MRCA News and Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Aug 2009 11:12

Not really. You would have to compare to th
e equivalent offers from Gripen and Rafale, and we don't have those.

You can somewhat make comparisons with other aircraft - take for example the gripen offer to the netherlands. $ 6.5 billion for 85 Gripen NGs including support, training, simulators etc. Pretty much everything in that list that is quoted on the DSCA page except for the token amount of weapons, which we can just add to the tally if needed. A similar deal was also offered to Norway ($ 3-4 billion for 48 a/c). EF-2000 tranche 2 offer for the Austrian was about The MiG-29K deal for the IN is another example - $ 750 million for 16 a/c including support + training, sims.

It does not get any more accurate than govt. issued releases as the one for the Shornet offer is, however, I can understand the easier availability of the Shornet spares, it simply has been produced in a far greater quantity than the others.

I could point this article:
http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=
Rafale 50 million Euro (71 million USD)
SH 55 million USD
Gripen 50 million USD[/code]

Point is, we don't really know what is offered @ the above quoted prices. another article for example suggested a $ 140 million tag for the rafale (this was supposed to include weapons as well + TOT, MFG you name it). That is still a good deal cheaper than the Super Hornet price quoted by the DSCA.

No matter how we slice/dice it, this is an exorbitantly priced aircraft.
CM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 12:29

The day IAF buys a $ 80 - 140 million aircraft assuming spares and support that would be the biggest scam India will have to face , specially when an MKI can do all that with probably half the cost and all the logistics/training established

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Aug 2009 13:50

Now the Mirage-2000 is of later vintage than the F-16 and F-18.The French wisely decided to stop its production because of dwindling orders and that the future was with the Rafale,whcih would be capable of meeting future threats for a longer time with incremental upgrades.The US is merely trying to make as much money by selling us two overage tarts with heavy makeup! When all its allies are refusing to buy more F-16s and F-18s.The US will try pimping these two worn out designs at costs lower (obviously) than either the Rafale and the Typhoon,because the latter two aircraft are the most advanced in the western world outside the F-22 Raptor and the JSF (which most western US allies want).India and Pak will be fobbed off with the F-16 and F-18,belonging to designs originating from the '70s.It matters little what price these two relics of the past come with.They have no future,while our very own LCA has a brighter future if we can fit in a more pwoerful engine asap.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 10 Aug 2009 14:01

Very true Sir , the IAF at this point is looking at acquiring new technology (apart from boosting squadron numbers). The SH will soon begin to go out of service but the Rafale is here to stay , paying more for a far more advanced platform is a very viable long term investment.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 14:04

But please some one tell me what advantage will a Typhoon,Rafale or F-18 will give over MKI or its newer cousin Su-35 ( please dont give me the stealth reason ) , they all fall in heavy category.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Aug 2009 14:08

Austinji budget for the MRCA as of 2006-07 was 10.2billion$ i.e. around 80million per unit. Whats the use in buying a Mig35 for 40 million per unit?? This is definitely a eurocanard affair. We are going for the best tech there is. If you ask me the Mig35 aint worth even 40million$.

Su35 is in the brazilian rfp not in the mrca rfp.

nishug · Post by **nishug** » 10 Aug 2009 14:24

Austin wrote:The day IAF buys a $ 80 - 140 million aircraft assuming spares and support that would be the biggest scam India will have to face , specially when an MKI can do all that with probably half the cost and all the logistics/training established

Austin this is to avoid Putting all eggs in one basket situation. Also due to this we will be in touch with different doctrines, rather than thinking and planning according to just single point of view.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 14:34

Drevin wrote:Austinji budget for the MRCA as of 2006-07 was 10.2billion$ i.e. around 80million per unit. Whats the use in buying a Mig35 for 40 million per unit?? This is definitely a eurocanard affair. We are going for the best tech there is. If you ask me the Mig35 aint worth even 40million$.

Su35 is in the brazilian rfp not in the mrca rfp.

Dervinji , the $10 billion is just a media creation , there is no way GOI will have that kind of money or spend that kind of money without creating a Big Scam for itself for a single deal.

More ever poverty in india is very acute , and I have just read that we may face drought as well , money spent wisely on basic needs of people , than some cool IAF dude flying a $ 100 million for fancy all in the name of national security and R Day fly past

So coming back to the point , can Rafale or Typhoon or F-18 can provide something overwhelming that an MKI or upgraded MKI cannot do or provide , hence worth the $ 10 billion.

Or is it just like a cool thing to have in IAF inventory and to brag about the 4th largest AF in the world , trying to touch the sky with glory with more Imported stuff ?

Can a cheaper Mig-35 or M2K-5 or Tejas can do 80 % of same thing with half the cost and build up numbers , while the MKI does the heavy job ?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 10 Aug 2009 14:37

Austin wrote:But please some one tell me what advantage will a Typhoon,Rafale or F-18 will give over MKI or its newer cousin Su-35 ( please dont give me the stealth reason ) , they all fall in heavy category.

Operational cost, diversification, and improved avionics and radar

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 14:44

abhiti wrote:Operational cost, diversification, and improved avionics and radar

Operational cost = May be its a valid point , if some one gives me a table of operational cost for MKI , Mig-35 , M2k-5 , and see how to match up.

Diversification: It adding of a new type , so it has to justify against the existing type like MKI , I look at it more of logistics nightmare , if Rafale , Typhoon or F-18 gets selected its build up from scratch , like we did for MKI , so it has to justify operational benefit over MKI.

Improved Avionics/Radar: Can MKI avionics improvement can do the job ?

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Aug 2009 15:41

Austin wrote:So coming back to the point , can Rafale or Typhoon or F-18 can provide something overwhelming that an MKI or upgraded MKI cannot do or provide , hence worth the $ 10 billion.

I will try to cover points that have not been taken up by abhiti.

The govt is committed to the MMRCA. Also no MKI, no Su35. Any further acquisition of these two types would have to be in addition to the MMRCA ......

Look the government is willing to buy the F18F ..... thats a massive white elephant. Contrast that with those BR members who are supporting the Rafale. Now say which is more sensible.

Remember on BR sometime ago many patriots were even considering deploying the Kaveri on the Rafale if it becomes the MMRCA. Also never forget Kargil. France is family.

Think on the lines of "Rafale is a worthy successor to Mirage 2000". Listen to the heart felt feelings of our Mirage pilots. the man on the field(pilot) will always choose what helps him get his job done in best way.

our pilots have rejected the Mig29. There is no bigger rejection.

jmt

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 15:57

GOI commitment can mean nothing , all trials for MMRCA are conducted on no cost no commitment basis , GOI can any day cancel , postpone this if there is emergency or some other unforeseen commitment.

So I come back to the same question , does Typhoon,Rafale , F-18 heavy type fighter gives any big advantage that MKI doesnt have or cannot be upgraded to ?

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 10 Aug 2009 16:02

Operational costs:
M2K-5: 30 000€/h
Rafale: 33 000€/h

These are prices from a report to our parliament (If some of you want a link, I can dig it up).

I don't have figures for the other contenders but I would be interested in them. From what I heard of, only Gripen is said cheaper to operate than M2k.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Aug 2009 16:21

Austin is right.The Cabinet committe on security will come down very heavily on cost,as defence deals generally get short shrift with demands from other critical sectors like agriculture,etc.We are in the grip of a drought in 2/3rds of the country and the farmers lobby will be demanding huge subsidies.Keeping the country self-sufficient in food is the primary task of any govt.,to keep food prices down.The Indian Army also wants better support for ground ops and "bomb trucks" equipped with stand off PGMs can do the job as effieicntly as advanced multi-role birds.This is why some air forces have started looking again at turboprops for COIN etc.Adding new upgraded twin-engined Jaguars with more powerful engines will add to the numbers of "bomb trucks" and strike aircraft at a more affordable cost.{Producing a alrge number of cheaper LCAs,a "national objective" too will make up the numbers,while more capable sircraft like the Sukhois maintain the air dominance advantage.Any conntender who can offer the 126+ aircraft a $billion less than its competitors,which also meets basic requirements will be hard to beat,especially as the 5th-gen fighter is supposed to give us that qualitative tech. edge for furure decades.

PS:If our pilots have rejected the MIG-29,why on earth then are we upgrading the whole lot and why too is the IN happy with buying the MIG-29K with at least 40+ to be acquired? If reports that the Russians are going to buy the MIG-35 for their air force is correct,which will be very cost effective for them too,it will add to the aircraft's attractiveness.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Aug 2009 16:22

Philip wrote:If our pilots have rejected the MIG-29,why on earth then are we upgrading the whole lot and why too is the IN happy with buying the MIG-29K with at least 40+ to be acquired?

Are our Navy Pilots same as Airforce pilots.

I knew I have to explain every detail. Those guys dont even know what it is to operate a normal carrier-based ctol fighter.

Not so fast phillip.

Everyone here knows what navy pilots have been flying till now ..........age old harriers .... of god knows what vintage ..... for them the mig29 is a decent upgrade. besides the mig29 was forced on them poor souls because of gorshkov.

Bottomline....airforce pilots have rejected the mig29.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Aug 2009 16:35

Austin wrote:So I come back to the same question , does Typhoon,Rafale , F-18 heavy type fighter gives any big advantage that MKI doesnt have or cannot be upgraded to ?

I can think of one advantage. Rafale is multi-role plane. It can replace more than one type in the indian inventory. Therefore helping in reduction of types. Which is what you want.

Also lets not forget Rafale also has a carrier variant. Lot of potential in reducing many types.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Aug 2009 16:42

Drevin, please avoid making unsubstantiated and hypothetical statements like "our pilots have rejected Mig 29", they have done no such thing. There is no doubt that M2K was the preferred choice at the time frame the idea was initially mooted, for what ever doctrine and role IAF had in mind, thats given.

It is also very logical that IAF would most probably like to go with Rafale for the above statement.

However those two
1) Do not mean Mig29 is not loved by IAF for the role it plays
2) Does not mean that Mig 35 today is not a attractive option for IAF if it can be MKIized etc the way Su's have been made.

Further Philip is absolutely right, if IAF did not like the Mig 29s, the Navy would have never considered it, come what may, the fact that Mig 29 is chosen for Navy means that it is acceptable enough as an aircraft for the reasons Navy wants it.

I know that barring a few souls the thread is now pretty much in fanboyism mode, however there are still some standard which we must maintain.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 10 Aug 2009 16:43

I disagree with you Sanku. Let us atleast agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

As a parting shot ..... The iaf stopped procurring more Mig29's and jumped onto the MKI category of planes. Jumping from Mig to Sukoi is enuf proof for me. facts remain facts.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Aug 2009 16:52

Drevin wrote:I disagree with you Sanku. Let us atleast agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

As a parting shot ..... The iaf stopped procurring more Mig29's and jumped onto the MKI category of planes. Jumping from Mig to Sukoi is enuf proof for me. facts remain facts.

Really, on that basis M2K also gets discredited if EF/F-teens is purchased (say)?

Fact remains a fact, but to turn that fact into a piece of fiction indeed requires some imagination and application of suitable logic no doubt.

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

PS> I would personally think Rafale may be a better option for MRCA in some senses as it looks right now, but there are many things we dont know and depending on the weightage for them Mig 35 is also a very compelling option.

In fact in my mind there are only two real options.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 16:54

Drevin wrote:
Austin wrote:So I come back to the same question , does Typhoon,Rafale , F-18 heavy type fighter gives any big advantage that MKI doesnt have or cannot be upgraded to ?
I can think of one advantage. Rafale is multi-role plane. It can replace more than one type in the indian inventory. Therefore helping in reduction of types. Which is what you want.

Also lets not forget Rafale also has a carrier variant. Lot of potential in reducing many types.

MKI is multipurpose/multi-role as well , can replace more than one type and offers more bang per buck than any damn aircraft , there is a sunk cost and logistics build up of about more than a decade

Rafale means one thing , a new type which is fine if it can rightly justify over MKI which doesn't seem to be the case here.

As far as carrier A/C goes , its a done deal we have Mig-29K and Tejas , 15 years from now a navalised PAK-FA.

Operational costs:
M2K-5: 30 000€/h
Rafale: 33 000€/h

These are prices from a report to our parliament (If some of you want a link, I can dig it up).

I wonder how parliament can report on Rafale operating cost , when we dont operate one.

In fairness to these aircraft , we need a accurate operating cost for MKI , Rafale , Typhoon , F-18E/F and Mig-35 or atleast Mig-29K , else its meaningless.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Aug 2009 16:56

Our Navy "Boys" have had vast experience at flying Sea Harriers,just as their counterparts in the RN and USMC are still doing with their Harriers right now,bombing the daylights out of the Taliban in Afghanistan and earlier in Iraq.So what if the flat top is 50 years old? It still operates an aircraft being used in excellent fashion by the world's top aviators.Let's not cast aspersions on the honour and capability of our naval aviators,they chose the MIG-29K because it is an excellent aircraft which will serve aboard the Vik and the "Cochin" carriers.The new MIG-29 variants are hugely modernised and far more capable than the first avatars,in that they have TVC engines,a lighter airframe with far greater range and payload capacity,smokeless engines,plus carry a wide variety of weaponry and sensors equal to their competitors as well as an AESA radar to boot.As I said,the only point going against acquiring the MIG-35,which should be the obvious chocie for an interim MMRCA fighter,is that it has the advantage of being the easiest to induct with our other Russian birds and known tech.,but if support,spares,etc., remain unreliable-as was the case when the SU collapsed,a western fighter,the French being preferred suppliers,is the answer,but at what extra cost? Can we afford at this time Mercs and BMWs when Fords and Skodas can do the job just as well?

PS:What about our very own latter day "Marut-i"?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Aug 2009 16:58

So I come back to the same question , does Typhoon,Rafale , F-18 heavy type fighter gives any big advantage that MKI doesnt have or cannot be upgraded to ?

austin,
a) low-medium-heavy mix for cost considerations (I'm certain ALL MRCA contenders will have a significantly lower operating cost than the rambha )
b) last opportunity for access to the next level of tech (sensor fusion etc which mki does not feature) before India is expected to go it alone.
c) pilots. IAF is short on pilots, especially fighter pilots, I seriously doubt they can get that many twin seaters and maintain the standard. also remember that the PAKFA will be a twin seater.

sanku, I'm not saying IAF rejected mig-29 or something like that but it is a fact that the m2k was chosen over the fulcrum. I'm sure you are aware that mig corp (or whatever they called it back then mikoyan or something) has had an atrocious record of support during the 90's and consequently a large part of IAF mig-29 fleet became hanger queens.
the machine itself may be quite good (although the basic mig-29 is very short legged and A2A only) but without support from the OEM that's not good enough.
as an AF you need to take the total package into consideration.

coming to the Mig-29k, did IN have a choice ?

su-33 and the mig-29k were the only possible ones and the su-33 was found to be too heavy/large for the vik lifts. that left only the 29k.
that said, I don;t doubt the Mig29K is a very capable a/c and that it is a good choice for IN.
however, that assertion has nothing to do with a discussion of plane A vs plane B.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Aug 2009 17:00

Austin wrote:
Operational costs:
M2K-5: 30 000€/h
Rafale: 33 000€/h

These are prices from a report to our parliament (If some of you want a link, I can dig it up).

I wonder how parliament can report on Rafale operating cost , when we dont operate one.

In fairness to these aircraft , we need a accurate operating cost for MKI , Rafale , Typhoon , F-18E/F and Mig-35 or atleast Mig-29K , else its meaningless.

he means the french parliament, jean is french.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 10 Aug 2009 17:08

Shankar wrote:No country denies technology to India like US does -a personal example as of yesterday

wanted to buy some books on liquid hydrogen properties and its use history in US as propulsion fuel from amazon

all the 4 books were denied with a reason the books cannot be shipped to the country of destination indicated by you and not just once repeatedly

So Guys this is US

One of the books is Russian but translated into english by US publisher

And you are suggesting we spend ten billion dollars to this crappy paranoid country

After Arihant where 143 russian engineers came to paint the submarine and pose for photographs there is no doubt whatever Mig 35 is joining IAF -mIG 35 MKI whow it sounds great too

Shankar,
I am coming to Mumbai on 26th. Nov. this year and can buy these books and bring it with me for you if u can collect in Mumbai from me against the payment made to Amazon. Let me know.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Aug 2009 17:12

Rahul M wrote:sanku, I'm not saying IAF rejected mig-29 or something like that but it is a fact that the m2k was chosen over the fulcrum

No debate there, in fact, let us just say that it is just possible that I may be aware of the exact serviceability numbers of Mig 29s in those dark days and how the IAF kept Mig 29 flying despite all odds.

However despite all that Mig 29 was a very valued platform for the purposes it was acquired for, of course Mig 29 would now not do for MRCA at all, but then I am assuming Mig 35 is not Mig 29 and if we can even consider F-teen (whatever block) Mig 35 is definitely more than a step ahead due to many reasons.

Therefore I think the real choices are only Rafale and Mig 35 (at least to me) everything else is pointless --> and I will be quite happy if Rafale made its way in.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 17:19

Rahul M wrote:a) low-medium-heavy mix for cost considerations (I'm certain ALL MRCA contenders will have a significantly lower operating cost than the rambha )

The question is how significant lower , one needs numbers and figures to come to valid conclusion ,

like as an example 33 000€/h versus 33 500€/h is lower but does not matter much compared to building all new logistics and new aircraft.

So one needs hard figure to be fair to all.

b) last opportunity for access to the next level of tech (sensor fusion etc which mki does not feature) before India is expected to go it alone.

There is always the last opportunity and missed opportunity to justify something.

Sensor fusion , AESA etc etc can just be done by involving Indian system and Israel/French/Russian consultant

Heck we managed to build a far more complex system like a Nuclear submarine by involving onleeee Russian consultant and AK did a fine job building reactor onleee via consulting.

c) pilots. IAF is short on pilots, especially fighter pilots, I seriously doubt they can get that many twin seaters and maintain the standard. also remember that the PAKFA will be a twin seater.

That was IAF request , they can easily make the MKI a single seater . much like a Su-35
Ditto for FGFA , the PAK-FA as we know now from wind mill is a single seater.

IAF says the aircraft is just too complex to be handled by single pilot...............yada yada

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Aug 2009 17:59

Cain Marko wrote:
Not really. You would have to compare to th
e equivalent offers from Gripen and Rafale, and we don't have those.
You can somewhat make comparisons with other aircraft - take for example the gripen offer to the netherlands. $ 6.5 billion for 85 Gripen NGs including support, training, simulators etc. Pretty much everything in that list that is quoted on the DSCA page except for the token amount of weapons, which we can just add to the tally if needed.

Each country's requirements are different, hence comparing packages across different competitions isn't really valid.

Cain Marko wrote:It does not get any more accurate than govt. issued releases as the one for the Shornet offer is

It doesn't matter, you can only compare like with like, in this case the Gripen and Rafale bids to Brazil.

Cain Marko wrote:
I could point this article:
http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ry_state0=
Rafale 50 million Euro (71 million USD)
SH 55 million USD
Gripen 50 million USD[/code]
Point is, we don't really know what is offered @ the above quoted prices. another article for example suggested a $ 140 million tag for the rafale (this was supposed to include weapons as well + TOT, MFG you name it). That is still a good deal cheaper than the Super Hornet price quoted by the DSCA.

Which is why comparing aircraft price by press release is a futile exercise.

Cain Marko wrote:No matter how we slice/dice it, this is an exorbitantly priced aircraft.

Only if you cherry pick which prices you want to look at.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Aug 2009 18:03

Philip wrote:The US is merely trying to make as much money by selling us two overage tarts with heavy makeup!

What does that make the MiG-35?

Philip wrote:India and Pak will be fobbed off with the F-16 and F-18

If India is unwilling to wait for the F-35, they aren't really giving the US many options.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 18:04

If our pilots have rejected the MIG-29,why on earth then are we upgrading the whole lot and why too is the IN happy with buying the MIG-29K with at least 40+ to be acquired? If reports that the Russians are going to buy the MIG-35 for their air force is correct,which will be very cost effective for them too,it will add to the aircraft's attractiveness.

Apples and oranges.

Upgrades of any system is within the realm of that system - whatever the reasons are does not mean that the same user WILL be happy with a brand new version of the same system.

On IN, I am not too sure, but I suspect it had to do with two factors: a) as part of Vicky the IN was forced to buy the MiG-29K (I do not know what the alternative would have been at that time), and b) The late arrival (or non arrival) of the LCA.

On the RuAF buying MiG-35s, I can make the argument that IF the MiG was THAT great they would have bought them in droves looooong time a back. So, it is more than likely they are trying to influence the MRCA decision (you are the first to make that argument - which is what I suspect they want) and the RuAF is dry of funds, which would compel them to buy a cheap AC to keep up their own # of sqads. IF they were serious, for the size of their AF, they should invest in about 400 MiG-35s to make them serious about the plane IMHO.

But, IIRC the miG-35 would be one of the last entrants to be tested (for teh MRCA). So, let us see what the RuAF actually does. IF they are serious they do not have to wait for the MRCA decision.

Finally, IF RuAF is REALLY serious I would like them to buy the MiG-35 from India. Let ALL MiG-35s be sourced from India.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 10 Aug 2009 18:08

Philip wrote:they chose the MIG-29K because it is an excellent aircraft which will serve aboard the Vik and the "Cochin" carriers.

Here I thought they 'chose' the MiG-29K because it was a requirement to get the Gorshkov.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 18:11

Lets say if we buy a US aircraft and get loads of AMRAAM , JDAM ,AIM-9x , HARM . will they allow integration of such weapons with IAF existing fleet of MKI , 29upg , M2k upg , BISON ?

Or will it remain exclusive F-18/16 weapon ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 18:13

Which aircraft can take off from Groshkov besides 29K , Su-33 being too large .

I doubt the Rafale can do that and IN had the budget to buy a Rafale even if they wanted to.

Custom built Mig-29K for IN is a good choice , the better option will be Tejas.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Aug 2009 18:46

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:a) low-medium-heavy mix for cost considerations (I'm certain ALL MRCA contenders will have a significantly lower operating cost than the rambha )
The question is how significant lower , one needs numbers and figures to come to valid conclusion ,

like as an example 33 000€/h versus 33 500€/h is lower but does not matter much compared to building all new logistics and new aircraft.

So one needs hard figure to be fair to all.

{do note that the figures are for the M2k and the rafale, the former is a single engined light bird while the later is a twin-engined medium bird which is much more capable. with that perspective the figures look quite impressive !!

secondly, the heavier sukhoi will always have a higher operating cost than a lighter fighter.

coupled with the russian design philosophy of "good enough" design, operating cost/maintenance time of a russian aircraft is always higher than a comparable western aircraft, let alone a lighter one. with both these factors in mind, IMHO yes, the operating cost of the mki will be significantly higher than the MRCA contenders.}
b) last opportunity for access to the next level of tech (sensor fusion etc which mki does not feature) before India is expected to go it alone.
There is always the last opportunity and missed opportunity to justify something.

Sensor fusion , AESA etc etc can just be done by involving Indian system and Israel/French/Russian consultant
{well, not that I support the MRCA decision based on this factor. that this was indeed in the minds of MOD babus is inference from the shift from 126 M2k to 126 MRCA and the subsequent statements about TOT etc.

come to think of it, two factors are at work here -- leverage to get tech access (which you will NEVER get in a miserly funded JV) and time. sure, we did the ATV, how long did it take ?
irrespective of how the babus have managed to mess it up, the MRCA project was supposed to have been in a hurry !! }
Heck we managed to build a far more complex system like a Nuclear submarine by involving onleeee Russian consultant and AK did a fine job building reactor onleee via consulting.

c) pilots. IAF is short on pilots, especially fighter pilots, I seriously doubt they can get that many twin seaters and maintain the standard. also remember that the PAKFA will be a twin seater.
That was IAF request , they can easily make the MKI a single seater . much like a Su-35
{whoa !! that would involve a lot of work and time !! if aircrafts planned yesterday are taking this long to mature think how long an aircraft that does not even exist on paper today would have taken.

and you ignored the ToT and operating cost angle. the point is IAF doesn't want the mki as MRCA, if they did they would have asked for more mki instead of the 126 mirages in the first place !!
we already know that for a fact !! what we are doing here is trying to discover the causes behind that decision. also, the original 126 m2k demand was a pure military decision, so it has no political angles.}
Ditto for FGFA , the PAK-FA as we know now from wind mill is a single seater.
{sorry, I meant the FGFA only.}
IAF says the aircraft is just too complex to be handled by single pilot...............yada yada

{yes, I'm aware of that. what I was saying was that an IAF that is already short of pilots will find it difficult to maintain a force of twin seater MRCAs, considering that it already will be operating a large number of twin seater mki and FGFA.

btw the two pilot scenario is for specific high-intensity roles only, you need low cost options too for a hi-lo mix.}

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Aug 2009 18:47

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Philip wrote:they chose the MIG-29K because it is an excellent aircraft which will serve aboard the Vik and the "Cochin" carriers.
Here I thought they 'chose' the MiG-29K because it was a requirement to get the Gorshkov.

Yeah, it was a package deal.

Unfortunately, sometimes, arguments (either way) get diluted.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 10 Aug 2009 19:01

US should be made to supply non-lethal supplies like SF equipment, transport planes etc. At the same time, we can tell them, look we are buying from you.

Anything that is important should be sourced from France, Sweden (Artillery Guns) and Russia with deep ToT. This will help us grow our own capabilities over a period of time, on our own terms. This is the way to go.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 10 Aug 2009 19:07

prabir wrote:US should be made to supply non-lethal supplies like SF equipment, transport planes etc. At the same time, we can tell them, look we are buying from you.

SF equipment is not non-lethal. Considering the POK situation, it might be one of the first to be used.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 19:10

Austin wrote:Lets say if we buy a US aircraft and get loads of AMRAAM , JDAM ,AIM-9x , HARM . will they allow integration of such weapons with IAF existing fleet of MKI , 29upg , M2k upg , BISON ?

Or will it remain exclusive F-18/16 weapon ?

Exactly, that's the big question here. Buying a full range of munitions that work on only a single aircraft type would not be feasible would it? But what does the IAF do with its M2ks? They must be facing a similar situation there.

As for the Mig-35, the IAF does not seem to have a favorable view of Russian avionics if the MKI deal is anything to go by. So the Mig-35 would have to be fitted with third party systems, which it currently is not. So how is the IAF going to evaluate the aircraft during flight/weapon trials if most of its avionics (barring the radar) will have to be changed?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 19:14

Rahul M wrote:do note that the figures are for the M2k and the rafale, the former is a single engined light bird while the later is a twin-engined medium bird which is much more capable. with that perspective the figures look quite impressive !!

Parliament figures are always impressive so to speak , but i do not know how authentic these figures are.

secondly, the heavier sukhoi will always have a higher operating cost than a lighter fighter
coupled with the russian design philosophy of "good enough" design, operating cost/maintenance time of a russian aircraft is always higher than a comparable western aircraft, let alone a lighter one. with both these factors in mind, IMHO yes, the operating cost of the mki will be significantly higher than the MRCA contenders.

We need a ball park figure for MKI operating cost , russian design philosophy argument leads us no where.

If you throw authentic figures I will take it.

irrespective of how the babus have managed to mess it up, the MRCA project was supposed to have been in a hurry !!

Yes like nearly 10 years since IAF made request for 126 M2K and we are still in a hurry , MOD does not look like in a hurry

I think the nation needs to think how much money we need to give for real IAF needs and what is IAF wishes and fancies ( $10 billion for IAF MMRCA needs with yada yada TOT is too much , half of that is still too high ) , their list is never ending ..... but there are more pressing needs of nation , than some cool IAF dude flying a $100 - $ 130 million aircraft for the security of nation.

The IAF should do with what they get and fight with what they have.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Aug 2009 19:21

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
The IAF should do with what they get and fight with what they have.

Because of that philosophy the IAF ended up fighting Sabres with Gnats in 65.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2009 19:23

nachiket wrote:Because of that philosophy the IAF ended up fighting Sabres with Gnats in 65.

Didnt they tell us Nuclear Deterrent Works , and we need to spend less conventionally once we make it overt.

65 wont happen coz we have established nuclear detterent , unless ofcourse deterrence fails then you know what happens