MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 23 Mar 2011 21:41

Avid wrote:If two women share pregnancy, the kid is not born in 4.5 months. It is going to take 9 months - no matter what. Class 6 algebraic math without constraints does not work in product design, development. Twice the people, twice the money does not equate half the time for completion.

Avid Ji, Fast Tracking in Project Management doesn't talk about pregnancy sharing. Could you please try to understand what Fast Tracking is all about ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2011 21:56

manum wrote:wtf...Its laughable to see, the most synonymous symbol of India for world...in all the brochures, We never made anything magnificent since then...

If Dassault adopted this strategy in India to sell the Rafale, then Rakhi Sawant it is for the IAF. Talk about clichéd!!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2011 22:00

Not many would like cancellation of MRCA at this stage.. the anger alone would be la sanctions against LCA/AMCA or any parts we are likely to get, ending up jeopardizing everything. One can think of reducing the MRCA numbers, can't cancel it supporting a least strategic thought one can have.

What could be more interesting is hiking up the numbers only when there is a reasonable substance in technology transfer. This way, we could trump in more, and get all possible bangs for the expensive buck we might opt. The case in consideration EF2K and Rafale are really above the normal price, just because of brand equity and aiyo-rope-an build, which is supposedly sanction free.

This can't be though off the way we change jobs ditching one company to another. The article is timed and good for the reason, price negotiation is beginning, and a threat of cancellation is very chankian indeed. kudos babooze.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 23 Mar 2011 22:22

SaiK wrote:Not many would like cancellation of MRCA at this stage.. the anger alone would be la sanctions against LCA/AMCA or any parts we are likely to get, ending up jeopardizing everything.

May be you are right.
In that case I would love to see MMRCA getting delayed as it is getting delayed

And a day might come when it will become irrelevant and that is not too far just another 5-6 years or may be earlier than that.

dsingh · Post by **dsingh** » 23 Mar 2011 22:25

I was amused with twin pregnancy analogy. The only difference is the place of gestation, which is different, hence a little dissimilarity. While pregnancy is a little immune( and I said a little, in terms of speeding up the process) to the external influences, the aircraft is not. I agree with Ajai Shukla's argument to scrap MRCA and invest money in LCA Mark II and AMCA development, investment in engine design, thrust, sensors and weapons. I think return on your investment would be more on Aircrafts with excellent Jammers ( Better than F18 Growlers). This can be done easily with Israelis, who would be eager to do that (of course for money and still are cheaper than French and Americans), and if not, then Russians. Israel's bombing of Syrian sites in 2007, clearly showed importance inserting viruses in their Radars and making Syrians SAM sites redundant. Our biggest enemies are Pukis and Chinese and when push comes to shove, this capability would definitely complement the existing IAF numbers and may be deciding factory in victory or significant loss.

The current MRCA platforms on offer would be obsolete before end of this decade,after induction of J20 and F35. Pukis would have access to similar platform which is at present on offer to IAF(except F35). In terms of China, with induction of J10 and j11 , the MRCA is only going to give you some breathing room ( and would not even give you parity),not the air dominance which IAF is looking for. Hence investing in LCA mark II and AMCA makes perfect sense. The LCA Mark II would be better aircraft than anything Pukis have or would have ( as it would be similar to JAS Grippen NG on offer for MRCA), and definitely better than J10, J11 ( because of better sensors, radar, engine and lower signatures). By investing more in LCA Mark II, and in the infrastructure, the time line for its induction could be shrunk from 3.5 yrs to 3 yrs. Ramping up the production line to produce 30-36 LCAs/yr would get you the required numbers very quickly ( May require two simultaneous production line). IAF would need at least 60-65 SQ to fight and win simultaneous 2 front wars, and I don't think we should compromise any thing less than victory in event of two front wars.( this would be short of Nuk exchange, as there is no winner in MAD). If the IAF has 60-65 Sqs, and with Navy and it's assetts, Chinese and Pukis could be choked and put in submission. If they are not fools ( i.e like Musharraf) they would not dare to think about this kind of adventure).

People argue what about if crisis erupts tomorrow, then I don/t think you would have MRCA available before 4 yrs any way. I believe India, has developed and improved its intel after Kargil so that it would have advanced warnings about brewing crisis. If it could not be solved with negotiations,then you can buy additional MKIs, MIG SMT or Mirage 2000 from surpluses. Only exception to above approach is Kargil type scenario, where political leadership slept, inspite of clear warnings from intel agencies.

If AMCA could be inducted before end of the decade, then all the goals would be met and we would never have to import a single fighter in future. With LCA mark II and FGFA, India would have enough experience to complete its AMCA program, without French, Americans, British or Germans help. With more investment in technology, the engine issue could also be solved. These MRCa contenders are not going to part any technology without a premium, and I doubt they would give even source code of their sensors. The most important part in the fighter aircraft are stealth and sensors. Israelis would be willing to collaborate with Indians in development of sensors and India could offer them partnership like MRSAM and Barak 8.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2011 23:41

dsingh wrote:I was amused with twin pregnancy analogy. The only difference is the place of gestation, which is different, hence a little dissimilarity. While pregnancy is a little immune( and I said a little, in terms of speeding up the process) to the external influences, the aircraft is not. I agree with Ajai Shukla's argument to scrap MRCA and invest money in LCA Mark II and AMCA development, investment in engine design, thrust, sensors and weapons. I think return on your investment would be more on Aircrafts with excellent Jammers ( Better than F18 Growlers). This can be done easily with Israelis, who would be eager to do that (of course for money and still are cheaper than French and Americans), and if not, then Russians. Israel's bombing of Syrian sites in 2007, clearly showed importance inserting viruses in their Radars and making Syrians SAM sites redundant. Our biggest enemies are Pukis and Chinese and when push comes to shove, this capability would definitely complement the existing IAF numbers and may be deciding factory in victory or significant loss.

The current MRCA platforms on offer would be obsolete before end of this decade,after induction of J20 and F35. Pukis would have access to similar platform which is at present on offer to IAF(except F35). In terms of China, with induction of J10 and j11 , the MRCA is only going to give you some breathing room ( and would not even give you parity),not the air dominance which IAF is looking for. Hence investing in LCA mark II and AMCA makes perfect sense. The LCA Mark II would be better aircraft than anything Pukis have or would have ( as it would be similar to JAS Grippen NG on offer for MRCA), and definitely better than J10, J11 ( because of better sensors, radar, engine and lower signatures). By investing more in LCA Mark II, and in the infrastructure, the time line for its induction could be shrunk from 3.5 yrs to 3 yrs. Ramping up the production line to produce 30-36 LCAs/yr would get you the required numbers very quickly ( May require two simultaneous production line). IAF would need at least 60-65 SQ to fight and win simultaneous 2 front wars, and I don't think we should compromise any thing less than victory in event of two front wars.( this would be short of Nuk exchange, as there is no winner in MAD). If the IAF has 60-65 Sqs, and with Navy and it's assetts, Chinese and Pukis could be choked and put in submission. If they are not fools ( i.e like Musharraf) they would not dare to think about this kind of adventure).

People argue what about if crisis erupts tomorrow, then I don/t think you would have MRCA available before 4 yrs any way. I believe India, has developed and improved its intel after Kargil so that it would have advanced warnings about brewing crisis. If it could not be solved with negotiations,then you can buy additional MKIs, MIG SMT or Mirage 2000 from surpluses. Only exception to above approach is Kargil type scenario, where political leadership slept, inspite of clear warnings from intel agencies.

If AMCA could be inducted before end of the decade, then all the goals would be met and we would never have to import a single fighter in future. With LCA mark II and FGFA, India would have enough experience to complete its AMCA program, without French, Americans, British or Germans help. With more investment in technology, the engine issue could also be solved. These MRCa contenders are not going to part any technology without a premium, and I doubt they would give even source code of their sensors. The most important part in the fighter aircraft are stealth and sensors. Israelis would be willing to collaborate with Indians in development of sensors and India could offer them partnership like MRSAM and Barak 8.

With all due respect Dsingh, I have read a couple of your posts in MRCA and LCA thread and one and the only thing I notice is that you make a LOT of assumptions mixed and matched with educated guesses.

# Production of fighter aircrafts cannot be just ramped up like that , it needs significant expansion and diversification of vendor base without ANY dilution in product quality. 30 Birds a year is a lot, only now have we managed 24 per yr. for MKI.

# AMCA inducted before the decade ends, are you kidding me !!

# You reckon platforms like Eurofighter and Rafale by the end of this decade will be obsolete because of F-35 and J-20. How do you arrive at this conclusion

# You conveniently assume that LCA MK II will be better than anything the Pakistanis have. Can you prove that they'll be better than F-16 Blk 52's.

# What makes you think our investment in Engine, weapons and sensor systems is insufficiant as of now. Do you have sources in ADA , HAL , DRDP etc that have told you so.

# 65 suquadron air force ?? . Thats like adding another IAF to the current one, not going to happen anytime soon, especially with large ammount of retirements.

# Israel will not collaborate on everything so easily, it's Mil-Ind complex is to a large extent influenced by americans. If Unkil tells Israel not to cross a certain line with India, then it won't.

# Mirage 2000 Supply line is closed and arranging spares would be a logistical nightmare

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 24 Mar 2011 01:13

What could be more interesting is hiking up the numbers only when there is a reasonable substance in technology transfer.

Absolutely my point of view...No matter who wins the deal, we are the kingmaker...The ones who lose will have to close shop... We should make them grovel and beg and suffer for order of every single plane...
Suddenly am beginning to like the fact that we dont export military hardware and only import them...

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Mar 2011 02:25

Blacklist stares at Dassault over Aero India bribery scandal
Defenseworld

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 24 Mar 2011 02:29

Drishyaman wrote:Excuses as mentioned below and many more floating in Swedish media

Excuses? You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. Sweden isn't hesitating because they don't have confidence in the aircrafts! They are hesitating because of unclear leadership on the Libyan operation. Nobody really knows who's in charge.. US, NATO, UK, France..? What's the clear purpose of the operation? Who's in charge? etc. You somehow blame that on the Gripen.. jeez. Grow up.

And what "many more floating around in Swedish media"? Now your're just lying.

And Tejas Mk-II, better than Gripen C/D? Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. It's still on the drawing table, is there even a prototype flying? Remember also that a plane has to mature to gain full potential. Especially if the manufacturer don't have 70 years of experience to fall back on. The MK-I is a good first step.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2011 02:34

Rambha ............................ now Rakhi ............................ These R-words just rrrrooooooolll out of the Admiral's mouth.

___________________________________________________

So, is my fav the Rafale out for good?

With Euro behavior, in the recent past, I am not sure if the confidence level on the EF is too high right now.

Supply chain seems to have done the other 35 in.

This DNA pool is growing rather small.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Mar 2011 03:51

What double standards! MoD is going to blacklist Dassault over Aero 2011 incident? But not Raytheon for obtaining secret MRCA file of MoD? Hmmmm I hope Dasault raises hell over these double standards.

added later:
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=5557

However, the bribery charge is being seen by some as a ploy to discredit Dassault with the MMRCA competition so close to fruition. A similar incident occurred during the final run up of the Korean fighter competition in 2002. The Dassault Rafale was then competing against the Boeing F-15K. After the end of the technical evaluation, the Rafale was reportedly leading the race and Dassault was suddenly accused of having bribed a Korean office $8000 to promote the Rafale offer.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Mar 2011 05:29

Rakesh wrote:
shukla wrote:Doomsday for the Rafale..

Arms dealer for French firm barred
There goes Katrina! Bye Bye Dassault...

Our chances of getting mithai from the Admiral reduced by half

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 24 Mar 2011 06:53

Shuklaji is smoking something...to suggest that MRCA should be cancelled. To cancel the MRCA is folly, what's 30 Billion for India over the life of the aircraft ?. We need numbers and we need them fast. As I see the future....the US is still king in military hardware and its best to align with them as opposed to the Europeans. A lot of money has been lost betting on the demise of the USA. The recent issues over leadership of the Libyan war, are an early pointer about the wimpiness of europeans (except the french), and inability to reach a joint decision re: the command structure for the Libyan war. I believe the US is changing its spots, because of the emergence of China.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Mar 2011 08:01

It would be extremely silly to think of Rs. 20,000 bribery when crores and crores are siphoned off by kalmadi & raja gangs. It is a pathetic - that singled out person is given his musharraf a slice. Now, instead of sensationalizing, and canceling MRCA, MoD should focus on the deal.

While ToIlets can keep their open ears for these silly already nabbed aspects. There is nothing to chase further, and the case is closed.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 24 Mar 2011 16:12

Libya Conflict May Spur Sales of Battle-Proven Eurofighter Jet
Businessweek

Tracking Libya, with eye on fighters Indian forces in market to buy weapons in use
The Telegraph

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Mar 2011 16:27

well if anything libya has exposed the typhoons nook nood status and HURT its chances in the mrca deal...and this is after 260 deliveries to user nations...
-----

Still, the jets are limited to an air-superiority role, Britain’s Ministry of Defence says, meaning they’ll target enemy planes in the air, rather than attack targets on the ground, a capability the RAF planes won’t have until 2018. Bombing has been allocated to Panavia Tornados, designed in the 1970s.
.........

The Eurofighter’s operational scope in Libya is narrower than that of Dassault’s Rafale, which flew combat patrols over Afghanistan as early as 2002 and took on a ground-attack role there five years later. The “omnirole” plane has undertaken a variety of Libyan missions from Saint-Dizier airbase in France and the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.

“It has been used for air-to-air missions, air-to-ground to hit targets, for reconnaissance and even as a tanker,” said Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesman for the French joint armed forces. “It’s completely multi-functional. You can prepare the plane and choose the mission while you’re flying.”

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Mar 2011 18:01

with cost, they can be modified too without any choke point agreements.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Mar 2011 18:03

and extra time...cost from our pocket onlee.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 19:23

Singha wrote:well if anything libya has exposed the typhoons nook nood status and HURT its chances in the mrca deal...and this is after 260 deliveries to user nations...
-----
Still, the jets are limited to an air-superiority role, Britain’s Ministry of Defence says, meaning they’ll target enemy planes in the air, rather than attack targets on the ground, a capability the RAF planes won’t have until 2018. Bombing has been allocated to Panavia Tornados, designed in the 1970s.
.........

They are still testing the precision attack systems aboard the Typhoon! Pls see this link;

http://air-ace.blogspot.com/2011/03/bae ... ay-iv.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2011 21:15

From:

shukla wrote:Libya Conflict May Spur Sales of Battle-Proven Eurofighter Jet

This:

“It has been used for air-to-air missions, air-to-ground to hit targets, for reconnaissance and even as a tanker,” said Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesman for the French joint armed forces. “It’s completely multi-functional. You can prepare the plane and choose the mission while you’re flying.”

How does one "choose a mission while you're flying"? So, one takes off, decides to become a tanker 2 hours into the "mission" and gets to be one?

I love this feature, but, to some extent is that not false advertising?

Grip

:

The Saab Gripen, which first flew in 1988, two years after the Rafale and six years before the Typhoon, has racked up 150,000 flying hours and is a proven fighter, despite never having operated a combat mission, spokesman Lasse Jansson said.

“It’s not something we are asked when we’re out marketing the aircraft,” Jansson said by telephone. “Most potential customers know that Gripen has demonstrated these things.”

QED.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 21:21

NRao wrote:How does one "choose a mission while you're flying"? So, one takes off, decides to become a tanker 2 hours into the "mission" and gets to be one?

I love this feature, but, to some extent is that not false advertising?

Grip :

It is false advertising...unless the French have come up with in-flight weaponisation

You can't switch from air interception mode to anti-ship mode, if you don't have anti-ship missiles fitted prior to taking off.

But that having been said, it depends if the weapons, fuel tanks, recon/ld pods fitted on board - prior to take off - could be used for a new mission. Check out the link below.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/p/rafale ... d-out.html

I am sure you can move from close air support mode to air defense mode or some similar combination. I think that is what they are referring to when they say choose a mission. Then again so can Rakhi Sawant, from Girlfriend to Wife. So many Rakshaks know that feeling

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 22:05

From Dassault itself (about being omnirole) and similar to what I stated above;

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... s.html?L=1

With its outstanding load-carrying capability and its state-of-the-art weapon / mission system, the RAFALE can carry out both ground attacks and air-to-air combats and interceptions during the same sortie.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 24 Mar 2011 22:30

Rakesh wrote:From Dassault itself (about being omnirole) and similar to what I stated above;

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/def ... s.html?L=1

With its outstanding load-carrying capability and its state-of-the-art weapon / mission system, the RAFALE can carry out both ground attacks and air-to-air combats and interceptions during the same sortie.

Which is exactly what they did. On a air to air combat mission the rafale used a air to ground missile to destroy the Libyan Galeb while it was attempting to land.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 23:48

When a single country makes your aircraft from nose to tail, you know exactly what you’re getting into. Rafale is not subject to multinational controls. It also offers unrestricted access to key weapon systems technologies, spare parts, and know-how. Rafale offers superior operational effectiveness and failsafe worldwide support, yet isn’t delivered wrapped in red tape. Or with strings attached. Rafale. The OMNIROLE fighter.

The above quote is from the first page of Dassault's Fox Three magazine. The first bolded text is a snub to the Eurofighter Typhoon. And the second bolded text is a vieled reference to F-18 Super Hornet.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/filead ... 14_UK2.pdf

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 25 Mar 2011 00:40

deleted

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2011 00:44

RSoami wrote:Let it go onlee.Its only a little semantic error...He only meant that one can choose the mission and prepare the plane accordingly...A missile and bombs loaded Rafale cant turn into a tanker mid-flight.. obviously.
Regards

We just finished discussing that. Thanks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Mar 2011 01:16

If the omni role/multi role spans all areas of attack, AA, AS and AG, then mission profile changes too right? We would have reduced stores for each of these, and there needs to be a bigger plan in terms of the use of such profile, and where it is deployed and for what purpose.

Normally, such switch mode is desirable, especially when we have the MA refueler, and NCW established with the mother AWACs CnC. Can think of MMRCA on this lines along coast of pakis, and all the way.. but, I guess mostly IN would like to take on AS or surface targets. Instead IAF could ask for more AG and SEAD features for the MRCA, for max use, especially on chipaks bordering us with large installations emitting radiations.

Such a combo needs also a carpet bomning heavy bomber support for runways, and larger area targets.. making the job easier for MRCA.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 25 Mar 2011 04:27

You conveniently assume that LCA MK II will be better than anything the Pakistanis have. Can you prove that they'll be better than F-16 Blk 52's.

F 16 is 15-20 years old.
When F16 Came out,it was given to Paks.But They offer f 5 fighter to us,Which that time was 20years old.
How ever wants to buy f-16.think twice.They always wants to sale us
20 Years stuff. Time to grow up.
LCA is and will be better then f-16.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 25 Mar 2011 13:01

Interesting article on the costs of Rafale and Eurofighter ops ... See towards the end of the article ...

This is the source ...
http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/l ... 3-1.371886

Libya no-fly zone cost could hit $1bn in months
Destroying Gaddafi air defense could cost $800 million
By Reuters Published Wednesday, March 23, 2011

France, which has mobilised about 100 warplanes - mainly Rafale and Mirage 2000 jets - was the first country to overfly the rebel bastion of Benghazi last, using 20 warplanes for air strikes after the go-ahead for a no-fly zone. (AFP)

The no-fly zone over Libya could end up costing the Western coalition more than $1 billion if the operation drags on more than a couple of months, defense analysts say.
Zack Cooper, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the initial cost of eliminating Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses was likely to be between $400 million and $800 million.
The expense of patrolling the no-fly zone once it is established is likely to be $30 million to $100 million a week, he said.
The U.S. military has no official cost figures yet for the operation, which has been going on less than a week. By comparison, the much more extensive Afghan war costs more than $9 billion a month.
Some U.S. lawmakers and critics of President Barack Obama's decision to join allies in the Libya bombing campaign have argued the United States cannot afford the operation while Congress wrangles over spending cuts and the country's $1.48 trillion deficit.
The Pentagon already has plans to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years and is delaying weapons programs and putting off maintenance to reduce costs.
The operation unfolding in Libya resembles a scenario for a limited no-fly zone analyzed by Cooper and his colleague Todd Harrison. The scenario assumed a limited no-fly zone covering Libya north of the 29th parallel, not the entire country.
They made their projections by computing the cost per square mile of previous no-fly zones and applying that to the situation in Libya. The price of munitions, jet fuel and maintenance were the primary cost drivers. Their figures reflected the cost over and above regular operations.
One thing Cooper and Harrison had not anticipated was significant coalition support, with allies bearing part of the expense. Cooper said it appeared the United States had flown more than half of the sorties and fired most of the Tomahawks.
"In our analysis, we assumed that the U.S. would be picking up the bulk of the cost," he said. "So even though the U.S. has picked up more than a majority of the cost, I assume, so far, it probably hasn't picked up as much as we estimated."
Cooper said the Tomahawk cruise missiles fired so far by Britain and the United States cost about $200 million, putting the price for taking out Gaddafi's air defenses on target to hit their projection.
"We estimated $400 million to $800 million. Between the Tomahawks and other munitions and flight hours and fuel, it's probably going to be somewhere in that ... range for the initial cost of suppressing the air defenses," he said.
The crash of a U.S. F-15 warplane was an unexpected cost. Cooper said the Pentagon was unlikely to buy another F-15 and probably would replace it with a joint strike fighter, with an estimated price tag of between $100 million and $150 million.
NO 'ROBUST ESTIMATE'
The main European countries enforcing the no-fly zone downplayed the cost of the operation. British Finance Minister George Osborne, whose government has staked its reputation on eliminating the country's budget deficit, told Parliament to expect the cost to be in the tens of millions of pounds.
While saying it was too early for a "robust estimate" of the price of the Libya operations, Osborn projected the costs would be "modest" compared with operations like Afghanistan.
"The Ministry of Defence's initial view is that this will be in the order of the tens of millions not the hundreds of millions of pounds," Osborne said.
But defense analysts warned that British expenses for even a limited operation like Libya could quickly add up. Analyst Francis Tusa told BBC Radio 4 the missions flown so far cost Britain about 200,000 pounds ($325,000) per aircraft, with missiles running 800,000 pounds ($1.3 million) apiece.
With Britain flying 10 Typhoon fighters to patrol the no-fly zone, "you'll be looking at potentially 2, 3 million pounds a day ($3.25 million to $5 million)," he said.
French analysts also attempted to downplay the expense, saying the intervention was likely to cost Britain and the United States much more since they used pricier weapons.
"It's peanuts," said Jean Dominique Merchet, editor of blog secretdefense on military affairs. It costs about 30,000 euros ($45,000) per hour to operate a Rafaele fighter, he said, but most would have been in the air at least an hour a day anyway.
But Pierre Tran, Paris bureau chief for specialist weekly Defense News, said even though France was using less expensive munitions, the costs would quickly begin to add up.
"If this campaign goes on for very much longer, it would be costly in terms of fuel consumed, flying hours for the pilots, and eventually munitions used," he said.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 13:29

although i've been predicting an EF win (on political grounds) my heart has always been with rafale
i'll be happy with either choice though

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Mar 2011 17:02

Are those operational costs realistic or to balance some political coalition documents?

$45K op cost per hour on Rafale is unacceptable! can gurus pour some insight in to aam minds what would be the most ideal MRCA op cost per hour we can sustain, especially considering a mission like this?

Did the merge the AWACs, refuel-er and the other logistics into Rafale op cost?

May be on the mission, the men in uniform take up per diem at such high rates, increasing the costs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Mar 2011 18:37

I think we have the money to split the order for a cheap gov-gov route for some super duper two squadron strength F18-Is, loaded with the best we can if we sign up those agreements. We can use these couple of squadrons for all NATO specific unkill CnC, that we may be forced to work with that is impossible to avoid, with a growing nexus between the two great nations.

Now, that would delink the real strategic assets - Rafale or EF2K.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 25 Mar 2011 19:11

Drishyaman wrote:
Avid wrote:If two women share pregnancy, the kid is not born in 4.5 months. It is going to take 9 months - no matter what. Class 6 algebraic math without constraints does not work in product design, development. Twice the people, twice the money does not equate half the time for completion.
Avid Ji, Fast Tracking in Project Management doesn't talk about pregnancy sharing. Could you please try to understand what Fast Tracking is all about ?

You are assuming that the project isn't already fast tracked. Also, would you happen to have an estimate or ways to estimate how much it can be fast tracked?

There is a prevalent sense amongst some who believe they know everything better than anyone in MoD, ADA, HAL, etc. Yes, people might know some things better but blanket assured statements about how to make things better without sufficient information is rather irresponsible. Just as you assume I do not know about Project and Program management

BTW, the whole issue at hand is more program management issues rather plain vanilla project management issues as you seem to imply.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 25 Mar 2011 19:34

Enough is enough,

Tell me something about weapon package from each entry they are offering in MRCA!!

I am quires to know that other than aircraft what else we could gain from them.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Mar 2011 20:25

Sarabpal ji, we're all curious about the transfer of technology, technology partnerships, "political packages", "strategic alliances", and what not being offered by the vendors. Though it is probably a good thing that none of these secrets have been leaked yet. As we've seen recently, even an inconsequential leak of information triggers various investigations, which defers the MRCA decision. Since I'm not a proponent of cancelling the MRCA purchase, I think its better to have a decision ASAP.

I think India should pin hopes of transfer of knowledge on the FGFA, not MRCA.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 25 Mar 2011 21:16

that what i want discusses on that topic.We now what they had to offer us.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Mar 2011 22:22

Yes Katrina would be the best choice for we are already investing so much into M2K upgrades and if MICAs are part of that package then it makes even more sense to get Rafale; more importantly we have already done some LGB integration related jugaad with the Jags and M2Ks so in future when Sudarshan is ready for active service, it's integration with Rafale won't be an issue. I am not sure if Unkil would allow integration of Sudarshan with Rakhi Sawant because it will make Rakhi N capable (need to read fine print under EUMA).

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 26 Mar 2011 00:44

Deleted to defer to Saik re: Rambha

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Mar 2011 00:49

Helloooooo.. Rambha is still in market.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 27 Mar 2011 17:08

Well, since I read several times the MiG shouldn't be picked because the Russians are notorious for jacking up prices, I guess this newspiece may be from interest in putting that into perspective:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bigge ... ce/767847/

Is that indian express a reliable source ?