India selects Typhoon and Rafale for MMRCA shortlist

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 May 2011 19:47

OK..I'll accept that Shiv. That is a valid point. Although I would have preferred a more polite way to reach them half way since India needs the US on its side. The US is not the enemy.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 May 2011 19:59

Manny wrote:OK..I'll accept that Shiv. That is a valid point. Although I would have preferred a more polite way to reach them half way since India needs the US on its side. The US is not the enemy.

US needs India much more than India needs US. Lets be clear on this.

They better get used to the changed world.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 May 2011 20:07

>> The US is not the enemy.

US needs to convince itself first, which it hasn't completely managed to do so far. (yes I know the counterpoints as well) carry on in the India-US thread if you want, NOT HERE.

bottomline, this competition is about selecting fighters for IAF, not about making friends.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 May 2011 20:21

US needs to know that in the changing geo-political and economic scenario they need to realise we are not poodles. An individual american is a great person, but their politics are based on (I am being polite) stupidity. I have worked with them for 40 years, but they are so naive and behave with an air of sadly misplaced superiority when it comes to the politics.

Their approach with the solah and the F18 was more suited to pliant nations!

My apologies Rahul, if it is OT. It ends here.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 02 May 2011 20:55

F16 and F18 are of 1970's with little or no scope for further development. Euro canards are of 1990's and have lot of scope for development. We are looking for next 30 plus years. So it makes little sense to select something which is almost 40 years old in design. I think capability wise also the Euro canards particularly Rafale seems to be quite a good figher/stricker and suitable for us. hope it wins.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 May 2011 20:58

chackojoseph wrote:
VinodTK wrote:India’s Rejection Of US Aircraft As Seen By China – Analysis

What? 12 Bill $ for a Permanent 5 seat? Just pay them that and give IAF what it wants.

Per my calculations UNSC seat is a $100B deal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2011 21:04

While uncle technology is chased after, but uncle policies and legal issues and his grand strategies would be never ever be with non aligned nations. We all knew this, and we still continue to keep griping about it. Grow up to meet challenges, means to take up equal responsibilities from aam citizens like how an unkillier does, and announce your are here to challenge or substitute him. How else, you aspire to be a great nation then?

So, let us not get worked up on this feeling that unkill became a loser because of this or that..

UNSC seat is secondary or it is an automatic acceptance by showing our "great power", and not by beg, borrow, or babu steal.

Mil focus is a higher priority here is it not?

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 May 2011 21:06

Manny wrote: Deal with reality., the US is the most powerful country in the world. Its influence on other countries is unmatched. They can even make the EU do what it wants if necessary.

What is that !!

some kind typical american threat !!

OT : Some Reality Check

American President tried to block IT Out-sourcing. miserably failed in that attempt because American Company need to do out-sourcing inorder to minimize their costs any stay competitive.

Now, Obama is trying to stop medical tourism to India, failing in that too as American citizens are travelling to India to get quality health care at reasonable price.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 May 2011 21:10

RamaY wrote: Per my calculations UNSC seat is a $100B deal.

Oh !! if your calculations are correct.

We can throw that much of money on any given day for UNSC seat.

We are quite rich now

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 May 2011 22:00

RamaY wrote:

What? 12 Bill $ for a Permanent 5 seat? Just pay them that and give IAF what it wants.
Per my calculations UNSC seat is a $100B deal.

What!!! so cheap. I thought it was $1T.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 May 2011 22:39

this bashing is naat kood naat kood for our health!

begin dhoti shiver & cower

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 May 2011 22:56

Austin wrote:...
Certainly the order for 126 MMRCA plus options for 74 more which is more likely to be exercised then not means a big number for EADS , we have seen how the MKI order has grown over time , the MMRCA order could swell beyond the 200 mark.

...

IMO, with Rafale, IAF has the option to not upgrade its 51 Mirage-2000 fleet. IAF could use the options of 54 (which could be directly built in parallel in France (on top of the initial 18) while HAL is license manufacturing its 106 share) to directly replace the 3 squadrons of Mirage-2000s by 2020.

It would save the IAF $2.5+ billion in the Mirage-2000 upgrade costs. The cost for 54 new Rafale (3 squadrons @ 18 a/c each) would come around $5 billion (at around $90 million/each). So for only $2.5 billion more, IAF can get brand new fighters and start the process of standardization much earlier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 May 2011 00:54

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=14702
For, never would an Indian 'socialist' prime minister express dejection if Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) loses a deal in the US to a Chinese company.

HAL losing a deal in the US!? sounds like the author is expecting way too much. What has gone into the minds of media reporters.. absolutely no idea what is happening in the defense world.

the MUTUs are totally p!ssed off!

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 03 May 2011 03:01

Vishnu,

lib dot con dot 36 on google's mail service.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 03 May 2011 03:15

Avid wrote: posted April 29 on BR
A sports car also has many criteria for evaluation. Therefore, "best" is in how/where/when the user is likely to race that sports car.
....
Even with the realm of sports cars, you have a range -- the usual culprits being Ferrari, Bugatti, Mercedes AMG, Porsche. But then you also have the range of rally cars which are no slouch in performance and would leave most of the above in cloud of dirt.

So, given proper context for that analogy -- "Go buy the best sports car" it is not automatically the Ferrari, but ... requires a follow up question "best for what conditions". At the simplest would be a single parameter -- Speed. Even then, a somewhat knowledgeable buyer would have further context to the speed: quarter mile dash, top speed, 0-60 mph timing, 30-100 mph timing, etc. Even a buyer with unlimited resources would not be able to get away from these details. A race car for use in Formula 1 vs. use in Rally (which begs more questions about conditions of the rally).

Why the critics of India's combat jet deal are wrong
May 2, 2011
NO SUCH THING AS “THE BEST THING”

“Imagine,” says a senior Indian Air Force official, “being asked to pick between a top-end Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and Ferrari. It would be plain stupid to think of one high-performance car as better than another. For example, one might have better acceleration; another greater range; a third better handling.”

Are senior IAF officials reading BR?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 03 May 2011 04:04

Debrief Conveyed To All Vendors About Their Performance In Flight Evaluations : Air Chief

‘The debrief (on compliance in flight evaluations) were conveyed to the vendors when the test was over. Everybody knows if they are complaint or not and they have been conveyed individually about it,’ the Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, told reporters here.
...
...
‘As far as satisfied or dis-satisfied is concerned, when you select one aircraft, it always happens that other people are dissatisfied. There is nothing wrong with our selection process. It is only a human feeling,’ Naik said when asked about the deep disappointment that the US has expressed over the rejection of their two aircraft that were in the fray.
...
...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 May 2011 04:23

Lowest bidder between Rafale and EF then?

The AF is naughty indeed

... it has made its choice amply clear.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 May 2011 06:44

Depending on the price of each plane, the value of the MMRCA deal will be as follows:

Code: Select all

                                     126 aircrafts                54 options                 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At $80 million/aircraft              $10.08 billion               $4.32 billion          $14.4 billion
At $85 million/aircraft              $10.7 billion                $4.59 billion          $15.29 billion
At $90 million/aircraft              $11.34 billion               $4.86 billion          $16.2 billion
At $95 million/aircraft              $11.97 billion               $5.13 billion          $17.1 billion
At $100 million/aircraft             $12.6 billion                $5.4 billion           $18 billion
At $105 million/aircraft             $13.23 billion               $5.67 billion          $18.9 billion
At $110 million/aircraft             $13.86 billion               $5.94 billion          $19.8 billion
At $115 million/aircraft             $14.49 billion               $6.21 billion          $20.7 billion
At $120 million/aircraft             $15.12 billion               $6.48 billion          $21.6 billion

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 May 2011 07:00

nukavarapu wrote:
Indranil, my comment was not directed towards you.

I know sirjee that your comment was not directed towards me and I didn't take any offense to your point either. My point was don't waste your time on people whose dhoti shivers so badly. There is no point to make those people understand who look at building a strategic partnership under the fear of retribution. Their dhotis can be unfurled at any chowk, in any city.

At the same time I don't quite understand those who say, "we don't want anything US-made". Really, how closely can you shut your eyes?

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 03 May 2011 08:41

the brits and french are battling it out in keypubs

and i thot we whined too much

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 03 May 2011 08:57

@SRai

The costs will not be linear. There will be 18 a/c in fly-away condition with initial spares, Then some SKD and CKD kits. And finally some manufactured with raw materials, sub-assemblies and major assemblies. Quite a complicated xls would be doing the rounds by both!

Difficult to guage now.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 03 May 2011 09:12

srai wrote:It would save the IAF $2.5+ billion in the Mirage-2000 upgrade costs. The cost for 54 new Rafale (3 squadrons @ 18 a/c each) would come around $5 billion (at around $90 million/each). So for only $2.5 billion more, IAF can get brand new fighters and start the process of standardization much earlier.

good point.. but the indian mentality is to squeeze as much as they can from the Mirage airframes before scrapping them.

Its not a question of affordability, and this would certainly be part of the indo-franc negotiations whether Rafale is selected or not. And Rafale selection would not have any bearing on the 2.5 Billion the french have asked for the M2K upgrade

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 May 2011 09:40

rajanb wrote:@SRai

The costs will not be linear. There will be 18 a/c in fly-away condition with initial spares, Then some SKD and CKD kits. And finally some manufactured with raw materials, sub-assemblies and major assemblies. Quite a complicated xls would be doing the rounds by both!

Difficult to guage now.

Very true. The numbers were to give more of a ballpark figures taken on an average.

We in the public will never know the exact pricing, especially as you have pointed out, when we have to factor every bits and pieces of the pricing matrix that will be negotiated.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 May 2011 09:51

Kailash wrote:
srai wrote:It would save the IAF $2.5+ billion in the Mirage-2000 upgrade costs. The cost for 54 new Rafale (3 squadrons @ 18 a/c each) would come around $5 billion (at around $90 million/each). So for only $2.5 billion more, IAF can get brand new fighters and start the process of standardization much earlier.
good point.. but the indian mentality is to squeeze as much as they can from the Mirage airframes before scrapping them.

Its not a question of affordability, and this would certainly be part of the indo-franc negotiations whether Rafale is selected or not. And Rafale selection would not have any bearing on the 2.5 Billion the french have asked for the M2K upgrade

True. Indian "mid-life upgrades" tend to happen way later than the Western counterparts, and the IAF tends to flog them to their designed limits (and bit beyond).

Even if the decision of not upgrading is taken, the M2Ks will still be around well after 2020. These aircrafts will be very useful as 2nd-line Combat Aircraft (reserves) into the early 2030s.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 May 2011 10:13

^^^ I won't be very surprised to see 51 upgraded Mirages (would be excellent fighters after the upgrades) + 200 Rafales/EF.

Would be interesting to see if IAF can get the Mirages upgraded through Israel

.

But probably we will never see the second hand Mirage-2000-5s in the tippy grey. IMHO opinion we could have got all the ones in the market in 3 billion. If we we could our Mirages upgraded from Israel. We would have had 100 odd Mirage-2000-5 (or equivalents) within 4-4.5 billion. Those along with the 60 Mig-29 UPG would make excellent "medium" range of fighters till 2020-2025. Actually the more I think about it, the more mouth watering it sounds.

280 odd sukhois + 200 Rafales + 100 Mirage-2000-5s + 60 Mig-29s would have really sent down shivers.

Paging reporters, could you please ask at some press conference if the IAF considered or is considering the second hand Mirage-2000-5s?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 May 2011 11:01

^^^ you have a good things stuffed in your memory sir

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 May 2011 11:05

srai,

Are "options" something you created or something that has come up in the media/GoI?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 May 2011 11:43

Something for Rafale Lovers

French Rafale fires AASM with laser terminal guidance against a high-speed moving target

1 meter accuracy at 90 degree extreme angle.

Nesoj · Post by **Nesoj** » 03 May 2011 12:11

Wasn't all the 'technology' in unkil's planes subject to our signing the 'vassal agreements' ?
As we had clearly indicated to the contrary (our c130 purchases), basically what was on offer were just the 'castrated versions' that stood no chance against the virile Europeans.
It was like showing a kid a lollipop, but offering only the wrapper unless you got a kiss

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 03 May 2011 12:53

chackojoseph wrote:Something for Rafale Lovers

French Rafale fires AASM with laser terminal guidance against a high-speed moving target

1 meter accuracy at 90 degree extreme angle.

is the AASM the only PGM having a version with IIR guidance??wont this be a more effective guidance than laser ??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 May 2011 17:10

(that is terminal guidance) With laser homing, and having an accuracy of 1 meter at 90* is pretty bad for moving target[say a bin laden truck] at 80kmph [the chances of missing is quite high]!

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 03 May 2011 18:07

http://frontierindia.net/wa/french-rafa ... rget/3255/

Impressive performance. Imagine how recative you can be against time sensitive targets. No need to reposition to be in the good angle to attack. lock and shoot almost instantly. With a 250kg bomb it is a very powerfull weapon. This weapon is actually without equivalent in its category.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 03 May 2011 20:38

^^
OT but are you the same arthuro from keypubs??(aka eagle1)

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 03 May 2011 21:04

SaiK wrote:(that is terminal guidance) With laser homing, and having an accuracy of 1 meter at 90* is pretty bad for moving target[say a bin laden truck] at 80kmph [the chances of missing is quite high]!

You do realize the difference between a bullet and a 500lb bomb right? And a 500 pounder exploding within a meter of its intended target will take care of anything but the most heavily armored vehicle (if they are lucky).

A regular 500 pound bomb has a blast radius (injury from blast pressure) out to 13 meters, with dangerous fragments lethal out to 40 meters.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20100915.aspx

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 May 2011 23:05

NRao wrote:srai,

Are "options" something you created or something that has come up in the media/GoI?

MMRCA "Options" are being widely reported in the media. We don't know the exact numbers yet but it figures to be 60 to 80 aircrafts (i.e. 180 to 200 aircrafts total with options).

"Options" seem to be becoming typical in the Indian defense deals. For example, C-130J (6+6 options), P-8I (8+8 options), C-17 (10+6 options), etc. Having options make sense as it guarantees same price as the actual/firm order. However, there will likely be some extra markup as a result to the final deal to guarantee same prices for the options.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 May 2011 05:15

Rejection of US planes won't affect ties: Antony

India's decision to shortlist European aircraft over American warplanes was taken on merit and would not affect its bilateral relations with the US, Defence Minister A K Antony said on Monday. Antony, who was in Jaislamer to review the security situation along the Pakistan border, said the country wanted to procure the best available aircraft at the best available price and there should be "no ill-feeling" about it.

The Defence Minister was responding to a question about the rejection of US fighters in the bid for 126 Multirole-Medium Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) deal in which Eurofighter and French Rafale have been shortlisted. The Minister said that the relations between the US and India would remain unaffected despite the rejection.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 May 2011 06:12

not enough accuracy.. i was just quoting a bin laden truck as an example, and not necessarily IAF targets always normal trucks. If you would like to consider Al khalid or M1Abrahams is fine as well.. a direct hit would be required in such armored vehicles. answer about the accuracy and possiblity of misses rather the type of target argument., else I have no contention there Vikram.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 04 May 2011 08:43

US asked India for more data on fighter setback

India has agreed to provide the United States with more information about its decision last week to drop two US defence companies from an $11 billion fighter competition, a top US official said on Tuesday.

Assistant secretary of state Andrew Shapiro reiterated the US government's deep disappointment about India's decision, but he said Washington was still pursuing other defence sales with India that could strengthen ties between the two countries.

"Going forward, it's important to recognize that we have a number of sales either in the pipeline or to be considered that will enable us to continue to build the defence trade relationship," Shapiro told a group of business executives who are advising the state department on export control reforms.

"Our strategic relationship is far greater than any one sale," he said.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 04 May 2011 12:01

Kailash wrote:US asked India for more data on fighter setback

India has agreed to provide the United States with more information about its decision last week to drop two US defence companies from an $11 billion fighter competition, a top US official said on Tuesday.

Assistant secretary of state Andrew Shapiro reiterated the US government's deep disappointment about India's decision, but he said Washington was still pursuing other defence sales with India that could strengthen ties between the two countries.

"Going forward, it's important to recognize that we have a number of sales either in the pipeline or to be considered that will enable us to continue to build the defence trade relationship," Shapiro told a group of business executives who are advising the state department on export control reforms.

"Our strategic relationship is far greater than any one sale," he said.

Wise words from Shapiro. They're getting plenty of other sales, and will continue to do so. Especially given the post-Geronimo mood in Washington, hopefully the relationship strengthens, and the US feeds a growing realisation that not getting a sale from us is still better than gifting F-16s to Pak.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 May 2011 12:24

the aftermath of geronimo makes it politically tough for POTUS to give huge freebie packages to TSP, unless some major co-operation like starting a push into waziristan by PA, handing over other A-list fugitives is seen as coming from rawalpindi.
the inevitable price of such major co-op will be internal attacks on the PA and west punjab by the pakiban.