MRCA News and Discussion

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 09 Jul 2009 21:21

ramana wrote:KiranM, Good way of looking at things.

My thoughts:
1)To me the MRCA is to hedge against PRC. IA 12 mtn divs are good but need IAF strength to be augmented.
2) Need to hedge against single supplier handicap.
3) Need to ensure TSP doesnt get supplies sustained by Indian order
4) Need to ensure there is a surge capability in the country of origin, in case things go south.
5) Need to ensure path for induction of future systems

2) Requires splitting the order or ensuring a major power is in good humor. So may be increase the order and get the increase from this power.

4) Is important for weapons are to deter and fight wars. Neither Sweden or France has the surge capability.

3 & 5 will be the deciders for the remanent.

Ramana ji;

1) and 2) I agree with you. 2) goes against Mig.

I understand 3 emotionally but not rationally. Say India does not buy MRCA from US. But hypothetically the wheat bought from US, same currency was used to fund F-16s to PAF. It still is bankrolling indirectly. In an open world economy, the trade between India and US will have some connection (like Indian blood relations

) to bankrolling Pak. IMHO 3) should not be too much of a bother.

For 4); given that any future conflict can last over just few weeks before global pressure mounts, I am not sure surge in fighters can help. But surge in weapons surely will. This and hedging against sanctions (be it Us or Sweden, or even France/ Russia by wildest chance), only way is to stock reserve spares and weapons in quantities (Say for for 3 weeks to maintain 500 sorties per day

)

Unless we enter into tech JV or reverse engineer the tech, I dont see how 5) will help. IMHO, tech JV can anyways be independent of MRCA if we flash enough money.

Regards,
Kiran

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 10 Jul 2009 04:22

For those interested in the SuperBug:

A cool video from Boeing on the intro of the SH to Australia (how to build a F18 in 3min 32sec)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -horn.html

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Jul 2009 08:18

nice.

koti · Post by **koti** » 10 Jul 2009 10:57

People worrying about possible US arm twisting in case of any conflict should note that MMRCA is primarily to deal with China. There are more then sufficient(Quality and quantity) aircraft to deal with any future threat from Pak.

The SH will be the best bet to cripple any aggressive formation by enemy. But is case of a saturation attack by enemy airforce, in which it may result in WVR combat SH may get into trouble. Saturation strikes are always on the table when we discuss about China.

Both EF and Rafale can do better here but they really aren't worth the extra bucks for this(IMHO).

JAS-39 and Mig-35 are worth every penny and do well in such a situation. The low cost automatically opens up window for further aircraft. Quantity is as good as quality against China.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 10 Jul 2009 11:08

Devesh Rawal wrote:For those interested in the SuperBug:

A cool video from Boeing on the intro of the SH to Australia (how to build a F18 in 3min 32sec)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -horn.html

That was interesting... I wonder if they would transfer the whole manufacturing technique and tooling to HAL as it looked very large, complicated and most of all very expensive. Maybe the RFP is so generous that these costs can be counted as a part of the offsets... hm.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jul 2009 18:20

Quantity does have its own quality and if these aircraft are going to be used in strike/counter strike missions,which our earlier large fleet of MIG-21s could not do and which the LCA will be able to do in limited form only,range and payload,the more MMRCA's we can get for our buck the better.I forsee the MMRCA being used more in a secondary role for anti-air duties,as we have planned to acquire a larger number of SU-30MKIs for this purpose.Apart from this,the LCA when it arrives in strength,will perform anti-air duties far better than ground attack and deep strike,thanks to the limitations of its engine.For this reason,the Jaguars are to get an engine upgrade ,US or RR,very sensible and cost-effective to use this aircraft in long service and production to last another 20 years+ for strike/GA duties.With all IAF aircraft being upgraded,armed with stand-off weapons,and theoretically one can even use turboprops (Tucanos) for the same duties as some are considering,buying large quantities of a new aircraft type could be reduced.If an existing type (MIG-35) is acquired,the cost effectiveness will be the most if the aircraft is priced reasonably.In fact,as none of the other types are in service,it is for the Russians to lose the contest as they have an inside line to the IAF and MOD already.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 12 Jul 2009 17:34

Boeing eyes $10 bn Indian contract with Super Hornet

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 12 Jul 2009 19:17

If American planes r china specific, as people point out here that USA wont sanction india in case of war with china,well if china can arm twist usa as it is doing now for nuke deal at G8 summit then wats the guarantee that china wont arm twist usa in case of war with india.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 12 Jul 2009 20:49

tripathi wrote:then wats the guarantee that china wont arm twist usa in case of war with india.

There aren't any, which is why the contract should include blueprints and information to allow local production of any critical spares.

But in general, the US is going to be the most difficult of the contenders for China to bully.

If China shoves hard enough to shift the US, they could topple France's resolve with the wagging of a finger (or a few euros as the case may be). And in a way, the harder they shove the US, especially if it becomes public, the more likely it is for the US to become obstinate and refuse no matter what.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2009 22:58

The "solution" to the MRCA is THE MCA. With ALL Indian manufactured components.

Just enjoy the MRCA ride. Parts of it could be rather bumpy - but - that is part of the game. Whatever happens do not let BP climb above normal. Not worth it.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 12 Jul 2009 23:26

this might be naive, however, to speed up development of MCA, why not establish R&D centers across timezones?

we try to get 4 full fledged R&D teams working round the clock with one each in

Israel with focus on radar, avionics and missiles
Russia or Brazil with focus on airframes including commercial aviation
Japan with focus on infrastructure (eco system) development and volume production
India with focus on manufacturing, testing and end-user acceptance

whether espionage matters?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2009 23:32

you are right.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 13 Jul 2009 01:52

Devesh Rawal wrote:For those interested in the SuperBug:

A cool video from Boeing on the intro of the SH to Australia (how to build a F18 in 3min 32sec)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -horn.html

Neat. Btw..does air force variant SH has folded wing?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Jul 2009 02:17

Venkarl wrote:Neat. Btw..does air force variant SH has folded wing?

Currently there is no such thing as an 'air force variant'.

All SHs are the same and include folding wings, and I assume the variant being offered to the IAF has them too.

A 'de-navalized' version of the classic hornet was developed, but it didn't attract any interest because everyone wanted to enjoy the supply chain advantages that came with sharing a type with the USN (and no one wanted an orphan type). Thus all the countries that bought classic Hornets for their air forces (Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, Switzerland) got standard navalized Hornets.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Jul 2009 03:12

Don't forget that when they tried to "de-navalize" the landbased version as for Austrailia, the hornet had "vibration" problems! And it seems that the shornet's pylons (hence weapons) will continue to be canted outwards - fabulous. Wonder what this does to drag or rcs.

CM.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 13 Jul 2009 04:58

Thanks

..I should have done some research before posting.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2009 06:31

KiranM, 3) is not emotional but practical. Ensure TSP doesnt get spares. So if the choice is a variant of the one that TSP has ensure all spares are transferred or coralled. i.e. open factory in India that mfgs all spares for world wide usage.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jul 2009 08:45

As a FYI only, LM is part of the Spanish offer for their S-10(?) submarine. A lot in that sub is from LM.

Also, Spain is going to participate in some other IN tenders - the ship they plan on offering has a ton of LM stuff (Ageis being the most talked about).

So, other than the F-16IN, LM is all over India in other avatars.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 13 Jul 2009 08:48

Was Lockheed-Martins India CEO Sacked ? - From Broadsword

This fortnight, Ambassador Douglas A Hartwick, CEO, Lockheed Martin India, who was spearheading the world’s largest defence manufacturer’s campaign to sell India the F-16 IN medium fighter aircraft, was withdrawn from India in an unusual hurry. Sources describe Hartwick as “having barely enough time to pack” before catching his flight out of Delhi.

arun · Post by **arun** » 13 Jul 2009 09:45

...................... Defence ministry sources say Hartwick was removed as CEO after Lockheed Martin was found in possession of two folders containing classified information relating to defence purchases. According to this account, these folders found their way to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. There, in January 2009, they were mistakenly placed on the desk of an officer unfamiliar with Lockheed Martin’s operations in India. Reading the “Government of India, Ministry of Defence” heading on the file, the Lockheed Martin official referred the folders back to the Indian defence ministry in New Delhi.

Since then, a furious defence ministry has been trying to ascertain how Lockheed Martin obtained those folders and whether ethical standards had been flouted. ................

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 13 Jul 2009 10:01

arun wrote:
.
Since then, a furious defence ministry has been trying to ascertain how Lockheed Martin obtained those folders and whether ethical standards had been flouted. ................

Just goes on to show how shoddy Indian defence establishment is. If a company like LM can get the secret documents then I am sure CIA has all the holes plugged in MoD and GoI. Seems like CIA still has moles inside the Congress working committee and the government.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Jul 2009 10:51

If defence firms can be blacklisted for corruption, can't they be blacklisted for spying and stealing official documents? Or is US companies the holy grail now?

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 13:28

Cain Marko wrote:Don't forget that when they tried to "de-navalize" the landbased version as for Austrailia, the hornet had "vibration" problems! And it seems that the shornet's pylons (hence weapons) will continue to be canted outwards - fabulous. Wonder what this does to drag or rcs.

CM.

just an update...the outward canting of the pylons was not during the process to "de-navalize" the Hornet for Australia but was during the testing phase of the Super Hornet during its development phase and the same is also applicable to all Amriki planes as well. As per the manufacturer, it resulted in just a 0.4% increase in drag and a negligible increase in the RCS.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 13 Jul 2009 14:05

ramana wrote:KiranM, 3) is not emotional but practical. Ensure TSP doesnt get spares. So if the choice is a variant of the one that TSP has ensure all spares are transferred or coralled. i.e. open factory in India that mfgs all spares for world wide usage.

Ramana Sir, I read 3) in a different context. The whine prevalent in BR that we should not buy from US because we may end up financing the 'aid' to Pakistan.

However, from the perspective you have explained I only see in case of F-16 being selected (or Rafale/ EF if bought by PAF in the future). However, I dont think we can ensure spares delivery control the manner in which you outlined. We may have a slim chance in case of F-16 (if LM lets go of an assured egg- supplying spares to customer countries, no matter how low in value). Do not think it will be possible in the case of Rafale/ EF or any other platform for that matter.

Regards,
Kiran

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 15:06

koti wrote:People worrying about possible US arm twisting in case of any conflict should note that MMRCA is primarily to deal with China. There are more then sufficient(Quality and quantity) aircraft to deal with any future threat from Pak.

The SH will be the best bet to cripple any aggressive formation by enemy. But is case of a saturation attack by enemy airforce, in which it may result in WVR combat SH may get into trouble. Saturation strikes are always on the table when we discuss about China.

Both EF and Rafale can do better here but they really aren't worth the extra bucks for this(IMHO).

JAS-39 and Mig-35 are worth every penny and do well in such a situation. The low cost automatically opens up window for further aircraft. Quantity is as good as quality against China.

My 2 cent thought...

The SH is helpful when it comes to aggressive formation. But it will also be able to play an important role in a saturation attack given its capable radar & armaments that is being offered as part of the package. An AESA radar definitely provides an edge against any kind of attack and when combined with equally capable armaments e.g. AIM-120C5 & AIM-9X it can tilt the balance in our favour.

EF and Rafale are really good aircrafts with equally excellent radars & armaments but the prime focus with regards to the MRCA deal is numbers and in this repect, given their cost it will be expensive for us to maintain numbers.

Gripen can give us the numbers but its capabilities are not that good compared to all the other competitors. The only factor which can lead to this one winning the contract will be price. The NOTAR which is in the works may be the icing on the cake if it is offered.

I am. for one not keen on India going for the Mig-35. an untested radar(which wont see service in the Russian fleet), not much of a capability improvement against the latest Mig-29SMT & TVC wont necessarily mean that we have an awesome fighter. Price may be one factor but if we are in the market for a top of the line fighter we may wanna restrict our candidates to the first 4 and leave the 35 out of it. Its nothing but a last ditch attempt to win some much needed moolah for Russians.

But its a different ball game altogether when it comes to serviceability & spares...in those scenarios the Russkies are in the forefront

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jul 2009 17:15

KiranM wrote: However, from the perspective you have explained I only see in case of F-16 being selected (or Rafale/ EF if bought by PAF in the future). However, I dont think we can ensure spares delivery control the manner in which you outlined. We may have a slim chance in case of F-16 (if LM lets go of an assured egg- supplying spares to customer countries, no matter how low in value). Do not think it will be possible in the case of Rafale/ EF or any other platform for that matter.

Regards,
Kiran

Turkey is one of four other nations where the F-16 is manufactured.

In fact, Turkey and Pakistan JUST sighed a deal to upgrade Pakistani F-16s - a few days ago.

Besides the Pak-Chicom angle is also an option they have (first Pak J-17 to roll out in Dec, 2009).

IMHO, India has to set a path and follow it. No use spending time to think too much about bringing Pak down. India is too big for that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jul 2009 18:18

Until the much delayed and $100 million per piece JSF arrives,the land of Oz will have to do with the last avatar of the F-18,the same or something similar being touted for India.With Pak operating the F-16 and a not too friendly Oz the F-18,the IAF should steer clear of both types.The Typhoon Tranche-3 has yet to arrive,and will in all probability cost more than the Rafale.On way in which we can finesse both Russia and France/Europe is to buy more upgraded MIg-29/29K/35s to increase numbers of aircraft and the type in service (another 60-80+ or so),which is also being acquired by the IN in significnat numbers,which will be very easy to integrate into the IAF and for which spares and logistics will be no problem,and to choose either the Typhoon or Rafale for the MMRCA role.

The Gripen is too near the LCA in capability and for range ,endurance and payload,a twin engined larger aircraft is preferred,also for surviving bird hits in the Indian scenario.Many argue that with tanker refuelling the Gripen's range can be extended,but can one imagine during the intense and days hours of a crisis the demand for tankers from various sides will be enormous and the IAF's limited numbers will not be enough to be everywhere on call like a taxi !

MMS's imminent talks with Sarko will be crucial for the deal,as if France can offer us a "basket" (Rafale,Light helos,missiles,etc.) at bargain prices,they have it in the bag.Examining the developing Sino factor,the IAF needs both quality and quantity,which has a quality of its own as they say.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Jul 2009 18:57

Philip wrote:and a not too friendly Oz the F-18

I haven't been following Indo-Australian relations too closely, so what is the problem there?

But even if there is a problem, Australia is quite a bit farther away than Saudi Arabia (Typhoon) and UAE (presumably Rafale)

(Really, I can't see India going to war with any of those three, it just seems like a curious statement.)

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 Jul 2009 21:24

After looking at the enormous pressure US is putting on India to resume talks with Pakistan, even with no progress by pakistan to rein in its terrorists from attacking India, I seriously think India should reject US companies for MRCA bids. The US will have additional leverage if we had to go to war with Pakistan later on. And the US isn't shy about going back on its commitments if it wants to safeguard its interests. If India is under pressure from US, then ban US companies, let us make US pay too. After all, what is a few billions and few thousand jobs for US??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Jul 2009 22:36

China better do India a favor and attack India before them MRCA arrive in town.

Or it will be terrible mess in India - which air crafts to use on which front. PMO to sign off on usage, MEA poke nose to ensure details of end user agreements with US and Russia are in proper order. Height and weight of pilot should be same as specified in the agreements. On China front India cannot use a pilot from Arunachal Pradesh - this may be against #3, v12.30.09 of Asian Development Bank agreement of 2036 (India will have refund loan + interest + penalty within 48 hours of violation).

BTW, the rediff article feels that China will attack between 2010 and 12. Great timing for India I would say.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 14 Jul 2009 11:44

Air-pockets before the air fair
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ai ... ir_1273757

Lockheed boss flees
Even as US firm Lockheed Martin makes an aggressive pitch with its legendary F-16 fighter, it has embroiled itself in an embarrassing controversy that forced its India chief to quit and leave India secretly. In a bizarre twist, Lockheed Martin headquarters sent back to the MoD a couple of its internal files that the US defence firm had illegally obtained. The files came back because of a mess-up by a senior executive who thought it was legitimately handed over to the firm by the MoD.

yossarian · Post by **yossarian** » 14 Jul 2009 14:06

BTW, the rediff article feels that China will attack between 2010 and 12. Great timing for India I would say.

I am not sure if that was sarcasm from you, but that will be horrible timing for India. We will still not be up to the sanctioned 39.5 squadrons, no carrier, no credible decapitating second strike capability (ATV wont hit the seas for another 2 years and if it does it will be the sole one and with possibly only cruise missiles, K-15 might not be ready).

For all practical purposes, the build up on the eastern front has to ensure a stall in the chinese intentions upto 2015-17. We will atleast be in a position to escalate to a point where chinese are forced to withdraw...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2009 16:52

The reason for commenting on Oz's purchase of SH's,is that in recent times,the policy makers in Oz have been liberally lumping India along with China as nations that Oz's defence forces will have to deal with in the future,justifying their increased defence spending.Therefore,as an intimate partner of the US,with so many mutual defence agreements and secret commns. bases established on its territory,Oz. will always get a superior SH product than non-US ally India,with added info about Indian SHs,that could be critical in any crisis with it,or with any of its allies.At the moment Pak is a staunch ally of the US and its coalition partners in Afghanistan,of whom Oz has been one.There could be a future Indo-Pak scenario where an Oz-Pak relationship could involve exchange of info. of IAF SHs by Oz to our mortal enemy.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 14 Jul 2009 17:28

GeorgeWelch wrote:I haven't been following Indo-Australian relations too closely, so what is the problem there?

Some likely reasons for the poor relations:
- Australia still wont do nuclear trade.
- Distrust towards common defence items with australians even the mrca! If SH is chosen its sure to be a little different from the aussies. mkization.
- Also considering the recent attack on students!! Can you believe that!!

I think there are more negative vibes from australia towards us than visaversa.

- In the world of cricket australians are well loved in india
- aussie players even do music albums with indioan singers
- former/current australian cricket players play in indian clubs and make big money

This lack of reciprocation from australia's side is causing unease now and then in the relations. Ok I am seriously going off-topic.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 14 Jul 2009 18:57

Was Lockheed Martin’s India CEO sacked? - Ajai Shukla

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 14 Jul 2009 20:31

espionage inside mod. hopefully no one gets away with it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2009 21:04

Drevin wrote:espionage inside mod. hopefully no one gets away with it.

Along with that perhaps MRCA either pushed back 10 years or scrapped.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Jul 2009 21:04

LM should be banned from all future defence contracts, apart from spares and service for already contracted systems. But due to the nature of Indo-US relationship, thats unfortunately not going to happen. You can ban a company for corruption but not for espionage!

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 14 Jul 2009 23:00

Parijat Gaur wrote:
b_patel wrote: Cost wise the Mig-35 is better than the others, well right now it is but come negotiation time i doubt the price would stay the same, Russian would probably jack it up.
Performance wise it is not as capable as my fav the EF in the A2A role. Its not as capable as the Super Hornet in the A2G role. To me its a lesser version of the Rafale.
I thing it would be wrong to underestimate a2a capability of Mig-35. Mig-29 is a pretty agile a/c, and with thrust vectoring, it may well surpass EF. But then again, I guess a2g capability would be the highest priority for any MRCA contender, so the a2a capability of EF and Mig-35 may not count for much.

Although the Mig-29 was a pretty agile ac it had a lot of limitations from the electronics front. Due to the high dependence of the Russian pilots on the GCI system and also antiquated electronics the reaction time was much higher hence a the time taken from switching from a short range to BVR range mode was much higer compared to the western counterparts. Although it has been highly publicised that in a dogfight the aircraft was second to none during its heyday there has not been much mention made about the window when the pilot moved from long range to short range mode as this was not by just a flick of a switch. In this time the western fighters had a decisive edge to blow the ac out of the sky, which had also been admitted by the German pilots who had access to both Mig-29's and western fighters post the Berlin wall falling. When the Mig-29 SMT was launched it had elimiated much of the problems faced by the earlier A, B & C versions and also provided the much needed improvement in the radar.

However when you compare the Mig-35 & the Mig-29SMT you can see that the differences are blurred. Both ac's are capable of a2a & a2g modes. The AESA radar developed for the Mg-35 is also an options for the SMT versions. When the TVC control was developed for the RD-33MK engines the makers had stated that the TVC control could be adopted for any engine in the Russian inventory and in this respect the Mig-29 was
an obvious candidate for the same.

Armament-wise both ac's have the ability to use all Russian a2a and a2g weapons.

Hence, if that be the case why not just upgrade the Mig-29's to the SMT standard and get the 35 off the list since they are not that different.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Jul 2009 23:23

Heavy symbolism as Indian troops march down Paris for Bastille Day

You've got to give it to the French. Looks like they're laying on the fanfare to get the Rafale in. All of a sudden they remember the contribution of Indian soldiers during the World Wars.