MRCA (Many Rakshaks Choose Aircraft) Contest - Episode III

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Apr 2018 07:09

There is nothing in the Tejas M2 program that should go against IAF wants. If that is some insider info, better table those for public consumption right away.

And no one can deliver all 110 planes to IAF requirements in 3 years flat.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 07:47

ArjunPandit wrote:^^Completely agree with you, I had similar thoughts. What surprised me to no end is why an extra line of Tejas is not put in place, it can expedite the order of 123 and will it be too difficult to modify it to Mk2? I presume that was the original plan.
The more i read about the sqdn requirements, the more I am convinced that we need ~50+ sqdns for a twin front threat and regional capability projection.
What intrigued me was the 10 hr flight capability. What mission would require 10 hr apart from traveling to US for red flag? bombing chinese east coast?

Arjun, I do not believe that Mk1/Mk1A can be modified into Mk2. The airframe is different. Not possible Saar.

Secondly, let us hit 42 first...which as per Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa will be by 2032. Let us get to that number first.

AFAIK, the Rambha has a capability of 10 hours and that too with multiple in-flight refuelling sessions. I could be wrong on this. I do not know about the Rafale or the F/A-18's capability on this. Perhaps brar can fill in on this point.

Of all the contenders, only the Rafale and the F/A-18 Super Hornet stand a chance.

* MiG-35:

* Gripen E: Vaporware.
* F-16 Block 70: Tepid response from the IAF during the SEF competition.
* Eurofighter Tyhoon: Please see Kartik's excellent find in the International Aerospace Thread ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2264152#p2264152

That leaves only the Rafale and the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I do not believe either aircraft will see a strength in three digits, in the Indian Air Force. There is *NO* money for 110 aircraft. If we could not afford 126 Rafales at $10 billion, there is no possibility that 110 aircraft will be bought for $15 - $20 billion (starting price). If this deal reaches fruition - and that is a big IF - the MoD may merge the 57-bird naval requirement into the 110 aircraft. Just using the 110 number (which I strongly believe will get revised downwards) --> 57 for the Navy and 53 for the Air Force.

MoD Babu will get asthma attack when he sees the price for 110 aircraft + screwdrivergiri factory + base infrastructure + weapons + spares, etc. But on this measure, the Rafale scores above the F-18....as all of the above will exist - for the Rafale - by Sept 2019 in India. The F-18 does not enjoy that luxury, unless the Govt wants to spend *AGAIN* for the same. Two key advantages the F-18 has is the GE F-414 engine and the APG-79 AESA radar. But perhaps Kaveri88 may fly by Aero India 2019 and Thales may win the AESA contract for the Tejas Mk1A's radar. Then I doubt the Super Hornet will stand a chance.

Moral of the Story --> For the Indian Air Force to build up her combat squadron strength, it has to be the Tejas. That is the reality. This latest MRCA contest, is just another "silver bullet" purchase.

Dassault – Reliance Aerospace manufacturing facility in Mihan, Nagpur inaugurated
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gr ... augurated/

The Dassault-Reliance manufacturing facility Dhirubhai Ambani Technology Park is located in the Mihan SEZ adjoining Nagpur International Airport. Under this Joint Venture (51% Reliance Infrastructure and 49% Dassault Aviation) the facility will manufacture several components of the offset obligation connected to the purchase of 36 Rafale Fighters from France, signed between the two Governments in September 2016.

DRAL will manufacture components for the Legacy Falcon 2000 Series of Civil Jets manufactured by Dassault Aviation and thus will become part of its Global Supply Chain. These first steps are expected to achieve in the coming years the possible setting up of final assembly of Rafale and Falcon Aircraft.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 07 Apr 2018 07:55

And the winner is:
Rafale de ambani & F16 block ambani
with 10% lower gst

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Apr 2018 07:57

Why not we shock MoD babooze straight away now - 110++ with IAF asks would easily cross $28b current and future add 20%. [WAG but close enough with Rafale experience].

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Apr 2018 08:07

Rakesh wrote:
Optimal solution to shore up current shortage is via;

1) Acquiring "used" MiG-29s (21 on offer from Russia) and M2K-9s.
2) Improving serviceability of present aircraft (above 75% across the board).
3) Complete upgrades of present aircraft i.e. M2K upgrade and Jaguar re-engine & Darin III upgrade.
4) Improve production times in Tejas output (via Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers) and invest in an additional Tejas line.
5) Continue with Mk1 production, till Mk1A is ready. The Mk1 can be converted to the Mk1A and outclasses the MiG-21.
6) Follow on order of 36 - 44 Rafales (the only realistic and cost-affordable solution).

All of the above six points *COMBINED* can be had for cheaper than $20 billion (estimated cost - low end - of this MRCA contest).

You forgot another option: additional MKIs. Another couple of squadrons of MKIs would make up the numbers very well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 08:08

Cosmo_R wrote:Groundhog day
10 squadrons of MiGs retiring by 2022. HAL will produce 6 LCAs per year for 1 + squadron.l The GoI just don't get it. The Chinese do. There will be a frantic letter from Modi to Trump just as there was from Nehru to JFK when the PRC attacked in 1962.

Indian pols do not understand security.

Six aircraft?

HAL is well on her way to producing 16 aircraft a year by 2019. What are you talking about?

In a war, writing letters will do squat. In a war with China, India is on her own. F-16/F-18 or not. When China controls a good chunk of your debt (as in the case of America), the Amreekis will not risk it. A border conflict over Aksai Chin or Arunachal Pradesh or Doklam has little value to the Amreekis.

What are you hoping the letter to achieve, anyway? That Trump will send F-16s and F-18s for India to use? From where is the IAF going to qualified pilots to fly the F-16 or the F-18 to make anything of a meaningful difference in a quick and decisive war?

Perfect example of this is the *FIRST* Su-30MKI fatality on 30 April 2009. Wing Commander Pushpendra Singh Nara (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/20478) was not even qualified to be aboard the plane, but flew anyway and paid for it with his life. All pilots - in any air force - have to follow and complete a training syllabus, before they are qualified. Read the article below. Truly tragic.

Sukhoi crash: wrong pilot in right plane
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/su ... YNbcP.html

Equally important - like squadron shortage - is the pilot shortage. Even if LM or Boeing manage to deliver all 100 planes in a month, you need qualified pilots to fly them! Completing training syllabus' takes a significant amount of time. But none in the media will report this. All about shiny toys and where to waste taxpayers money.

You cannot expect to fully utilize the capabilities of a Lamborghini Aventador, if you have been driving an Ambassador your entire life

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 08:12

srin wrote:You forgot another option: additional MKIs. Another couple of squadrons of MKIs would make up the numbers very well.

You are correct. I forgot that. And with Point 7, still cheaper than $20 billion

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 08:37

Which is the *ONLY* combat aircraft in the IAF inventory that has a PBL (Performance Based Logistics) agreement?

That is not to say that Boeing or LM cannot do that for their respective offerings, but when you have one already in place....just saying

Govt begins process to procure 110 fighter jets for IAF for $9-13 billion
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 291_1.html

The vendor, along with the Indian SP/IPA, is required to propose a “performance-based logistics” (PBL) package to ensure that 75 per cent of the fighter fleet remains serviceable at all times, with each fighter flying 150 hours every year, for 10 years.

Vendors are also required to indicate approximate costing of the aircraft — all associated costs, a “comprehensive maintenance cost” including PBL costs for 10 years and cost of obsolescence management — to ensure spares and components remain available through the service life of the fighter.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 07 Apr 2018 08:52

The numbers quted in the press reports today on this latest RFI do not make sense to me:

$20 billion defence project: India kicks off process to procure 110 fighter jets for IAF

IAF on Friday issued a preliminary global tender or RFI (request for information) to acquire 110 fighter jets, of which 85% are to be built in India with a domestic strategic partner or production agency. The aviation majors have to submit their responses to the RFI, which also stipulates that 75% of the fighters will be single-seat jets, by July 3.

So, the twin-engine fighters (25% of 110) cannot be more than 28, out of which 85% = 24 fighters must be built in India.

Which company will set up a line to build only 24 fighters? Even if you combine it with the Navy's order of 57, it only adds up to 81 twin-engine fighters.

If it is F-18, then does the IAF want to have a new fighter type in its inventory with just 28 fighters?

The single-engine fighters will be minimum 82, out of which 85% = 68 are to be built in India.

Lockheed had said that they need a minimum order of 100 fighters to make it viable for them to shift their plant to India. For only 68 fighters, it is not viable.

I would say, just order 36 more Rafales, with more TOT/ offsets than the initial order.

For the SEF requirement, the only way to build up numbers quickly, is to do an FMS deal, and buy fully-built F-16s from the USAF stocks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2018 09:09

Rakesh wrote:Which is the *ONLY* combat aircraft in the IAF inventory that has a PBL (Performance Based Logistics) agreement?

That is not to say that Boeing or LM cannot do that for their respective offerings, but when you have one already in place....just saying

Govt begins process to procure 110 fighter jets for IAF for $9-13 billion
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 291_1.html

The vendor, along with the Indian SP/IPA, is required to propose a “performance-based logistics” (PBL) package to ensure that 75 per cent of the fighter fleet remains serviceable at all times, with each fighter flying 150 hours every year, for 10 years.

Vendors are also required to indicate approximate costing of the aircraft — all associated costs, a “comprehensive maintenance cost” including PBL costs for 10 years and cost of obsolescence management — to ensure spares and components remain available through the service life of the fighter.

PBL would make the aircraft very expensive buy as they will have to procure the spares in advance for 4-5 years and stock it up ofcourse vendors wont mind it.

Not sure if this will go at RFP stage and any final selection will see the light of the say $15 billion deal with TOT and Lic manuf plus PBL will be very expensive

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 07 Apr 2018 12:36

Kakkaji wrote:The numbers quted in the press reports today on this latest RFI do not make sense to me:

$20 billion defence project: India kicks off process to procure 110 fighter jets for IAF

IAF on Friday issued a preliminary global tender or RFI (request for information) to acquire 110 fighter jets, of which 85% are to be built in India with a domestic strategic partner or production agency. The aviation majors have to submit their responses to the RFI, which also stipulates that 75% of the fighters will be single-seat jets, by July 3.
So, the twin-engine fighters (25% of 110) cannot be more than 28, out of which 85% = 24 fighters must be built in India.

Which company will set up a line to build only 24 fighters? Even if you combine it with the Navy's order of 57, it only adds up to 81 twin-engine fighters.

If it is F-18, then does the IAF want to have a new fighter type in its inventory with just 28 fighters?

The single-engine fighters will be minimum 82, out of which 85% = 68 are to be built in India.

Lockheed had said that they need a minimum order of 100 fighters to make it viable for them to shift their plant to India. For only 68 fighters, it is not viable.

I would say, just order 36 more Rafales, with more TOT/ offsets than the initial order.

For the SEF requirement, the only way to build up numbers quickly, is to do an FMS deal, and buy fully-built F-16s from the USAF stocks.

You are misreading the RFI. Twin-seaters, not twin engine aircraft, form 25% of the order. So 75% will be single-seat versions of the same aircraft. So the RFI specifies about 16 aircraft from 110 to be flyaway from the OEM, while the rest are probably assembled under license with some "ToT".

That said, I feel this is Dassault's to lose. The RFI is probably tailor-made for it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 18:41

+108 Chinmay. Spot on!

Austin wrote:PBL would make the aircraft very expensive buy as they will have to procure the spares in advance for 4-5 years and stock it up ofcourse vendors wont mind it.

Not sure if this will go at RFP stage and any final selection will see the light of the say $15 billion deal with TOT and Lic manuf plus PBL will be very expensive

You are correct, but if that is what is indicated in the RFI...it will be easy to duplicate - the agreement - when Dassault wins. Cost is another factor and that is why I believe nothing close to 110 birds will arrive. When you factor unit cost + factory + base infrastructure + PBL + tools + spares + weapons, the cost will sky rocket - out of control - with 110 birds. Easier on the exchequer if you order another two squadrons worth and that reality will hit the MoD fairly soon. And if the MoD Babus have their wits about them, they can negotiate for the 57 birds for the Navy as well. As Chinmay said, this RFI is for Dassault to lose.

This is also a numbers game. I am not going to buy this argument that 110 fighters are needed urgently - an argument put forth by import lobbies in the media and on BRF - because that timeline cannot be met and 110 birds cannot be added in a 42 squadron strength ORBAT.

Su-30MKI ---> 15 squadrons
Mirage 2000 ---> 2.5 squadrons
MiG-29 ---> 3 squadrons
Jaguar ---> 6 squadrons
Rafale ---> 2 squadrons
Tejas Mk 1 ---> 2 squadrons

The above comes to 30.5 squadrons and will be the reality by 2022 (when all Rafale deliveries will be complete). I have retired all the MiG-21s - including the Bisons - from the above list. You add another two Su-30MKI squadrons + two Rafale squadrons and you are already up to 34.5 squadrons. If you continue production of Tejas Mk1 (83 on order as Mk1A) you can add another four squadrons, which will bring it up to 39 squadrons. All eight squadrons (Rafale, Su-30MKI and Tejas) doable by 2025, if ordered now.

I am sorry, where is the squadron shortage? Can someone tell me?

So this purchase is to appease which phoren country?

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 07 Apr 2018 18:48

Cosmo_R wrote:Groundhog day
10 squadrons of MiGs retiring by 2022. HAL will produce 6 LCAs per year for 1 + squadron.l The GoI just don't get it. The Chinese do. There will be a frantic letter from Modi to Trump just as there was from Nehru to JFK when the PRC attacked in 1962.

Indian pols do not understand security.

In the scenario guess which spare aircraft does the US have "in hundreds" to give? F 16. Seriously you cant just fly the aircraft, the pilots would need training and familiarization time.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 18:53

^^^ Saar, I already told him that. Waiting for him to respond

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 18:58

Posted by BRF Member arun

---------------------------------------------------

Austin wrote:Indian Air Force to buy 100 fighter planes to fill shortage in combat aircraft

Ramana Sir , highlights for you and can decide if you want to click the link

Air Force has already told the government that it is in a hurry to induct new planes.

Air Force is moving ahead with a plan under which it will invite bids from global aircraft manufacturers.

Plan is to acquire more than 100 planes for arresting the fall in squadron strength.

Expected to be worth over Rs 1.25 lakh crore

The complete Request for Information (RFI) for the purchase of 110 Fighters for the IAF, 85% of which are to made in India, 75% are to be single seater and 25% twin seaters.

Lots of nuggets of information in the RFI to mull over:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR PROCUREMENT OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR THE INDIAN AIR FORCE

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 18:59

Posted by BRF Member Philip

----------------------------------------

If one reads between the lines it may appear that efforts to ramp up LCA production are not achieving full results.Hundreds of MIGs are retiring v.soon.The situ is v.serious at this moment of Sino-Paki aggression in J&K and the N-East.

But even this new req. will take a few years to decide upon.Acquiring some extra nos. of aircraft in service from the OEMs the fastest way.I would've thought that the Rafale deal like that of the Jags and SU-30s earlier, came with immediate transfer of exg. aircraft from the country of origin to be replaced with new aircraft when deliveries started.Why this was not done in the case of the Rafales defeats me when - as is now acknowledged, that it was stupid to think that only 36 would be bought! If so then the whole deal is clouded in smoke.It could've openly been negotiated that options for an extra 36 at "X" cost before a cut-off date were part of the deal.

Is this entire exercise another charade to yet again select the Rafale or astonishingly yet another firang type for the IAF?! We must be the laughing stock of the world.Unable to clearly plan for the IAF's future reqs. One can only conclude that the "tail", vested interests are " wagging the dog" as far as the IAF reqs. are concerned.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 19:01

Posted by BRF Member Philip

---------------------------------------------------

The easiest way for hhe IAF and still the most cost-effective easy way to shore up numbers and retain capability is to ask for "more of the same", already in service.No long RFI, blah,blah, lengthy evaluation, selection with losers (US) crying - as in the MMRCA case, and another few years of protracted negotiations as in the Rafale.

Of the two med. aircraft in the inventory, only the MIG-29 and its latest TVC/ AESA MIG-35 are in production.Second- hand M2Ks may be available but the upgrade cost of an astonishing $50M a pop is affecting the upgrade of the 40- 50 we have becos of the spat between HAL and the IAF over labour costs, which will cost even more!

New MIG-29s are available at just around $30M.Almost the same cost as an LCA.Russia has offered us some in quick time, but it is unclear if these are from its own inventory or new build as 2 sqds were supposedly on order for its air force recently.Moreover, all 60-70 legacy 29s have been upgraded, each for just around $13M only.

Extra Jags can be built at low cost , armoured versions for the MIG-27 replacements for GA/CS duties as well as accelerating the upgrades of all 120, announced 4-5 yrs ago! Why the NDA regime did not go ahead with this long-awaited programme is a mystery.We've been waiting for this for over 2 air shows now!

Then there are extra MKIs which can be built to Super Sukhoi std. or even SU-35s if need be dispensing with one pilot.Over 70% of the bird is now from desi raw material.Only this aircraft is BMos capable, not even the twice as expensive Rafale! It therefore is another mystery why the Rafale is being lusted after so desperately.Even MP openly said the the MKI was an alternative to it. In the absence of a dedicated bomber type, MKIs will have to bear the burden of those duties, esp. at extended ranges.

Finally, the IAF will accept as many LCAs as can be built upto 240 at least for now.That by current prod. stds
is 8-10 years production.

Viewed from this angle, there is little need for yet another type go be chosen or even the Rafale selected again.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 19:02

Posted by BRF Member nam

--------------------------------------------

arun wrote: The complete Request for Information (RFI) for the purchase of 110 Fighters for the IAF, 85% of which are to made in India, 75% are to be single seater and 25% twin seaters.

This thing is beyond bizarre. Unless the RFI is fundamentally to force Rafale to reduce price and more workshare in India, I don't see why would another another jet win this one.

If anything other than Rafale wins, questions will be raised why Rafale won the last time, fundamentally proving the 36 buy as a scam!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Apr 2018 19:03

arun wrote:
Lots of nuggets of information in the RFI to mull over:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR PROCUREMENT OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR THE INDIAN AIR FORCE

Link does not work.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 07 Apr 2018 19:12

Arey yaar, one MRCA saga was enough for one lifetime. If the RFI is tailor made for Rafale, then we could have just approached them directly. If 110 is huge numbers for Rafale in terms of cost (highly likely), we can then split into 80 Rafales and 30 MKIs. What is with MII in this? MKIs, Tejas and Rafale will add upto 650+ jets in above scenario, of which only 150 odd would have been imported. So more than 75% of IAF's frontline fighter fleet would be MII. Even if Rafales aren't made in India. Think about the the costs reduction benefits by operating select type of planes.

What should be acquired from USA is probably few Supply Chain managers from Lockheed Martin's Forth Worth plant to increase Tejas's production rates.

arun · Post by **arun** » 07 Apr 2018 19:39

Rakesh wrote:
arun wrote:
Lots of nuggets of information in the RFI to mull over:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR PROCUREMENT OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR THE INDIAN AIR FORCE
Link does not work.

Danged thing seems to be session related and any link bombs the next time when uses it.
Guess will have to get there by a tedious process.
Go to : Clicky
1A. In the box “Tender Type” select : Open Tender and also
1B. In the box “Tender Reference Number” type in : AIRHQ/S 18180/25/20/3/Plans
1C. Hit Search
2. Click on the content appearing below the column “Title and Ref.No./Tender ID”
3. In the box headed “Tenders Documents” towards bottom of page click on “Download as Zip File”

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 Apr 2018 08:17

Rakesh wrote:Posted by BRF Member nam

--------------------------------------------
This thing is beyond bizarre. Unless the RFI is fundamentally to force Rafale to reduce price and more workshare in India, I don't see why would another another jet win this one.

If anything other than Rafale wins, questions will be raised why Rafale won the last time, fundamentally proving the 36 buy as a scam!

They're serving two different goals. The original MRCA ended up being a silver bullet fleet that valued performance over cost while this one is apparently more value focused.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2018 09:02

The circus continues its meandering course ... what can one say .,, all has been said

Some ppl are licking lips and waiting for change of govt in 2019

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Apr 2018 18:49

Posted by BRF Member Singha

------------------------------------------------

Rakesh wrote:From where do you the think the IAF got that mindset? It is not the IAF's job to build an industrial base. That is the GOI's job. What have they done? Where was the GOI these past 70+ years? The IAF's job is to defend the airspace and take the fight to the enemy. Job creation, industrial base, generating employment, screwdrivergiri, HAL's profitability, Adani or Tata's profit & loss statements, etc is not the responsibility of the IAF or the Air Chief

I am afraid such siloing is not exactly true. instead of everyone working separately, the end goal of incrementing CNP (composite national power) means sacrificing some things short or medium term for the long term and working as "one team".

because imported super weapons have a odd habit of breakdowns, slow service and errors just when you need them - like exocet for argentina.

if the end user is not willing to take domestic products not at par with worlds best, what is the use of GOI doing anything? the GOI is not going to fly any planes.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Apr 2018 18:51

Posted by BRF Member Cosmo_R

------------------------------------------------

Rakesh wrote:...It is not the IAF's job to build an industrial base. That is the GOI's job. What have they done? Where was the GOI these past 70+ years? The IAF's job is to defend the airspace and take the fight to the enemy. Job creation, industrial base, generating employment, screwdrivergiri, HAL's profitability, Adani or Tata's profit & loss statements, etc is not the responsibility of the IAF or the Air Chief.

Exactly!. I could agree with you more. When I said this six months ago, I was accused of being a troll. We do not have a MIC lobby that has inputs into what the IAF require. It is the job (not done) of the Council of Ministers advised by the MoD to construct scenarios and require the IAF to come up with resources required to meet the needs of those scenarios.

It has been a failure of GoI for 70 years that they cannot rouse themselves from 24x7x365 electioneering to meet their obligation to defend borders—a fundamental requirement of modern states.

I hope HAL can deliver 123 LCAs by 2025. Frankly, I don't think they can and the ~~Rickshaw~~ Raksha Mantri has figured out the same —hence this new panic over 110 single/twin/triple engined fighter tender. It's panic time.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Apr 2018 19:06

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Apr 2018 04:19

This panic is no use and I'd say totally misplaced considering the seriousness of all the stakeholders for the medium role reqmts.

Think Calm, and execute LCA Tejas third assembly lines while Mk2 gets the oomphed up specs solidified. AMCA is a given.. there is no escape from that program. There is no present danger as long as Tejas and MKI are the mainstays.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Apr 2018 07:38

Singha wrote:
Rakesh wrote:From where do you the think the IAF got that mindset? It is not the IAF's job to build an industrial base. That is the GOI's job. What have they done? Where was the GOI these past 70+ years? The IAF's job is to defend the airspace and take the fight to the enemy. Job creation, industrial base, generating employment, screwdrivergiri, HAL's profitability, Adani or Tata's profit & loss statements, etc is not the responsibility of the IAF or the Air Chief
I am afraid such siloing is not exactly true. instead of everyone working separately, the end goal of incrementing CNP (composite national power) means sacrificing some things short or medium term for the long term and working as "one team".

because imported super weapons have a odd habit of breakdowns, slow service and errors just when you need them - like exocet for argentina.

if the end user is not willing to take domestic products not at par with worlds best, what is the use of GOI doing anything? the GOI is not going to fly any planes.

Is that not the irony? Who is working towards a common goal? Politicians are only concerned about votes. Bureaucrats are only concerned about rules and maintaining their fiefdom. Does the end user have the final say in accepting domestic products or does the Govt in power? If you have a domestic product that is proven, then there is no need for another platform. When you remove the option of buying a foreign platform and all you are left with is adopting a local platform, then that is what will happen. Remove the option and you will end this.

What is even more ironic is the MoD is willing to spend billions on inducting another platform (and opening a production line for it), while little to nothing is done to improve the output of the domestic product. So when the Air Force states it needs fighters to build up force levels, questions that need to be raised are;

1) Can we not acquire a few more squadrons of the same platforms in (or soon to join) service? Is a new type really necessary?
2) If serviceability of current platforms are not up to desired levels, what steps are needed to be undertaken to improve them?
3) Can we not upgrade our current platforms to make them more potent i.e. MiG-29UPG, Mirage 2000-9, Jaguar Darin III, Super Sukhoi.
4) What steps are needed to improve pilot intake and training syllabus, so a greater sortie rate can be generated from a single plane?
5) Can we not invest in improving the production of Line 1 and Line 2 of the Tejas single-engined fighter?

Once we fulfill the above and if the air force *STILL* needs more fighters, then go buy whatever it is they need. But the Govt should take the initiative on this, after it is the Govt that is paying for this purchase. The Govt does not fly planes, buy they are certainly buying them. They have an equal stake in the Indian Air Force maintaining her force levels.

If the Tejas was not inducted into No 45 Squadron and the pilots in that squadron were not raving about the plane, I would buy your argument that the "end user is not willing to take domestic products, not at par with worlds best". But that is not the reality. Granted the Tejas is no Rafale, but is it vastly better than the plane it was designed to replace (MiG-21)? That answer is a definite YES.

Rather than the Govt/Bureaucrats ask the IAF's Planning Directorate to burn the midnight oil and come up with a new RFI - for buying 110 foreign fighters - they should ask the Planning Directorate the questions similar to the above. Why blame the teenager, when the parents themselves have no clue?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Apr 2018 07:39

Cosmo_R wrote:
Rakesh wrote:...It is not the IAF's job to build an industrial base. That is the GOI's job. What have they done? Where was the GOI these past 70+ years? The IAF's job is to defend the airspace and take the fight to the enemy. Job creation, industrial base, generating employment, screwdrivergiri, HAL's profitability, Adani or Tata's profit & loss statements, etc is not the responsibility of the IAF or the Air Chief.
Exactly!. I could agree with you more. When I said this six months ago, I was accused of being a troll. We do not have a MIC lobby that has inputs into what the IAF require. It is the job (not done) of the Council of Ministers advised by the MoD to construct scenarios and require the IAF to come up with resources required to meet the needs of those scenarios.

It has been a failure of GoI for 70 years that they cannot rouse themselves from 24x7x365 electioneering to meet their obligation to defend borders—a fundamental requirement of modern states.

I hope HAL can deliver 123 LCAs by 2025. Frankly, I don't think they can and the ~~Rickshaw~~ Raksha Mantri has figured out the same —hence this new panic over 110 single/twin/triple engined fighter tender. It's panic time.

But panicking is not going to solve anything Cosmo. Panicking will result in OEMs taking India for a ride. So perhaps a moment of introspection is required and the questions that the Govt really needs to ask are;

1) Can this purchase fulfill the IAF's squadron shortage in the timeframe needed?
2) When the RFI makes requirements that, "....the OEM should be willing to transfer design, development, manufacturing and repair expertise within India...", is that really doable? Which OEM is going to give you know how on how to an in-depth repair of their AESA radar? Or repair a turbofan? Let's not even talk about design & development of these two techs.
3) Are the funds available for such a purchase or are we going to get a rude awakening when negotiations with the L1 vendor actually begin, like it did during the first MMRCA contest? If that happens, do we buy a smaller number and restart the competition again?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Apr 2018 07:47

SaiK wrote:This panic is no use and I'd say totally misplaced considering the seriousness of all the stakeholders for the medium role reqmts.

Think Calm, and execute LCA Tejas third assembly lines while Mk2 gets the oomphed up specs solidified. AMCA is a given.. there is no escape from that program. There is no present danger as long as Tejas and MKI are the mainstays.

+108 SaiK. Think Calm and Carry On

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Apr 2018 12:44

Well out Adm,R! Add armoured and armed Hawk to the list and you get your GA/CS bird,more survivable than attack helos which will face the brunt of very heavy AAA fire.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 09 Apr 2018 12:45

Rakesh wrote:
SaiK wrote:This panic is no use and I'd say totally misplaced considering the seriousness of all the stakeholders for the medium role reqmts.

Think Calm, and execute LCA Tejas third assembly lines while Mk2 gets the oomphed up specs solidified. AMCA is a given.. there is no escape from that program. There is no present danger as long as Tejas and MKI are the mainstays.
+108 SaiK. Think Calm and Carry On

If HAL and Indian govt set their sights on it, then there is no reason why a minimum of 80 Tejas per year cannot be produced starting from financial year 2022-2023. Only caveat is that the executing team at HAL will have to be liberated from the shackles of CVC, CAG and other departmental procedures and guidelines, after the budget has been allocated.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Apr 2018 03:32

India’s air force just started a $19.5 billion fighter program — sort of
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04 ... m-sort-of/

“This RFI only outlines the fighter’s requirements for the service but there is no firm commitment from the government and it is not a firm procurement proposal,” one MoD official told Defense News.

Former MoD financial advisor Amit Cowshish added the the “RFI is meant only to obtain all manner of information from the prospective suppliers so as to make out a firm procurement proposal based on the feedback. It entails no commitment from the ministry’s side even to issue the tender, much less sign a contract.”

“The ToT requirement is very exhaustive and also includes ToT of avionics, electronic warfare systems including missile approach warner, active electronically scanned array radar, engine and also for setting up the manufacturing unit in India,” retired IAF air marshal and defense analyst Daljit Singh said. “It is indeed a tall order for the OEM to provide so much of ToT.”

“The extent of ToT sought through the new RFI is completely unrealistic,” said Vijainder K Thakur, a retired IAF squadron leader and defense analyst. “The OEM will demand a lot of money for the ToT pushing up unit costs to unrealistic levels, limiting our ability to buy more.”

“This RFI seems to be [looking for] a real-time super technology demonstrator rather than proven operational fighter,” an industry insider added. “It will be impossible for any foreign OEM to meet all tasks and this program has no merit unless IAF comes out with a well-defined tender for fighters in future.”

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Apr 2018 04:01

The more outlandish the requirements, the more likely home grown products have a chance to succeed. Nothing in the market fits the budget that IAF has. Tejas Mk2/AMCA/PAKFA and more numbers of current type it will be.. All this will continue to allow our military to inspect and understand where the battlefield really is.

Please add more requirements only and then order home grown products with the budget you have. Can't go shopping at Saks fifth avenue with walmart budget!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Apr 2018 05:48

Good analogy Cybaru!

Now here is a yet another twist to the MRCA saga....this is like a soap opera

$15-billion Indian Air Force Tender: Foreign firms look to partner HAL
http://www.financialexpress.com/defence ... l/1127580/

With the Indian Air Force (IAF) issuing the requests for information (RFI) for purchase of 110 fighter aircraft at an estimated total cost of $15 billion, the race has intensified among three major aerospace companies — US-based Boeing, European firm Eurofighter and Russia’s Mikoyan — to tie up with an Indian partner. State-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) could be favoured by these global giants for a tie-up, sources indicated.

^^^ so much for generating employment

What makes it even more complex is the depth and scope of the transfer of technology (ToT) asked for in the fighter aircraft RFI. If an OEM is not willing to meet these requirements, it will face disqualification and will not be considered at the RFP stage, point out industry sources. ToT requirements also mandate that indigenous unilateral upgrade capabilities are made available to the Indian SP.

^^^ which OEM is going to give what the RFI states?

As reported by FE, the RFI document states that “the MoD intends to procure Fighter Aircraft for the IAF which is to be Made in India. The proposal is to procure approximately 110 fighter aircraft (about 75% single-seat and rest twin-seat aircraft). The procurement should have a maximum of 15% aircraft in flyaway state and the remaining 85% aircraft will have to be made in India by a Strategic Partner/Indian Production Agency (SP/IPA).”

^^^ I got money riding on HAL bagging this versus a strategic partner. That is *IF* this deal ever reaches fruition.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Apr 2018 06:22

Here is the *ENTIRE* request for information (RFI) document from the official Indian Air Force website...

http://www.indianairforce.nic.in/sites/ ... rcraft.pdf

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Apr 2018 06:57

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 3710532609 ---> Ironically, Rafale is now the cost effective choice in MMRCA 2.0

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 2275941376 ---> It is basic common sense. India has already paid for the highly complex task of inducting a new advanced fighter into the IAF, to imagine it would have to start from scratch again and that this would be anything short of a criminal waste of resources is laughable.

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 7943505920 ---> This is $4 billion (minimum) every other aircraft OEM would have to quote and IAF would have to pay to get any jet other than Rafale at this point. And unit cost sold to India is $105 million, what other fighter that matches it in performance is going to cost less?

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 2141660171 ---> For those claiming Rafale is too expensive for “MMRCA 2.0”, let’s remember that it is in the unique position to be able to come at the specs the IAF requires IMMEDIATELY with ZERO additional expense. Through base infrastructure and Indian specific enhancements $4bn already spent.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Apr 2018 07:38

The know-how and the know-why will be something that Saab and MiG will likely be the most amenable to providing.

Strangely enough, the Gripen E looks like a strong contender looking at the requirements that have been given the RFI. Of course, a lot can change from RFI to RFP, but on the surface of it, Saab execs will not be unhappy looking at some of the questions that have been posted

3. Vendors are to define aspect and relevant radar frequency bands for calculation of Radar Cross Section as follows:
(i) Clean configuration.
(ii) Air to surface strike (2 PGMs+1 Designator Pod+2 BVRs +2xA4Ms + Ext Fuel)
(iii) Air to Air configurations (4 BVRs+2 A4Ms+Ext Fuel
4. Can the aircraft fly in excess of 10 hr with Air to Air Refuelling (AAR)? How many AAR engagements would be required to accomplish this duration of flight? Specify flight conditions.
5. Are Operational Turn Round Servicing (Op TRS) timings inclusive of rearming, refueling and replenishment in cleared Air to surface strike and Air Defence role with one team, of not more than five technicians per aircraft, with any combination of weapon / reconnaissance load?

All possible with all of the contenders since they all have OBOGS and can manage to stay aloft for 10 hrs with multiple aerial refueling engagements. The number 5 for the technicians is somewhat strange..never seen the IAF ever mention a doctrine of what number of technicians it aims at having turn around a jet..whereas Saab has always touted the "5 conscripts can turn around a Gripen" ease of the Gripen C. Will have to be demonstrated on the Gripen E, but should be eminently possible.

6. Does the aircraft engine/s have capability to start at an altitude of 3300m AMSL (IRA) without any modifications/adjustments or any special starting procedure?

Rafale, MiG-35, Eurofighter, F-16 IN and Super Hornet will not need to demonstrate this again if they did it the last time around.

7. Is de-fuelling the aircraft possible from a single point without the need for extra ground support equipment?

Interesting. Does anyone know which of the jets can do this? This is something that is maintenance related, not related to turning around an airplane for another mission.

8. Is the aircraft integrated with a NATO Standard buddy refueling pod? What is the minimum refuelling rate from this pod?

Why NATO standard buddy refueling pod? the IN has MiG-29Ks that can carry out buddy refueling using the Zvezda PAZ-1MK pod, which isn't NATO Standard. the Super Hornet has been known to carry out buddy refueling, but not the other contenders. Never seen one on the Typhoon, Rafale or F-16. Never on the Gripen C either since it is a light aircraft and needs every liter it can carry for itself. Gripen E may be capable of it, but I doubt that is a requirement so far.

9. (a) Does the aircraft have a glass cockpit concept and does it have Multi-Functional Display (MFD) or Large Area Display (LAD) concepts?

Super Hornet and Gripen E have touted this as a feature that can be added if customers desire. FAB will get its locally developed LAD for its own Gripen Es. But for the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16 and Typhoon, MFD is all there is.

15. Is there a provision of an integral IRST on the aircraft and is it capable of carrying a laser range finder which could be used for both air-to-air and air-to-ground applications?
16. (ii) Does the HMSD have the ability to slave all aircraft sensors to pilot(s) line of sight (LOS) and cue the pilot?
(iii) Is there a provision to record HMSD view?
17. Can the aircraft MPDS (Mission Planning and Debriefing System) system be integrated with existing unified mission planning system of IAF? Specify possibility of providing ICD and requirements for integration.
18. Is it feasible to integrate
(a) Panoramic cameras, targeting pods and EO/IR sensors for Recon Pod (Recce Pod).
(b) Laser Designator Pod (LDP).
(c) ECM and ESM pods.
(d) Buddy Refuelling pod.
(e) Stand Off Jammer

All of the contenders will either have these equipment integrated or in the works, except for the buddy refueling pod, which will need to be integrated. IRST, HMDS, EW Jammer, ECM and LDP pods are there on all types.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Apr 2018 11:45

Rakesh wrote:India’s air force just started a $19.5 billion fighter program — sort of
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04 ... m-sort-of/

I think the commentators are shooting from the hip here. Especially the last guy who says its for tech demo. This is only RFI. One would likely put extensive questions in RFI, much more than actually intended to be appearing in final SQR/tender. RFI does not necessarily tells us that all that is in there is required by IAF in the end. Its most likely that they are just probing the waters to see feasibility. How would you know if something is possible or not or how much it will cost unless you ask the OEMs..? Based on the RFI responses SQRs will be finalized and RFP will be issued.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Apr 2018 12:05

"....all manner of information..." Ye Gods! So the MOD wants encyclopaedic knowledge of all fighters that are not larger than twin-engined medium weight birds before an RFP is sent out.What have they done with the tonnes of paper on the MMRCA deal? Surely there is enough there or is that info now outdated even if the contenders are the same?!

Once that has been accumulated, the failed SSLC experts in the MOD , peons and the like will discuss in the cantina the merits and de- merits of the contenders on behalf of their babu bosses ,fast asleep in their cabins. The babus after a suitable period of time, deliberating upon the issue, like judges in an HC, will "reserve their judgement", finally saying that anything is possible if the aircraft is filled with enough "fuel", if you get my point.

By this time enough pollution in Delhi would've delayed the decision long enough for it to be overtaken by new developments in aeronautic tech. and a demand only for a 5th-gen bird will happen!

PS: Knowing the huge price of Raffys, the competition is sure to undercut it as the Raffy can't give too low a discount since it would open a Pandora's box on the cost of the deal.Who knows.We may have both the Raffy and Typhoon in IAF service .