So ???

So, Is it logical to have all out dependency on ruskis?
So, if we are already partnering in FGFA, won't it be better to have knowledge of western technology as well?

B_Ambuj wrote:Why is IAF then evaluating their aircraft still ?
Why is IAF clearly not stating that Mig – 35 is out of race and we are evaluating only 5 aircrafts now ?

IAF is not evaluating any aircraft now, evaluation phase is over.

MOD is not stating that MiG-35 or any other aircraft is out of race because that's the logical thing to do.
Reasons -
1. If you go to market to buy something expensive and you say out of 6 options available only 1 or 2 fulfill my needs.
You put yourself in a position of disadvantage on negotiation table because then the seller knows u don't have any option and have to buy what he is offering.
While in an uncertain situation where neither of seller knows which one will be selected each one of them will offer the best they can or even more then that. That's the general idea.

2. There are political significance of such deals. And before saying a clear NO, New Delhi will make sure that it is not displeasing anybody important. That's why FGFA with Russia and P8I & Transport crafts from US before declearing the MRCA results.

B_Ambuj wrote:Does the above questions makes sense ?
So such Speculations should stop !!

I agree they don't. (if u saying that for the questions u just asked

)

B_Ambuj wrote:Did I mention on the top the below mentioned in bold or you did not read that –

B_Ambuj wrote: Considering Mig - 35 as an next iteration of Mig – 29 which India has the experience of operating.

Yes I did read that, and I wasn't able to relate it to the combat effectiveness of Mig35.

Are you sure you know the meaning of COMBAT PROVEN! Let me help you it implies to something related to the performance of a machine in a WAR.

And NOT how its ancestors performed in war!!! For that you can use the term that it is based on a "proven platform".

B_Ambuj wrote:Mig – 35 has packed up their bag and went back to Russia ?

But News is MiG-35 is not packing their bag to come to Aero India 2011.

If you think a little you can figure out why they are doing so. When everybody else is sending two aircraft each.

B_Ambuj wrote:Which one of the 6 aircrafts are not in development at present and which of these has stopped further development ? Which one of the 6 aircrafts manufacturer has said that their aircraft has become enough matured and need not mature further ? Please do you mind naming the aircraft ?

Super Hornet. As if today it meets all the requirements laid down by IAF.

PS - I personally support EF for MRCA.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Jan 2011 15:58

B_Ambuj wrote:Well, SAAB is looking for a partner in both the NG project and future, more expensive projects .

Partner !! Can you please list down the technologies which SAAB is having and India is not having?

How about building a plane? If India were so great in building planes, why does it need MMRCA, PAK-FA, MKI, M2000 for then? There is a lot more to building planes then just technology.

Does SAAB have Jet Engine Technology, AESA Radar etc?

SAAB doesn't produce jet engines. The engine in Gripen A/B/C/D is the RM-12 which is based on the F404 which is a half Swedish half American engine. Thanks to Volvo Aero, which modified the engine for single engine usage, that engine now powers the Tejas. The F414 contains a lot of Swedish technology.

SAAB is working on it's own AESA radar for fighter aircraft, but does have a working exellent AESA radar called ERIEYE.

India is better than SAAB in Jet Engine Technology, we have an engine which is under test but does give 70 – 75 KN Thrust as of now.

woow, I guess that's why it's overweight and you need outside help from SNECMA to fix it?

We have an AESA Radar under development.

So does SAAB.

What state of the art thing SAAB can offer India?

I thinkk you need to read up on SAAB a bit.

Does SAAB have a 5 th Gen fighter project at least in paper? Any name for that?

Yes, but it doesn't have an official name yet. But you can find pictures from the study if you just google it.

We already are a partner with Russian in FGFA project and most important thing is we are having NGFA project for which feasibility study has began.

Why are there talkt about partnering in the AMCA project then? Why don't you fix it yourselves if India is so technologically advanced?

I'm not talking down on India, but you need to come back to Earth.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 29 Jan 2011 16:19

Boreas,

I must say you have knack for molding all the information available around and presenting them as per your wish to present them. You must agree you have even tried to modify the comments I have made.

At the same time please go through the comments which you have made, please think deeply.
Don’t you think all those are speculations?

If only Super Hornet as of today is meeting all the requirements laid down by IAF and others clearly don’t meet the requirements why did they evaluate all other 5 Aircrafts? (oh !! evaluation is over, right ? but the report is not out yet

)

And by your definition of Combat Proven / Proven Platform, even Super Hornet also did take part in any WAR, it did drop bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries, which as of now doesn’t have an Air Force or an Air Defense to fight back. Did Super Hornet face any Air-to-Air combat from any comparable aircraft or did it duck any missile attack?

Amazing achievement it was and what an WAR experience it was. Must have made Super Hornet’s Resume bulky.

If that is the combat standard, even our Tejas dropped bombs in Chitradurga.

So, don’t you think it’s better to stop the speculation? Why are you trying to write off Mig – 35?
IAF didn’t do that as of now or did IAF do that?

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 29 Jan 2011 16:46

Henrik

You seem to be a lot frustrated with my post

Chill !! Are you from SAAB Marketing Team ? Can understand your frustrations now

India is having other Aircrafts projects as well under development. Google and you will find it.

Hey Agree!! India is consulting Snecma in fixing the Issues with Kaveri but Snecma is not from Sweden but from France, right ?

Now, don't claim GE F404 / GE F414 is developed by you, may be you can say you have customised that as per your need otherwise you will find Unkil breathing down your neck

Well, when did ADA ask SAAB to be a partner in AMCA ? I am not aware, any link you can show ?

I asked you what would SAAB bring to the table for 5 th Gen aircraft project which India doesn't have? It seems you also do not know what value addition it would do and probably that is why you asked me to google

India is not an aerospace superpower as of now, we do have gaps to fill as far as technology is concerned and for that we should go to the best in the industry like the French, the Russians, the Germans or may be the Uncle Sam.

But !! Sweden for 5 th Gen Fighter Aircraft !! Nah !!

And if you are from SAAB Business Development Team, let me give you an advice why don't you partner our neighbour in 5 th Gen Fighter Aircraft ?

XaHyMaH · Post by **XaHyMaH** » 29 Jan 2011 19:45

ramana wrote:US thorws this in as an incentive

US Says can sell F-35 to India

Nice. Uncle Sam wants to weaken Russia and find an ally against China.
Clever move.

Manish_Sharma wrote:How come Mig is super-manuering with 53 - 88 kn engines, while teens aren't with their super-powered engines? Is it its airframe design so miraculous other than TVs?

Dont treat me as necroposter but I just want to clarify.
MiG-29 uses so-called 'Vortex Aerodynamics'. It's LERXes generate powerful vortexes wich force airflow to 'glue' to the fuselage to provide additional lift.
And here's an ilustration. Look at vapour clouds above fuselage.

Also you can compare LERXes of Hornet and SuperHornet. SuperHornet uses MiG-like LERXes.

Boreas wrote: Mig-35!!! How does it happened when there is no air force in the world which is currently using it!

Well India uses it as... MiG-29K.
Insiders from MiG says that MiG-29K and MiG-35 differs only by wing. All other things are the same. Except electronics of course.

Boreas wrote:Are you sure you know the meaning of COMBAT PROVEN!

Okay. Just answer "What kind of combat you mean?"

Misunderstanding combat kind will lead to losses. Russian Tu-22M3 was killed in Georgia by unexpectedly strong Ukrainean SAM. US F-4 Phatoms in first days of Vietnam war were killed by MiG-17s.

Saying that F-18 or F-16 are COMBAT PROVEN is not enough. They just a part of big US war machine.
Pakistani F-16 is not the same combat proven as US F-16 of same Block level.

So all words about "combat proven" often is just a PR BS.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Jan 2011 21:48

B_Ambuj wrote:Henrik

You seem to be a lot frustrated with my post
Chill !! Are you from SAAB Marketing Team ? Can understand your frustrations now

India is having other Aircrafts projects as well under development. Google and you will find it.

Hey Agree!! India is consulting Snecma in fixing the Issues with Kaveri but Snecma is not from Sweden but from France, right ?

Now, don't claim GE F404 / GE F414 is developed by you, may be you can say you have customised that as per your need otherwise you will find Unkil breathing down your neck

Well, when did ADA ask SAAB to be a partner in AMCA ? I am not aware, any link you can show ?

I asked you what would SAAB bring to the table for 5 th Gen aircraft project which India doesn't have? It seems you also do not know what value addition it would do and probably that is why you asked me to google

India is not an aerospace superpower as of now, we do have gaps to fill as far as technology is concerned and for that we should go to the best in the industry like the French, the Russians, the Germans or may be the Uncle Sam.

But !! Sweden for 5 th Gen Fighter Aircraft !! Nah !!

And if you are from SAAB Business Development Team, let me give you an advice why don't you partner our neighbour in 5 th Gen Fighter Aircraft ?

Frustrated? What's your problem? The only thing that makes me frustrated is your arrogance and lack of knowledge. I have not the time nor the will or patience to continue to argue with someone who apparently is incapable of using something as simple as Google.

I tried to respond to your incompetence nicely, but enough is enough.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jan 2011 23:21

http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/29/stories ... 081700.htm

So, it is going to be max 49% in FDI.

and..

It will also cut down the role of touts and middlemen in the defence deals, something which is being opposed by some lobbies within the country,

yay!.. thanks GoI, to listening us here.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Jan 2011 23:54

Mr. Tellis does a fine job for the most part in that Carnegie Endowment article. His reasoning is sound, but unfortunately his conclusions are all wrong!

Good points:
1) India needs to expand IAF inventory considering the fast moves being made by neighbors.
2) India needs to get an a/c that offers tremendous bang for the buck.
3) Purchase needs be weighed in between triangle of cost, tot, and performance. PLus of course, strategic concerns.
4) The US needs to let go of some sensitive tech to India and meet the TOT requirements.

All well and good, but the biggest negative imho is the idea that US fighters are an answer to to India's needs. Doubtful indeed given that the US is struggling to meet point 4 above. And then the pitch for the JSF - totally pointless venture from an Indian standpoint, India has nothing to gaing from it. The combination of Pakfa JV + AMCA should provide India everything it needs.

However, if we keep the negatives out, certain things become clear - the IAF will need a rather large inventory in the near future - 1000 a/c +. The IAF will need uber tech a/c to quell the edge of PLAAF/PAF combination. I think the IAF realizes this and the 250 Pakfa number therefore is in the right direction. NOw it all depends on what the IAF/GOI feel is the purpose of the MMRCA:

1) Stopgap measure and therefore unnecessary to buy v.expensive twin engined toys such as the 18, rafles, tiffy. Bulk up instead on a bird that supports the heavies ala Mirage 2000 and at the same time is almost as cheap as the light fighter LCA. IOWs, the Gripen NG comes up v.strong here. Esp. since the possibilty of coop with SAAB for the AMCA is quite feasible. The technology/gadgets/performance on this bird are topnotch for its size. IAF inventory in due time would be like - Pakfa (250) + MKI (250) + Gripen/LCA (300) + AMCA (200) = 1000.

OR

2) Backup to complex 5gen programs (FGFA + MCA), and a hedge against inordinate delays. Therefore necessary to buy top notch twin engined fighters that can develop into something closer to gen 5 - silent hornet/rafale in case of delays. Secondly, the birds can be v.competitive against non 5 gne opposition fighters and perhaps evolve into a deterrance against opposition 5gen birds. Lastly, they can morph into a JV for 5th gen derivative. It is only in this case that the US fighters become competitive, namely the Shornet.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2011 00:07

CM, the first 3 points are simple business speak and logic. The 4th one is something impossible on the platter. Consider something like, letting go off technology hold is only over death of super power status.

IAF inventory can go up by 2015 onwards, imho should more of LCA mk2 [200 odd], by establishing the right industrial production engineering setup, that is scalable to accommodate AMCA and mrca. It could be a tough decision on mrca keeping this view.

He has unnecessarily complicated us (spin) by going on extensively thinking MRCA is the game changing aspect of global power etc. Our global power status is driven by our technology achievement, especially you would see how they do an endowment article after kaveri arrives. Shaking GE is like shaking khan fundamentals. Khans always will keep technology, and they will go any extent to keep it with themselves.

Rafale and EF are the better options along with FGFA arriving a little later. We are keeping ourselves in the right kill ratio tech aspect, where we advance on our lca/mca generations with various tranches development. That is the only way out.

Either EF or Rafale could fit the interim AMCA bill very well. Also, having Kaveri developed by Snecma is a very very bad idea.

sohels · Post by **sohels** » 30 Jan 2011 00:29

MiG-35 $45 million1
Gripen NG $82.2 million2
Rafale $85.4 million3
Typhoon $123.1 million4
F-16IN $60 million5
F/A-18E/F $60.3 million6

1. This figure is based on based on the total contract cost of the recent Indian MiG-29K naval purchase divided by the number of planes: “Project 1143,” Bharat Rakshak, November 17, 2008, available at http://www.bharat-rakshak. com/NAVY/Ships/Future/193-INS-Vikramaditya.html.
2. This figure is based on based on the Gripen’s Norwegian bid reported in Bill Sweetman, “Gripen’s Norwegian Blues,” Ares, December 9, 2008, available at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... lckControl ler=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage= BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef- 79a7Post%3ae7fecd93-9d7e-4c42-936a-1627abbac4d2.
3. This figure is based on the flyaway Cost in 2008, converted from Euros, taken from “Projet de loi de finances pour 2009: Défense - Equipement des forces,” Senate of France, available at http://translate.google.com/ translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senat.fr%2Frap%2Fa08-102- 5%2Fa08-102-516.html%23toc236&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
4. This figure is based on based on Saudi Arabia’s Eurofighter purchase: Emmet Oliver and Massoud A. Derhally, “Saudis Pay 4.43 Billion Pounds for 72 Eurofighters,” Bloomberg, September 17, 2007, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... ive&sid=a_ tmH4i16wBk&refer=europe.
5. This figures is based on Lockheed Martin estimates reported in Graham Warwick, “Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete on Cost,” Aviation Week & Space International, June 18, 2010.
6. This figure is based on costs of U.S Navy aircraft in FY2011: “Aircraft Procurement, Navy; vol. 1: Budget Activities 1-4,” Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, available at http://www.finance. hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf.

These are the flyaway unit costs listed in Tellis' report. Do they seem accurate?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2011 03:04

^ Prices look close enough to the real deal considering it is all open source, although I would figure the MiG-35 a bit more considering the AESA + weapons, which the 29k does not have. But still around $ 50 million flyaway would be about right. Also, the Tiffy flyaway price seems inflated, and that of shornet rather low (understandably). I'd put the Rafale, Tiffy, Shornet all at around the $ 150 mill mark after support, weapons, etc. The Gripen NG around $ 85 -100mil, and the Mig-35 @ $ 70 mil.

I always thought that the super fulcrum, amongst all the rest would make a perfect MRCA - esp. as an interim solution. Low cost, huge commonality with existing fleet, and performance that is good enough to handle all birds below the 5 Gen mark, at least a2a.

But alas, the IAF has never looked at it as a viable option primarily (imho) becaues of the dependence on one supplier for such a large proportion of inventory.

Rafale and EF are the better options along with FGFA arriving a little later. We are keeping ourselves in the right kill ratio tech aspect, where we advance on our lca/mca generations with various tranches development. That is the only way out.
Either EF or Rafale could fit the interim AMCA bill very well. Also, having Kaveri developed by Snecma is a very very bad idea.

Seems like you would choose the second option amongst the 2 I suggested. Yes, it has its positives for sure. Although a cheaper gripen/fulcrum opton might be considered attractive as well.

CM.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 30 Jan 2011 03:40

new development in seeker tech

http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/UVS-TECH-2 ... G_8152.jpg
http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/UVS-TECH-2 ... G_8434.jpg

an active-passive CSG represented on the stand NII Agat. Left out of press attention. According to the developer, the CSG is designed for guided missile air-to-air missiles, could be composed of hardware channel updating. Constructively antenna that serves the general suspension consists of the active channel (center), combined with a passive antenna channel (seven antennas on the outer part) in passive mode provides the ability to capture the fighter with the radar station at a distance of about 200 km, depending on the parameters of the radar and courses missile and target. Range capture the active channel targets with RCS = 3 m on a collision course in the PPP - 15-20 km (with an estimated diameter AU - 135 mm).
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... FNi5-V2wpw

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2011 03:47

Gripen NG at $85M is definitely expensive compared to SH which may be more potent than Gripen. I agree there. Not sure Tellis' words would taken by SD in a sense consider a technology transfer that we are asking for. Not sure, what has already gone through, and may be Gov-Gov exchanges have already sphagettied to buy Shornets.

From a spec as well platform perspective, I don't think Migs would bring something that MKIs have already brought in. The reason IAF keeps ordering for more MKIs.

We should not forget this MRCA order is just because of LCA coming late (why would any airforce wait 12 years?). Many Gripen supporters think, they outright criticize LCA and win Indian hearts. That is a wrong thing to do especially when our decision is very political in nature, and connections is easily established on such approach. Gripen NG is expensive relative to SH.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2011 04:05

CM,

I have not read any details from Tellis, but, from press article I got the picture that he was correlating the US planes win to greater/deeper US ToT and push for Indian strategic positions. Totally unrelated to MMRCA.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 30 Jan 2011 04:26

sohels wrote:
MiG-35 $45 million1
Gripen NG $82.2 million2
Rafale $85.4 million3
Typhoon $123.1 million4
F-16IN $60 million5
F/A-18E/F $60.3 million6

1. This figure is based on based on the total contract cost of the recent Indian MiG-29K naval purchase divided by the number of planes: “Project 1143,” Bharat Rakshak, November 17, 2008, available at http://www.bharat-rakshak. com/NAVY/Ships/Future/193-INS-Vikramaditya.html.
2. This figure is based on based on the Gripen’s Norwegian bid reported in Bill Sweetman, “Gripen’s Norwegian Blues,” Ares, December 9, 2008, available at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... lckControl ler=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage= BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef- 79a7Post%3ae7fecd93-9d7e-4c42-936a-1627abbac4d2.
3. This figure is based on the flyaway Cost in 2008, converted from Euros, taken from “Projet de loi de finances pour 2009: Défense - Equipement des forces,” Senate of France, available at http://translate.google.com/ translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senat.fr%2Frap%2Fa08-102- 5%2Fa08-102-516.html%23toc236&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
4. This figure is based on based on Saudi Arabia’s Eurofighter purchase: Emmet Oliver and Massoud A. Derhally, “Saudis Pay 4.43 Billion Pounds for 72 Eurofighters,” Bloomberg, September 17, 2007, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... ive&sid=a_ tmH4i16wBk&refer=europe.
5. This figures is based on Lockheed Martin estimates reported in Graham Warwick, “Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete on Cost,” Aviation Week & Space International, June 18, 2010.
6. This figure is based on costs of U.S Navy aircraft in FY2011: “Aircraft Procurement, Navy; vol. 1: Budget Activities 1-4,” Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, available at http://www.finance. hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf.
These are the flyaway unit costs listed in Tellis' report. Do they seem accurate?

Well, flyaway cost means just the clean aircraft, without the missiles, support, support
equipment, spares and such. In that case the Gripen NG is about 30-35 mil. $, about
the same the last batch of Gripens delivered to the SwAF. (And yes, the cost of the NG
is basically the same as the cost of the C/D). But in an aircraft deal there are so many
other factors that plays it part. Look at how much Australia payed for each SH. That cost
them closely to 200 mil. US$ / aircraft, a bit different from 60 I think...

In Norway SAAB was sure about the cost and promised Norway it would cost half of the price
of the F-35 which Lockeed Martin claimed would be 85 mil. $ IIRC, the Swedish government
assured that they would pay any differences if for some unexpected reason the pricetag would rise.
Now the Norway tender is a total basket case as many of you know and
should never be looked at serious tender the way the norwegian acted.

Now I know this post is meaningless since most of you already have made up your mind
of what is true or not and won´t even bother trying a simple google to check facts.

But there you go...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2011 06:05

NRao wrote:CM,

I have not read any details from Tellis, but, from press article I got the picture that he was correlating the US planes win to greater/deeper US ToT and push for Indian strategic positions. Totally unrelated to MMRCA.

Well RaoGaru, I think his summary makes it pretty clear as to why India needs to buy US - "best buy" accrding to him. The idea as you point out, may be that US win in MRCA = greater US TOT and relations, however, that is a no starter. The logic behind MRCA eval, which even Tellis agrees to (thereby contradicting above logic) is that commitment to tech transfer should precede the purchase, IOWs, greater the TOT - greater the chance to win and not vice versa.

SaiK:
Re. the Gripen price to Norway, now that I remember it is v.similar to the package offered to the Dutch and includes support, training etc, IOWs, the Gripen NG price provided by Tellis in NOT flyaway unit price. As such it is comparable to the SHornet with similar support, which would be in excess of $ 150 million per unit (the Brazil and Aussie shows are good indicators). Flyaway, the SHornet (they may claim) is $ 60 million, but such a price has so far only been seen with USN purchases. All foreign sales have been close to 3 X that price! I guess sales + support cost a pretty penny!

My take (reading in between the lines):

Flyaway/With Support/Lifecycle*
Gripen: $ 50 mil/ $ 85-100mil/
MiG 35: $ 45-50 mil/ $ 60mil/ SHornet: $ 60 mil?/ $90 mil
Rafale: $ 75-80m/ $ 75 m
Typhoon: $ 90m+ / $ 75 m

*The area where Gripen really capitalizes supposedly is in the lifecycle cost, which are v.low, the bird being a tiny single engined fighter.

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2011 07:41

CMji,

My read, in fact, is even greater.

I think he is calling for support of Indian strategic initiative FIRST (my read: includes greater say in A'stan, convergence on Chicom, etc). Then comes ToT (my read: at least v1 source code on AESA, engine matters, etc).

The flip side is that India will give into a greater coop in strategic matters.

This, I feel, goes way beyond MMRCA. In fact, MMRCA seems to be just a launching point - to be forgotten at the higher level - you know, let the IAF have fun, but a different game at the gov level.

I would not be surprised that this new 49% FDI talk is actually part of this "deal".

?????????????

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 30 Jan 2011 09:43

X-Posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACuAIuNI ... re=related

Gurus, Any say on TAKEOFF distance.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 30 Jan 2011 09:57

Wickberg wrote:Well, flyaway cost means just the clean aircraft, without the missiles, support, support
equipment, spares and such. In that case the Gripen NG is about 30-35 mil. $

Is that without the Engine and AESA Radar too ??

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Jan 2011 11:15

shukla wrote:Fitting reply to US 5th gen offer BS

With own 5-Gen fighter project with Russia, India not keen on US jet
Times of India

With own 5G jet plan, India 'rejects' US offer

NEW DELHI: India has no plans as of now to either join the US-led joint strike fighter (JSF) programme or buy the F-35 `Lightning-II' fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) when it finally becomes operational.

"We cannot have two types of FGFA. We have already launched preliminary work for our FGFA after inking the $295 million preliminary design contract (PDC) with Russia last month,'' said a top defence ministry official on Friday.

This comes in the wake of comments made by a top Pentagon official, undersecretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter, in Washington that the US was open to Indian participation in its JSF project.

Interestingly, the comments came during a function where an aggressive sales pitch was made for India to select either the American F/A-18 `Super Hornet' ( Boeing) or F-16 `Falcon' ( Lockheed Martin) over their European rivals in the ongoing IAF's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest.

The other 4.5-generation fighters in the hotly-contested race to bag the $10.4 billion MMRCA project, under which 18 jets will be bought off-the-shelf and another 108 will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology, are Eurofighter Typhoon, Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault) and Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation).

The IAF force matrix for the coming years revolves around the 270 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, the 126 MMRCA and 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, apart from upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s.

In the decades ahead, the advanced stealth FGFA to be developed with Russia will be the mainstay of India's combat fleet. "Our FGFA will be cheaper than the F-35. Moreover, the intellectual property rights of the FGFA will equally and jointly vest on both India and Russia, with full access to the source code and the like,'' said another senior official.

With a potent mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, the "swing-role'' FGFA will of course not come cheap. The cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing has been pegged at around $11 billion, with India and Russia chipping in with $5.5 billion each.

Over and above this, each of the 250-300 FGFA India hopes to begin inducting from 2020 onwards will cost around $100 million each. In all, India will spend upwards of $35 billion over the next two decades in its biggest-ever defence project till now.

The Indian FGFA will primarily be based on the single-seater Sukhoi T-50, the prototype of which is already flying in Russia, but will include a twin-seater version and a more powerful engine with greater thrust.

"Its complete design will be frozen by the end of the 18-month PDC. Six to seven of its prototypes should be flying by 2017. After that, there will be 2,500 hours of flight-testing over 25 months before the series production begins in 2019,'' he said.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2011 11:33

NRao wrote:CMji,

My read, in fact, is even greater.

I think he is calling for support of Indian strategic initiative FIRST (my read: includes greater say in A'stan, convergence on Chicom, etc). Then comes ToT (my read: at least v1 source code on AESA, engine matters, etc).

The flip side is that India will give into a greater coop in strategic matters.

This, I feel, goes way beyond MMRCA. In fact, MMRCA seems to be just a launching point - to be forgotten at the higher level - you know, let the IAF have fun, but a different game at the gov level.

I would not be surprised that this new 49% FDI talk is actually part of this "deal".

?????????????

Looking at the whole picture one it does look like it ... a second tier defense manufacturing hub for the US/Europe ! dont think it would go beyond that. The high end tech will remain their forte.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 30 Jan 2011 11:44

I don't really see the need for the disparaging comments about the Gripen. Have a look at the parachute-less full-stop landing distance from 4:30 in this video:

I might be an amateur, but that seems like a damn good feature to have during a war. The only strong argument I've seen against it is the missing / in-development AESA. As for the engine, we didn't seem to have a problem with choosing GE engines for the LCA Mk1 and then again for the Mk2, so this argument is flawed.

If the IAF can commit that they won't let the Gripen rail-road the LCA project today or in the future, I think the advantage in numbers that this plane can deliver coupled with the ease of handling it on the ground makes it a very strong contender.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2011 11:47

"Its complete design will be frozen by the end of the 18-month PDC. Six to seven of its prototypes should be flying by 2017. After that, there will be 2,500 hours of flight-testing over 25 months before the series production begins in 2019,'' he said.

important detail we did not know earlier.