MRCA News and Discussion

[PratikDas]

Man with that kind of money ( $10 billion ) we can comfortably fund LCA and MCA program , money for housing and funding for Defence forces personal and their children and provide life saving equipment for soldiers engaged COIN operation.

But no the IAF is fascinated with the best foreign toys available out there and the best fighter and AESA that money can buy all in the hope to " Touch the Sky with Glory "

Austin, make no mistake - there is plenty of money to invest in the things you've mentioned over and above the $10 billion allocated for the MRCA if there is a popular will to do so. India has $262 billion in foreign exchange reserves today.

But where is the public hue and cry in support of increased domestic spending and improved conditions for our defence forces? The bottom line is that the Indian voter does not care. It took an event like 26/11 for the nation to question why we didn't have regional NSG units. It was an election year and Uncle told the world that we were grossly unprepared so the Centre delivered. This is actually not amusing at all but question the selfishness of the Indian voter, not the IAF. When have we the people, not the speech mongering politicians, ever made an election issue out of the welfare and preparedness of the hundreds of thousands that constitute the Indian defence forces? When a decision is made in favour of our forces a decision will automatically be made in favour of the Indian defence industry because only domestic enterprise can be cost effective at those volumes.

[JaiS]

Captor-E brochure

[nrshah]

On the topic of the MRCA, the ideal way to go would have been to select a vendor which would agree to partner us for a next line of aircraft, something like the MCA on a risk sharing basis............
.........dont think either LM or Boeing or Dassault would agree to that - but would be a better option from a long term MIC development perspective.

I agree with you. However, my only difference will be regarding Dassault not agreeing to do it. I think France is the only country which does not have any 5th Gen fighter programme. Whereas many countries in EU will get F 35, France does not seem to get it going by its history of not using American Fighter aircrafts.

Once all other countries start inducting 5th gen aircrafts, France will face the need to have one. Joining India will be best option considering both countries will be having sizable order as it will become mainstay for next 4 decades.

It might have been a better way to develop India's MIC, but the point of the MRCA was to fulfill an "immediate" need for declining squadron strength in the IAF as older aircraft were phased out.

I understand Somnath is not saying not to go for MRCA, but he is saying that we should opt for the one who can partner us on MCA / NGFA on risk sharing basis

- Nitin

[Katare]

India doesn't have capabilities to produce an MRCA. It must be bought from outside to meet the operational readiness of IAF to meet national security threats as assessed by govt/IAF.


Developing indigenous MIC is a worthy goal that needs to be pursued with vigor and persistence but it has to be secondary to the immediate national security needs. MIC can’t be developed to the first world level in vacuum; it has to wait for the civilian industrial complex to catch up to make any meaningful impact.

[JaiS]

Several posts moved to the Nukkad thread.

[somnath]

I am a bit puzzled by the rationale of "immediate requirements" w.r.t the MRCA. What kind of "immediacy" lends itself to a years-long evaluation process of every single available platform in the world, have an entry-ticket tech requirement (AESA) that is many years away for most vendors, in fact nearly a decade, and a simultaeneous expensive MLU of all existing legacy platforms (Mig27/29, M2K, Jag). What started off as a requirement for 40-50 more M2Ks now dons the mantle of a "futuristic" programme, not an immediate gap filler.

In that context, a risk sharing arrangement with a vendor for a follow on aircraft probably dovetails more into the "perceived" objective. None of our current programmes are on a risk sharing basis (not including the FGFA/PAKFA which seems to exist more in discussions than either in hard dollar terms, at least for India) - LCA, MCA are both projects run on "sole risk of India", even if there are collaborations from foreign vendors on specific tech. Very few aircraft programmes today are developed on "sole risk" basis - even the JSF programme has multiple "risk sharers".

Given the fact that we are splashing so much cash on this purchase, it would have been worthwhile to get the vendor for a joint follow-on programme. It transfers tech more robustly, and also gives our knowledge base an immediate jumpstart (especially on things like single crystal blades, engines, radars etc)...

A relevant example (not the same, but relevant) in India is that of the Fiat-Tata alliance. The Tatas realised quickly that it would be difficult for them to develop models all in-house at a pace set by the global majors. They spent a lot of money in buying design inputs from Fiat, but at the same time got Fiat into a JV with them in India for Fiat's India ops. So they were not just spending money as a customer, they got Fiat into a "risk sharing" arrangement for posterity. Now, Fiat was struggling in India and therefore needed a boost which the Tatas provided - but thats the broad idea..

[NRao]

"Immediate" for IAF is not the same as "immediate" for MoD, which is not the same for ............

Immediate fro IAF was some years back and by now we would have M2K line in India and perhaps even the first 20 flying.

[Austin]

This crap of immediate needs is spread by IAF to create a sense of urgency and panic , MOD know whats actually urgent and then sits on the file ....Politician sees it as an opportunity to get more bang from the deal.

When ever this is a real sense of urgency the defence forces go for a single vendor deal supported by babus and netas.

[somnath]

In fact all "immediate" stuff typically goes through on single vendor basis..C130, Barak, MRSAM, Tungushka, P8I - the numbers of single vendor deals is quite staggering...and most of them were the really "urgent" ones...

I dont think that the MRCA is really construed to be an "immediate", gap filler type of programme - if it were so dire we would have wrapped up some deals on older M2ks, qatari for example by now....It is, in the "policy making" circles IMO taken to be a programme to access key technologies on a range of things - radar, engines, datalinks, EW, munitions......It makes so much more sense therefore to go with someone who can really "value add" in a follow-on domestic programme..Its just too obvious....

Maybe thats really the case? Maybe the real negotiations will happen in terms of next gen engine tech, AESA technology transfers and possibly a co-development of the MCA? who knows!

[Austin]

Yeah .....with the nice model they came with for the MCA with so main traits of a 5th gen fighter they better co-develop it or risk share it with an experienced partner so that its delivered on time and within budget.

Or else the good looking MCA model will be a perfect case of Biting more than what they can chew.

Realistically speaking the only country with some real practical hands on experience in developing a 5th Gen fighter is US or Russia.

[sunilUpa]

This crap of immediate needs is spread by IAF to create a sense of urgency and panic , MOD know whats actually urgent and then sits on the file ....Politician sees it as an opportunity to get more bang from the deal.

When ever this is a real sense of urgency the defence forces go for a single vendor deal supported by babus and netas.

Errr which category does the Artillery procurement fall in to? and the Submarine?

[Austin]

Errr which category does the Artillery procurement fall in to? and the Submarine?

Any defence procurement may arise of genuine need , at the same time those needs can be stretched and bent in consent of all three players ( MOD/Chief/Govt of the day ) so that individual , institution can gain from it.

Though all this policy and needs are made in the four walls of North/South/ block and is so called Top Secret and we need not know coz they know better , Junta can see and cannot be fooled.

If the idea of MMRCA was to quickly stop the falling squadron strength and if IAF made it clear post Kargil that it needed numbers as per its projections to raise squad strength and gave its clearence for 126 Mirages , why was the deal screwed in the name of single vendor.

Haven't deal taken before and will take after MMRCA involving single vendor and was multibillion dollar deal ?

It was quite clear to IAF/MOD/babus that this deal could be stretched and it is an opportunity to make most from it , by bringing up single vendor and rules as it suited them.

The Artillery needs are genuine and has been well documented , but in the name of Bofors ghost they dont want to take a decision , any way there is no shortage of deal to make gains.

The submarine deal will be stretched out as well , its a tender and it will take time ....Scorpene was more or less a single vendor deal.

[Kailash]

May be MMRCA is a credit card with which we want to shop for technology. But...

What about operational readiness of IAF? MCA is something still on paper and MRCA is something which must have started being inducted at this time frame. Suppose countries are not willing to part with technology, what is the point prolonging the MRCA selection and induction ??

MRCA is big, lot of countries need the money and most of them dont have a 5th gen aircraft yet.But...Even so, India can not force technology transfer. We need aircrafts more that the west needs the money. IMHO, I dont see India having much leverage. A prolonged discussion may push IAF to a sorry state - not to mention the cost escalations and arm-twisting as time goes by, as IAF grows more desparate...

[somnath]

May be MMRCA is a credit card with which we want to shop for technology. But...

What about operational readiness of IAF? MCA is something still on paper and MRCA is something which must have started being inducted at this time frame. Suppose countries are not willing to part with technology, what is the point prolonging the MRCA selection and induction ??

MRCA is big, lot of countries need the money and most of them dont have a 5th gen aircraft yet.But...Even so, India can not force technology transfer. We need aircrafts more that the west needs the money. IMHO, I dont see India having much leverage. A prolonged discussion may push IAF to a sorry state - not to mention the cost escalations and arm-twisting as time goes by, as IAF grows more desparate...

Not really true..the MIC of a lot of countries are facing a huge paradigm shift, especially in the "platinum coated" areas like combat aircraft as money becomes harder to come by in a different age...Especially true even for vendors like LM/Boeing that have follow on projects, as the follow on projects themselves are facing big cuts...

NO ONE has a 5th gen aircraft yet, even the JSF/Raptor is some way from being operational in any meaningful manner. the shift from one gen to another is a question of two things - one, what datum level of tech you start from, and two, what kind of funding you manage to provide. All the vendors in the MRCA contract have a base tech experience of "4ish" generation - their ability to jump to the next level will be a question of how much funding they get. And funding is a question of potential "order" at the end of the tunnel..That is where India's attractiveness comes in...If we have a set demand for (say) 100 5th gen aircraft, and we are paying up 10 billion cash for a 4th gen today, it makes a very powerful combination for a vendor to tie-up with us for the 5th gen project. Adding in the "home demand" of the vendor with India's demand will make for attractive economic logic for the new project, topped up by the imediate cash for the legacy platform..

The problem is that some of the vendors like LM/Boeing have existing 5th gen projects with risk sharing by other countries - India becomes a late entrant in such a scheme. However, some of the others like Gripen and Mig will be more open, maybe even Dassault...

[NRao]

MRCA is a social networking tool.

BR is an example.

[k prasad]

The aircraft would go to Bangalore for “performance, systems and humidity trials, to Jaisalmer for hot weather and weapon trials, and to Leh for high altitude and cold weather trials.”

Well then... we jingos need to get our acts together, and start applying for leave now itself to catch these beauties in action! I'm sure there will be amazing snaps to be lapped up.

He said that initially, IAF was looking at only 126 aircraft as per the RfP but an increase in the number of aircraft was likely. The RfP has a 50 per cent option clause, that is, IAF could buy another 63 aircraft in future without any escalation.

Hmm... makes sense, given the timeframe of service till 2060, the need to ensure more bang for the buck, the retirement of all other strike aircraft, and most importantly, the increased attention on China...

I wouldn't be surprised if we have Naval people at the evaluation. I do think that given the increased level of maritime patrol and strike, a good naval aircraft will be an important criterion, especially if you look at it in the backdrop of IAF having to stave off pressure from the Naval Air Wing for request for increased resources.

Then again, you can bet that the DDM will pull and distort this simple sentence to grotesque proportions.

The initial value for 126 aircraft with two years of spares and maintenance is estimated at around USD 10 billion. It would be the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure periodic upgrades and serviceability for up to 40 years.

Hmm.... 2 years of spares + fly away cost + initial starting costs = 10 bn.... wonder how much we'll end up spending on these birds over their lifetime... any expert has calculations???

Asked how would the IAF evaluate the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) requirement that is mandatory but not yet available on board some of the aircraft, the Air Chief said that the trial template is common for all, without deviation, and to be selected, an aircraft would have to meet the requirements in the RfP.

“A very comprehensive and detailed trial plan and methodology has been formulated by the Air HQ for the complete evaluation of platforms being offered. This includes testing the performance of all systems including the AESA radar. The same template would be used to evaluate all the offered aircraft and systems.”

No details at all... absolute secrecy on how it'd be tested... only that it would be thorough and impartial!! Interesting...

AESA status on the Birds:

Clear:
- F-16 - in service
- F-18 - in service
- Rafale - Flown on Rafale - Being Tested - ready for trials

Unclear:
- Mig-35 - flown and undergoing testing
(I'm very skeptical abt the Mig-35 status - there is only 1 true prototype, so how can they bring 2 or 3 to the trials??)
- Gripen - has been integrated on Viggen, but will fly on Gripen (that too a demo model) only by this year end at earliest. Given that IAF wants the final versions only for trials and will not accept changes, wonder how they can solve that problem.
- Typhoon - On and off - they may have a prototype radar ready, but the upgrade is yet to come to paper even... EF themselves have said no AESA till 2014.

I guess that EF will find it tough to stay in the race, especially if Rafale comes with a pretty package (Kaveri-eco integration on MMRCA rafales???), esp since it will have a more powerful engine, the SPECTRA suite, a nice AESA (with source codes as well, and few or no khan parts) and a hell of a pedigree. Gripen may also find it tough to stay, but for the rest, its anyones guess, IMO.

I think it means that the IAF has given up on the LCA.

Different class, different capabilities, different requirements... no overlap. Plus, we are so short on numbers that we need all the aircraft we can get. Even after getting MRCA, there will be room for around 200 LCAs at least (240 Su-30 + 130 MRCA + 130 FGFA + 200 LCA = 700 a/c = 38 fighter sqns).

The present doctrine alone requires arnd 700 aircraft. There is space for all, and more, given our future anti-china requirements.

P.S... some links

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 042508.xml
http://www.janes.com/info/idr/articles/ ... cures.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... hance.html

[NRao]

AWST :: June 22, 2009 :: "Detecting Progress":

The latest series of tests for the X-band Zhuk-AE, which began last month, are examining radar range performance against targets in both air-to-air and air-to-surface modes, says Yuri Guskov, Phazotron's chief designer. A series of trials that concluded at the end of 2008 sonfirmed the stability of the radar's design and performance in the basic identification and tracking of air-to-air and air-to-surface targets.

This confirms that there is much work ahead for the RUian AESA.

Zhuk prototypes have a smaller antenna array than intended for the prodcution standard of the radar. The test systems have an array diameter of 600mm (23.6in) populated by 680 T/R modlues. Phazotron executives cite the limited space in the MiG-35 prototype's nose section as the limiting factor in the array size.

The prototype is capable of detecting and tracking 30 targets with a radar cross section comparable to the MiG-29's at range in excess of 150 Km (93 mi.).

The production radar will have a laerger antenna array. This one is intended to be 700mm., with 1,064 T/R modules. Guskov expects this to increase the range to 280-300 Km.

8-9 months to assemble the production radar.

So, here too the real radar is not even ready for the MRCA.

The problem with the RUian AESA was "had to overcome issues related to the development and manufacture of teh T/R modules".

So, for the MRCA trials most companies will be behind the curve, as far as AESA goes, it looks like.

[SaiK]

- Typhoon - On and off - they may have a prototype radar ready, but the upgrade is yet to come to paper even... EF themselves have said no AESA till 2014.

I guess that EF will find it tough to stay in the race, especially if Rafale comes with a pretty package (Kaveri-eco integration on MMRCA rafales???), esp since it will have a more powerful engine, the SPECTRA suite, a nice AESA (with source codes as well, and few or no khan parts) and a hell of a pedigree. Gripen may also find it tough to stay, but for the rest, its anyones guess, IMO.

>>>>>>>>>>>????????????????????

May be not totally related - but European radars are getting better

[SaiK]

India, U.S. ‘close’ to finalising end user pact

K.V. Prasad
The process could end by the time Hillary arrives in July
India is opposed to the “on-site verification” clause

Applicability of future laws on the agreement is another concern

NEW DELHI: India and the United States are “pretty close” to finalising a standardised End User Verification Agreement that could be appended to all pacts for sensitive military procurements that New Delhi makes from Washington.

The process could end by the time U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives here next month.

The forward thrust in the negotiations came during the visit of U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones to India.

The Defence Ministry held a series of discussions, including a delegation-level interaction on Friday.

Informed sources told The Hindu that now the draft of the text was down to “one or two words.”

Serious reservations
India had, in the past, expressed serious reservations to the “on-site verification” clause and was apprehensive of the applicability of future laws to the standardised document that both countries would agree upon.

The U.S had been citing laws that the State Department had to follow in cases of foreign military sales containing sensitive technology. This required verification that the equipment was being used for the purpose it was procured.

In the case of other countries, the sources pointed out, New Delhi gave an undertaking that took care of such requirements.

On-site verification, a touchy subject in national politics, was being worded in a fashion so that the choice of venue would be mutually decided upon, that too on specific issues and not in regular periodic sweeps, the sources said.

Access to defence bases
India was not keen on giving access to foreign inspectors to defence bases where some of the equipment procured would be placed.

For instance, in the case of the Boeing business jets that India procured for VIP travel, high-technology and sensitive equipment on board was offered to be removed and shown at a convenient location.

The other ticklish issue was to ensure that once both sides agreed on a standardised text, it should be frozen and not subjected to changes citing amendments to the existing or enactment of fresh U.S. laws.

It is suggested that changes in the standardised text would be applicable only if both sides agreed to it.

In other words, the element of unilateral applicability by the U.S was sought to be protected, the sources said.

Once the standardised text was agreed upon by both sides, it would have to be cleared by the executive on both sides. Then it could be appended to future military sales by the U.S.

This standardised text would do away with the need to negotiate a stand-alone agreement whenever defence procurement was made from the U.S.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/27/stories ... 881000.htm

getting closer... almost there.. executive clearances is a matter of few pasta strings.

[NRao]

The U.S had been citing laws that the State Department had to follow in cases of foreign military sales containing sensitive technology. This required verification that the equipment was being used for the purpose it was procured.

The US certainly cannot prevent India from using any product against Pakistan. That is THE PRIMARY reason to buy a F-1X.

[SaiK]

The US certainly can prevent India to an extent from using any product from any nation supplied to us against any country with their muscle power. For example Kargil.. we could not cross the yellow sea.

But then again, that is largely because of ABV's SD tolerance limit.. and there was this when the pakis went too close to being nuked, the chinese had to give up, and a big straight warning came from the khans, that they can't control this anymore, and the threshold has been nearing to cross the sea.

Now, within those limits that will happen in the future, is my guess, sure the khans will apply breaks by all means to ensure, they get dual sales order both from desh and bidesh folks, within the all encompassing longterm CRE program, by engaging in reduced price soyabean missiles, weapons and fighters.

It can't be khan, if ain't to do these constricting ops to the benefit of sale, and do a cycle of flip-flops to make sure the sales continue to happen. btw, just blew out of proportion under the GUBO act. /sorry

[Mahendra]

But then again, that is largely because of ABV's SD tolerance limit.. and there was this when the pakis went too close to being nuked, the chinese had to give up, and a big straight warning came from the khans, that they can't control this anymore, and the threshold has been nearing to cross the sea.

Sire!

Who was close to nyoo-king Bakis?
The Chinese gave up?
???? relax dude

[SaiK]

george khakha was very explicit., and i don't have to say it, for any correlations of unintended exposure of classified information. pakis were near the face of extinction had the kargil war crossed the thresholds. it came very close. /ot. hence, within those limits of our thresholds, any khan politics can play. we are vulnerable since the deal, is what i am saying.

advantage the khans, when we all like to enjoy the linguini soup.

btw, yes the chinese gave up support to pakis during the period of withdrawal back to paki barracks from ya-allah-pakiban suite in the kargil ranges.

[BajKhedawal]

X posting from my own post in SU-30 dhaga:

Small mention of Flanker in July ’09 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Flanker show as a threat in Air-to-Air defense.

F-35C Lightning II projected to defend aircraft carriers against SU-30 Flankers.

Don't Sink My Battleship: 5 Ways to Defend a Supercarrier

Threat Su-30 Flanker: Russian-made airplanes have long been designed to attack carrier groups. The Su-30 can fire barrages of missiles to overwhelm an aircraft carrier’s defenses. In 2011 the Russians plan to export an upgraded version called the Super Flanker

Defense F-35C Lightning II: When it comes to defending the airspace around a carrier, the F-35C is expected to carry the load for the Navy. The stealth airplane is made to kill foes before being seen. However, it is not an agile, cannon-equipped dogfighter like the F-18A Super Hornet, which it will replace in 2015.

[Shameek]

^^ Why in the MRCA thread?

[Jamal K. Malik]

Air force compensates farmer for hen massacre
http://www.thelocal.se/19938/20090608/
Now, JAS Gripen a/c is proven for massacre(atleast hen)

[SKrishna]

Shiv aroor on Supercruise for MRCA tender

Looks like IAF is really sold on supercruise! Could the gurus enlighten on the pros and cons of supercruise?

[Drevin]

^^ Why in the MRCA thread?

[KrishG]

Shiv aroor on Supercruise for MRCA tender

Looks like IAF is really sold on supercruise! Could the gurus enlighten on the pros and cons of supercruise?

No bidder in MMRCA contract can super-cruise with a meaningful weapon-load.

[chiru]

No bidder in MMRCA contract can super-cruise with a meaningful weapon-load.

true saar but any aircraft will not be able to do so ... unless it has internal weapons bay or a really TFTA engine and fuel tank

the drag created by weapons and pylons will not allow supercruise to be an economical option unless the iaf sends its planes only with guns so the plane can supercruise

[Rahul M]

MRCA is a social networking tool.

BR is an example.

pearls of wisdom !

[Rahul M]

Shiv aroor on Supercruise for MRCA tender

Looks like IAF is really sold on supercruise! Could the gurus enlighten on the pros and cons of supercruise?

No bidder in MMRCA contract can super-cruise with a meaningful weapon-load.

but it can run like hell on the way back, no ??

[Austin]

Only Eurofighter has demonstrated sustained supercruise capability with 2 drop tanks and all A2A missile , it did a Mach 1.2 on dry thrust.

Supercurise is a good to have requirement , not a death wish , among the many that IAF has for MMRCA

[Sumeet]

for MRCA [in order of highest to lowest priority IMHO]:

1) Reliable supplier
2) High Availability
3) AESA + BVR like Meteor + good array of Air to Surface weapons
4) Access to radar source code
5) Access to engine technology
6) Integrated Avionics Architecture
7) Integrated Defensive Suite

[Singha]

as Austin said, EF can surpercruise with the 4 conformal bvr aams. but I believe its speed would be less than the mach1.3 which the raptor is allegedly capable of ?

anyway even a sustained Mach1.1 without afterburner represents a substantial advantage in loiter time when racing to a intercept or missile firing attack position.

in 10mins , 160km could be covered without wasting much fuel. enough to
say lift off from pune and reach a position near mumbai.

[anmol]

Gurus, Brazil is also going to order fighter aircraft. Wouldn't it be a good idea to combine MRCA and Brazil's F-X2 future fighter program. Our requirements are similar, we also have similar economy and also don't trust Khans too much.

If we do this we will have better bargaining power, and this will also bring two BRIC members closer. It will also help Embraer and HAL to work together and share some production of the aircraft. This dependence will help when we will go to war, due to this Brazil will have more incentive to stand with us. Khan uncle will also find hard to lecture two big economies if we buy from them. We could also partner them in other programs like we do with Russia and they can share costs and technology. We may also be able to deter them to sell stuff to Porkistan.

And we will make them our ally before China does, so why aren't we doing this ?

[Singha]

because we are indecisive enough on our own without involving yet another Govt prone to fits of strategic miscalculation.

their threats are very different and can be efficiently handled with stuff like GripenNG or Mirage2K-9 or F-16blk52.

PLAAF >> any southern american hostile

they can easily go for a cheaper a/c already in service like F-solah

[anmol]

because we are indecisive enough on our own without involving yet another Govt prone to fits of strategic miscalculation.

their threats are very different and can be efficiently handled with stuff like GripenNG or Mirage2K-9 or F-16blk52.

PLAAF >> any southern american hostile

they can easily go for a cheaper a/c already in service like F-solah

Why didn't I thought of that before ?

Well Singha Sir, thank you for enlightening me.

[Sumeet]

Only Eurofighter has demonstrated sustained supercruise capability with 2 drop tanks and all A2A missile , it did a Mach 1.2 on dry thrust.

Supercurise is a good to have requirement , not a death wish , among the many that IAF has for MMRCA

for how long did it supercruise at that speed with that load ? i want to know if it can really super cruise for long enough to make it operationally useful.

[viveks]

for how long did it supercruise at that speed with that load ? i want to know if it can really super cruise for long enough to make it operationally useful.

hmmmmmmmmmrrrrrr!!!!!