MRCA News and Discussion

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 14:53

We all discussed a lot on Pok II failure on a dedicated thread.

But I would like to understand the effect of this development on MMRCA more specifically on the tender of American companies and SAAB which uses American engine.

I hope we all agree that MMRCA cannot be evaluated independent of this developmen

No sure we cannot Nitin

while the next series of test is almost certain now may be as early as early 2010 buy anything with American components will be worse than strategic suicide worth more than 15 billion dollars if we are planning 200+

the competition boils down to Rafale and Mig 35 (just like mirage 2000 and Mig 29) both the aircraft IAF loves
The price of Mig 35 being much much less if the number is 200 (126+63+) Mig 35 is sure winner
at 126 it will be a tough call for both
but the iaf exposure to rd 33 engine manufacture may just tilt the balance in its favor

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 15:14

Shankar,

My money is on Rafale.

Please refer this below article.

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG report

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10985

We are talking about our country here. Please dont bring ur feelings for Russian girls or Russian caviar here!!! We cant go to war with China with these kinds of weapons

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 31 Aug 2009 15:15

What if F18 goes in wrong hands???

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 15:17

govardhanks wrote:What if F18 goes in wrong hands???

We will still bring it down if it enters our airspace.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 15:30

nrshah wrote:If we go by Ur points distribution, then, the fighter list will look like this based on their scores

5)RAFALE :- 15/15 - 15/15 based on experience

second set of scores is based on my knowledge, beliefs and assumptions

- Nitin

Could u pls explain us what kind of experience u have with Rafale?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 31 Aug 2009 15:36

avinash.rd wrote:
nrshah wrote:If we go by Ur points distribution, then, the fighter list will look like this based on their scores

5)RAFALE :- 15/15 - 15/15 based on experience

second set of scores is based on my knowledge, beliefs and assumptions

- Nitin
Could u pls explain us what kind of experience u have with Rafale?

Experience of using Flight Stimulator

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 31 Aug 2009 15:50

nrshah wrote: Final Scores

1)EF2000 :- 80/100 - 75/100
]2)MIG-35 :- 85/100 - 95/100
3)F-18 :- 80/100 -60/100
4)F-16 :- 80/100 - 65/100
5)RAFALE :- 85/100 - 95/100
6)Grippen :- 75/100 - 58/100

second set of scores is based on my knowledge, beliefs and assumptions

- Nitin

Why don't you guys include wars experienced ???

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 31 Aug 2009 16:41

Could u pls explain us what kind of experience u have with Rafale?

Experience of using Flight Stimulator

Aircraft No Acquired Acquired in Retired
Dassault MD.454 Mystère IV 104 1957 1973
Dassault Ouragan 71 1953 1965
Dassault Ouragan 33 1957 1965
Dassault Mirage 2000 49 1985 Till Date
Breguet Br.1050 Alizé with INDIAN NAVY 17

We have been using french aircrafts since 1953. No problem of spares; no sanctions; not to mention 2 nuke tests

-Nitin

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 31 Aug 2009 16:44

[quote=]

Why don't you guys include wars experienced ???[/quote]

I have already mentioned that please improvise the list with criteria that i missed.

Please suggest criteria with weight attached and revise the list.

-Nitin

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 16:47

nrshah wrote:

Could u pls explain us what kind of experience u have with Rafale?

Experience of using Flight Stimulator
Aircraft No Acquired Acquired in Retired
Dassault MD.454 Mystère IV 104 1957 1973
Dassault Ouragan 71 1953 1965
Dassault Ouragan 33 1957 1965
Dassault Mirage 2000 49 1985 Till Date
Breguet Br.1050 Alizé with INDIAN NAVY 17

We have been using french aircrafts since 1953. No problem of spares; no sanctions; not to mention 2 nuke tests

-Nitin

Excellent... Good point. So this will increase the score of Rafale.

May be to 98/100

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 16:50

Shankar,

My money is on Rafale.

Please refer this below article.

we have all read the article and it is not good for sure

the estimated cost of rafale is 80 million plus for mig 35 it is 45 million plus

cost of R-77 is 0.5 million

just if we consider the price difference for each mig 35 we buy we save 35 million or approximately 70 R-77 without going over sanctioned budget

so when we buy 126 -we get in fact 70 missiles free with each aircraft and a total of 8820 missiles for the entire transaction

if we buy 200 which is likely to be the final number we get 14000 missiles free

that i think more than off sets any shelf life problem we are having with R-77

of course we also know this problem is being looked into -don't exactly know the exact extent of problem may be with the batteries -surely IAF is taking care of it now

Ihave nothing against french aircraft they are good and IAF likes them that i know first hand but the cost weighs heavily during its operation .In fact you remember when a miarge went down few years back I was in fact in an IAF base and they did mention after confirming pilot has ejected is oh shit it costs 150 crores

compared to that a mig 21 cost in early days 3 crores
all said and done money will decide the issue -dont think mig35 or rafale will dazzle any one by comparison but in the end reason and cost will prevail

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 16:55

The defective missiles are old batch of R-27 and not R-77 whcih have been recently inducted for su-30 amd bison and mig 29 s - just wanted to correct myself

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 16:56

Shankar wrote:
Shankar,

My money is on Rafale.

Please refer this below article.
we have all read the article and it is not good for sure

the estimated cost of rafale is 80 million plus for mig 35 it is 45 million plus

cost of R-77 is 0.5 million

just if we consider the price difference for each mig 35 we buy we save 35 million or approximately 70 R-77 without going over sanctioned budget

so when we buy 126 -we get in fact 70 missiles free with each aircraft and a total of 8820 missiles for the entire transaction

if we buy 200 which is likely to be the final number we get 14000 missiles free

that i think more than off sets any shelf life problem we are having with R-77

of course we also know this problem is being looked into -don't exactly know the exact extent of problem may be with the batteries -surely IAF is taking care of it now

Ihave nothing against french aircraft they are good and IAF likes them that i know first hand but the cost weighs heavily during its operation .In fact you remember when a miarge went down few years back I was in fact in an IAF base and they did mention after confirming pilot has ejected is oh shit it costs 150 crores

compared to that a mig 21 cost in early days 3 crores
all said and done money will decide the issue -dont think mig35 or rafale will dazzle any one by comparison but in the end reason and cost will prevail

Do u think pilots will agree if they are told that 4/8 missiles wont work in their fighters??

Here we need to consider human lives also. Cost is one of the criteria, but not the criteria. Please come out of the past.

ovein · Post by **ovein** » 31 Aug 2009 17:03

Shankar Sir

- is the 35-40 million price for the MIG 35 is the life time cost. And if not what are the comparison?

- Reliability is a factor which must have some wieghtage. If something is reliable then we can trust on the stocks and plan something concrete. Without this element any plan will be messed up big way. even if they are good we will always have a reserved estimate.
Coupled this with the tactical reliability i wont mind paying more for the more reliable ones. but the question to analyze is to how much more.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 17:27

Do u think pilots will agree if they are told that 4/8 missiles wont work in their fighters??

it does not work that way

all missiles are checked for functioning so called health check before being uploaded for mission and same is done during storage too -so question of 4 out o8 not working does not arise

it was once during the health checks of missiles on inventory that the defect came to light

what I wanted to say is the net result of poor shelf life of a particular batch in the end ressult is keeping a larger inventory of missiles whcih in its turn means more cost .As it seems the cost of larger inventory is more than of set by much cheaper cost of MiG 35

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 17:31

Reliability is a factor which must have some wieghtage. If something is reliable then we can trust on the stocks and plan something concrete. Without this element any plan will be messed up big way. even if they are good we will always have a reserved estimate.
Coupled this with the tactical reliability i wont mind paying more for the more reliable ones. but the question to analyze is to how much more.

Russian aircraft are known world wide for their rough field characteristics -they are designed for rough operation from semi prepared air fields .Western aircraft do not always have that capability. Have never interacted with Mirage pilots or engineers so that aspect of Rafle is not known to me
In combat Mig35/Rafale will be forced to operate from seconday/semi prepared airfields - whether Rafale can or have that ability -can some one please confirm

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 Aug 2009 17:33

is the 35-40 million price for the MIG 35 is the life time cost. And if not what are the comparison

do any one have any reliable data on what that jargon means -can any of you give me a data like that on any indian aircraft -have ever this study been done in ernest- then we can talk on this highly subjective subject .

lets not get carried out by management jargons with no real world calibration

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 31 Aug 2009 17:35

Shankar wrote:
In combat Mig35/Rafale will be forced to operate from seconday/semi prepared airfields - whether Rafale can or have that ability -can some one please confirm

So if F-18/16, EF win they wont be required to do this? or are you just assuming/hoping they will not win?

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 31 Aug 2009 17:53

Shankar wrote:
is the 35-40 million price for the MIG 35 is the life time cost. And if not what are the comparison
do any one have any reliable data on what that jargon means -can any of you give me a data like that on any indian aircraft -have ever this study been done in ernest- then we can talk on this highly subjective subject .

lets not get carried out by management jargons with no real world calibration

There are too many issues with Mig-35. They cant deliver even 18 fighters till 2015. This would be the main factor. So I guess it is very unlikely that IAF will go for MIG-35.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Aug 2009 19:24

If there are any doubts about the effectiveness of Russian aircraft,especially stealth features, please read the Bill Sweetman article in AWST posted I think in the Su-30 thread and also the statements earlier psoited of a US general who flew the aircraft.Russian aircraft are very robust and have their unique characteristics which are not found on western aircraft.Their philosophy is very different.There was an excellent article in Vayu some issues ago ,that explained their practical reasoning for designing their aero-engines for a specific lifespan,when compared with western engines.There is absolutely no doubt worldwide that the two most agile aircraft today are the MIG-35 Fulcrum and the SU-30 Flanker.Even Brit.pilots who have flown the Typhoon say that the MIG-35 is superior to anything flying.One who has also flown the German MIG-29 waxed eleoquent about it too.In their opinion,Russian aerodynamics are superior to western designs.It is only in the radar,perhaps stealth composites,avionics eqpt. and EW aboard where the west scores.Even here the Russians are not far behind.the cocktail of Western ,Russian and Indian eqpt. aboard the SU-30MKI has made it a world beater.The same could be likewise done with the MIG-35,perhaps using an Israeli AESA radar instead.for commonality with the LCA.Regardless of the MMRCA requiremetn,I firmly feel that the IAF should eventually replace its MIG-29s with far more capable MIG-35s,making up numbers at a very affordable cost too.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 31 Aug 2009 19:37

Is quick induction of a decent number of airframes a concern for IAF ?

Eurofighter: 4 running final assembly lines, with the British most certainly more then happy to give up production slots. The production system would allow the quickest way to a local Indian final assembly line.
Boeing: One final assembly line running at full rate production.
LM: One final assembly line, running a low rate production.
Saab: Same as above
Dassault: See above, less then 1 airframe per month.
RAC MiG: No assembly line so far. They could eventually convert the MiG-29K assembly line.

Judging by that, I would think only Boeing and Eurofighter are in the position to deliver on time. And given the pricetag and the uncertain upgrade path of the Eurofighter, it should be a done deal for Boeing.

ovein · Post by **ovein** » 31 Aug 2009 20:29

Shankar wrote:
is the 35-40 million price for the MIG 35 is the life time cost. And if not what are the comparison
do any one have any reliable data on what that jargon means -can any of you give me a data like that on any indian aircraft -have ever this study been done in ernest- then we can talk on this highly subjective subject .

lets not get carried out by management jargons with no real world calibration

Shankar Sir,

I cannot agree with you more when you are saying that this is a highly subjective matter. My point here is that, the price comparison is itself of subjective nature right at the moment. (IIRC the IAF, went on record saying that they are going to consider the life cycle cost of a fighter).

So in the present situation we cannot compare these aircraft as too costly or too cheap. Because we don't have data on this.

on the Quality issue, i donot think the Russian are bad. and i will go with the expert opinion. But if they are bad then we should not buy them because they are cheap.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2009 20:48

with the chinese wolf huffing and puffing at our door, sooner we get something workable and inducted the better.

this cannot be a MKI program to fund and develop a decade long series of improvements. its got to be upto the mark from day1 and arrive in quantity ready for a fight with su27/J10 std a/c.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Aug 2009 21:47

do any one have any reliable data on what that jargon means -can any of you give me a data like that on any indian aircraft -have ever this study been done in ernest- then we can talk on this highly subjective subject .

lets not get carried out by management jargons with no real world calibration

That is what the MRCA delay was all about - letting the various entities compute the life time values.

My feel is that this is one more reason that the Russians will not be part of the Indian MRCA game. JMT.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 31 Aug 2009 22:22

Singha wrote:with the chinese wolf huffing and puffing at our door, sooner we get something workable and inducted the better.

this cannot be a MKI program to fund and develop a decade long series of improvements. its got to be upto the mark from day1 and arrive in quantity ready for a fight with su27/J10 std a/c.

That should be, and beleive it is, the primary goal of MRCA selection. That cuts out Mig35 right away.

The best from above POV would be

F16 IN
F18 SH
Rafale
Euro
Gripen NG

Mig doesn't even make it to the list.....

Since F16 is not favored by many here I would say F18 and Rafale are the only two realistic solutions for BRF to select the winner from

. F18 obviously is more matured proven and supported by much larger and efficient company.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Aug 2009 22:59

Are we taking too much time in this evaluationwith the Chinese standing at the door with belligerence on their minds? Will we get the answer to that by losing Tawang and AP to the Chinese? Are the stakes too low?

All of the planes on offer are fantastic. The problem is with the politics (France, Russia, US, EU). Is the GOI so immature that we cannot decide this even after so much time? The vendor that can supply planes quicker should be given the job.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 31 Aug 2009 23:20

Vivek K wrote:Are we taking too much time in this evaluationwith the Chinese standing at the door with belligerence on their minds? Will we get the answer to that by losing Tawang and AP to the Chinese? Are the stakes too low?

All of the planes on offer are fantastic. The problem is with the politics (France, Russia, US, EU). Is the GOI so immature that we cannot decide this even after so much time? The vendor that can supply planes quicker should be given the job.

China never fights when it is not sure to win. They will not fight, because, they know, they cannot repeat 1962. But, that does not mean, we should take our own sweet time in improving our defensive capability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2009 23:39

yes Rafale atleast has some form of A2G capability and has flown some deployments, with AASM & other french munitions maybe. though might not
be as springy as EF, atleast we wouldnt have to wait another 5 yrs for full spectrum capability.

F16-IN, F18 and Rafale seem to be only options dressed up for a instant fight,
with F18 offering a aesa bigger than F16 aesa today, with rafale aesa a couple yrs away.

that narrows out even rafale and leaves boeing and LM in fray.

Unkil munitions tend to be cheaper due to economies of scale...atleast the
non-exotic ones like amraam, aim9x, jdam.....the exotic ones like jassm are not on table anyway.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Sep 2009 02:50

err why are we not favoring Gripen

Leaving aside the LCA and lack of clout in Sweden

It is mature and somewhat halfway between the Solahs and the Rafaels

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 01 Sep 2009 03:33

Even if I repeat myself, only Eurofighter and Boeing are able to deliver 126-200 airframes in a reasonable timeframe. LockMart is in the middle of starting F-35 production, Dassault and Saab produce one airframe per month.
RAC MiG has no running production at all, and can't even deliver the MiG-29K on time and budget. I mean it's a good thing sevmash didn't deliver the Gorshkow yet, otherwise the Indian Navy would have a nice aircraft carrier without aircraft.
So, Eurofighter or SHornet, what would you prefer ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2009 05:25

Even if I repeat myself, only Eurofighter and Boeing are able to deliver 126-200 airframes in a reasonable timeframe. LockMart is in the middle of starting F-35 production, Dassault and Saab produce one airframe per month.

Errrr.............

Only first 18 need to be made in the country of origin. The 18 need to be inducted by 2012.

The REST - ALL - in India.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Sep 2009 06:36

nrshah wrote:If we go by Ur points distribution, then, the fighter list will look like this based on their scores
Category : Aircraft quality and specifications 30%
1)EF2000 :- 30/30 : 30/30
2)MIG-35 :- 25/30 :- 25/30
3)F-18 :- 30/30 :- 25/30 Not the best of multi role especially AOA
4)F-16 :- 25/30 :-25/30
5)RAFALE :- 25/30 :- 30/30(True Omni role; AESA; Higher thrust engine; Spectra virtual stealth)
6)Grippen :- 25/30 :- 20/30(Offers nothing more than LCA Mk2 with higher payload;more pylons etc)

Category : Costs considerations 10%
1)EF2000 :- 5/10 :- 5/10
2)MIG-35 :- 10/10 :- 10/10
3)F-18 :- 5/10 :- 5/10 Based on details on Australian Order
4)F-16 :- 10/10 :- 10/10
5)RAFALE :- 5/10 :- 8/10
6)Grippen :- 10/10 :- 10/10

...

Category : Integrity of equipments 15%
1)EF2000 :- 10/15 - 10/15 Incl UK which is a clown of US
2)MIG-35 :- 15/15 - 15/15
3)F-18 :- 10/15 - 5/15
4)F-16 :- 10/15 - 5/15
5)RAFALE :- 15/15 - 15/15 based on experience
6)Grippen :- 10/15 - 10/15- American Engine

...

Category : Political Mileage 20%

1)EF2000 :- 15/20 :- 15/20
2)MIG-35 :- 20/20 :- 20/20
3)F-18 :- 20/20 :- 20/20
4)F-16 :- 20/20 :- 20/20
5)RAFALE :- 20/20 :- 20/20
6)Grippen :- 10/20 - 5/20 - No speech in international forum etc

...

second set of scores is based on my knowledge, beliefs and assumptions

- Nitin

Regarding Category : Aircraft quality and specifications 30%
You have to differentiate proven vs just pure specs. MiG-35 is a lot of specs only at this point. So if you are given Gripen NG a low point, then MiG-35 will also fall into that. Plus, from IAF experience, Russian products have usually had major maintenance headaches, especially with the MiG-29s in service.

Regarding Category : Costs considerations 10%
It's misconception to give MiG-35 full points on this. You have to look at the overall lifecycle costs (i.e. 30+ years of in-life service) to really get the true costs. Again from IAF experience, MiG-29s have not done well in this regard. Russian products are sold at fly-away costs ... so it looks cheaper initially. But they are more expensive to operate over the life of the product than Western ones - Mirage 2000 is a case in point. A lot the Western aircrafts are sold in long term support packages which includes things like spares and parts support for xxx hrs of flight or number of years.

Regarding Category : Integrity of equipments 15%
If you mean "Integrity of equipments" to be "Part Supplies Reliability", then MiG-35 shouldn't be receiving full points because IAF has had a lot of issues with part supplies from Russia ... maybe not in terms of political blocks ...as you are implying with British episode with American parts in SeaKings after Pokhran test. You have to look at both - political sanctions and parts production reliability.

Category : Political Mileage 20%
In terms of political mileage, you are giving lower to EF. It does include 4 influential European nations - UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy. So you may want to reconsider that.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Sep 2009 06:45

Some pictures for the jingos

Check out the MiG-35 flypast

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Sep 2009 08:31

After some thought it occurred to me that the MRCA can no more be considered as a means to induct a/c quickly in order to arrest falling strength. We are long past that stage (2004-05). No, any shortfall in numbers in the near term will be met with additional numbers of su-30MKIs. This also seems to be in line with the whispers from MAKS 09. Expect an announcement for additional MKIs and IN fulcrums.

So then what is the MRCA for? My take is that it will be a complement/backup for the MCA (in case there are inordinate delays). In this sense, we simply can't look at the legacy birds - fuclrums, teens since they are in a sense dated compared to a 5th gen type (MCA). Similarly dump all the single engined ones as well - teen again and gripen. The only two a/c that can somewhat be similar to and complement the MCA (necessarily twin engined plus stealthy) are the two most modern designs - RAfale and EF-2000.

Between these 2 a/c, it will depend upon factors like commonality offered accross platforms - Kaveri II (JV with snecma) for the Rafales AND the MCA for example. EJ-200s for LCAs and MRCA and possibly MCA as well. It just depends on who plays their cards right.

Even though these birds are more expensive, a former ACM made it clear that the IAF was willig to look at fewer numbers. My take is that India will settle for 100 odd Rafale with deep TOT, mfg. since the idea is not to buff up numbers via the MRCA anyway. The numbers will come via LCA (200, replacing bisons and floggers). THe MRCA/MCA will replace Jags/M2ks/MiG-29s. The Su-30MKI and Pakfa will do the rest.

this also takes care of IAF need for diversification without undue risk (US birds). jmt

cm

CM.

koti · Post by **koti** » 01 Sep 2009 09:05

Friends we are not facing any threat from any 5th gen fighters from our hostilities as of now.
We are investing heavily in PAK-FA and MCA, which should address our 5th gen concerns.

We already have a better aircraft(MKI) compared to our neighbours.

Considering this I strongly feel that MRCA should be chosen in favour of the cheapest option available.
Also none of the costlier options are offering any decisive advantage for their price.
An F-18 and Mig-35 are not much different comparing their strike capabilities and weapons. Except for the AESA there in nothing interesting in SuperBug that puts it in a better place then Jas-35, Mig-35, F-16.
These aircraft already have AESA(inferior though)and it will definitely get better in time.

And Will the single engine aircraft cost half(2/2=1

) the bucks for maintenance? Also how do they compare with twin engine ones in terms litres burnt per unit distance?

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Sep 2009 09:16

CM,

MRCA , if quickly inducted, may just about arrest further decline in squadron strengths. For restoring # of Squads to 39.5 units, we would need LCA to come online too.

NRao,

Local production only increases complexity and time required to finish production run. First 18 will be off the shelf, second batch would be assembled from SKD kits, next batch from CKD kits and than last ones would have larger indigenous content. For each of these steps vendor would have to build a new assembly line, testing facilities, train and certify new workforce and their products in India. A big company with lotsa experience and resources would be able to deliver it much quicker and more efficiently.

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 01 Sep 2009 09:17

Cain Marko wrote:After some thought it occurred to me that the MRCA can no more be considered as a means to induct a/c quickly in order to arrest falling strength. We are long past that stage (2004-05). No, any shortfall in numbers in the near term will be met with additional numbers of su-30MKIs. This also seems to be in line with the whispers from MAKS 09. Expect an announcement for additional MKIs and IN fulcrums.

So then what is the MRCA for? My take is that it will be a complement/backup for the MCA (in case there are inordinate delays). In this sense, we simply can't look at the legacy birds - fuclrums, teens since they are in a sense dated compared to a 5th gen type (MCA). Similarly dump all the single engined ones as well - teen again and gripen. The only two a/c that can somewhat be similar to and complement the MCA (necessarily twin engined plus stealthy) are the two most modern designs - RAfale and EF-2000.

Between these 2 a/c, it will depend upon factors like commonality offered accross platforms - Kaveri II (JV with snecma) for the Rafales AND the MCA for example. EJ-200s for LCAs and MRCA and possibly MCA as well. It just depends on who plays their cards right.

Even though these birds are more expensive, a former ACM made it clear that the IAF was willig to look at fewer numbers. My take is that India will settle for 100 odd Rafale with deep TOT, mfg. since the idea is not to buff up numbers via the MRCA anyway. The numbers will come via LCA (200, replacing bisons and floggers). THe MRCA/MCA will replace Jags/M2ks/MiG-29s. The Su-30MKI and Pakfa will do the rest.

this also takes care of IAF need for diversification without undue risk (US birds). jmt

cm

CM.

For god sake, buy anything before we loose any more land to others.

May be China should occupy India. that might make us more efficient.

Coming back to the thread, I feel the real competition is among
1) F-18
2)Rafale
3)EF2000
All of the above fighters have got AESA and they all are multirole fighters. But EF2000 is faster and sophisticated. It has also got the super cruise feature, which I feel matters. Also, the engines and technology is suitable for our LCA and MCA programs.
I assume that EF2000 is the best among these three. India should not look at the cost now.
FYI,
India spends less than 2% of its GDP, whereas Pakistan spends 3.7% to 5% and china from 4.5% onwards.

Wake up India!!!!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Sep 2009 15:15

srai wrote: Regarding Category : Aircraft quality and specifications 30%
You have to differentiate proven vs just pure specs. MiG-35 is a lot of specs only at this point. So if you are given Gripen NG a low point, then MiG-35 will also fall into that. Plus, from IAF experience, Russian products have usually had major maintenance headaches, especially with the MiG-29s in service.

How does proven V/s specs matters? Was MKI proven when it was conceived and contracted for? F -22 / F -35? Just saying that it is not proven does mot mean it is not capable. Ultimately, specs according to which aircraft is designed will take over. Do we mean to say F 16 is better than F 35?

With respect to maintenance headaches, let us understand the picture in full. While there is no reason to disagree, we have problems with spare parts and all with Soviet designed aircrafts, we also need to understand the reason underlying as then see whether the same is rectified or not.

Majority of IAF fleet operates SU developed aircrafts, the only exception being MKI from Russia. In SU times, there were many companies which used to provide different parts and then it was finally assembled. With the split of SU, many of these companies are no longer a part of Rusia. This creates problem since every spare part comes from a different nation all together.

To add to this, our vintage aircrafts futher increases the complexity of the problem. Think how many countries in the world operates Mig 21 /23 to this date. Now, compare had u opted for f 86 Sabres in 1965 and still operating them, will LM / UNkil be in a position to supply spares??

Now, with new products developed entirely in Russia, first problem will get resolved since the problem was never intentional.
With respect to second, it still depend on Indian diplomacy how fast they take decisions. The first of MMRCA will be recd only 13/ 15 years after being conceived. AND WE CLAIM LCA IS DELAYED
No doubt after 60 years, if we continue using MMCRA, LM / Boeing / RAFALE / EADS also will not be able to provide spares and will lead to maintenance headache.

srai wrote: Regarding Category : Costs considerations 10%
It's misconception to give MiG-35 full points on this. You have to look at the overall lifecycle costs (i.e. 30+ years of in-life service) to really get the true costs. Again from IAF experience, MiG-29s have not done well in this regard. Russian products are sold at fly-away costs ... so it looks cheaper initially. But they are more expensive to operate over the life of the product than Western ones - Mirage 2000 is a case in point. A lot the Western aircrafts are sold in long term support packages which includes things like spares and parts support for xxx hrs of flight or number of years.

Ya. Let us discuss life cycle cost. I understand life cycle cost includes cost of acquisition, cost of operations, upgrading cost and replacement/disposal cost.

Cost of acquisition of Mig 35 is one of the lowest.
Cost of operations - I think rafale is lowest but gurus will be able to shed more lights. Guru, request you to enlighten us
Cost of up gradation - Again Mig 35 will be one of the lowest- Consider upgradation of Mig 29 is 962 mn USD as against over 2.5 bn USD for Mirage.
Cost of disposal - Doesnt matter since we are not dealing with nuke waste where it will be very huge

srai wrote: Regarding Category : Integrity of equipments 15%
If you mean "Integrity of equipments" to be "Part Supplies Reliability", then MiG-35 shouldn't be receiving full points because IAF has had a lot of issues with part supplies from Russia ... maybe not in terms of political blocks ...as you are implying with British episode with American parts in SeaKings after Pokhran test. You have to look at both - political sanctions and parts production reliability.

Integrity of equipment meant NO SANCTIONS / STRINGS FREE / UNQUALIFIED SUPPORT THUR ENTIRE TENURE REGARDLESS OF CHANGE IN GEO POLITICAL DYNAMICS / NUKE TESTS / NO BUGS IN SOFTWARE / SOURCE CODES ETC

srai wrote: Category : Political Mileage 20%
In terms of political mileage, you are giving lower to EF. It does include 4 influential European nations - UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy. So you may want to reconsider that.

I agree, probably I under estimated that. We can increase score there

-Nitin

avinash.rd · Post by **avinash.rd** » 01 Sep 2009 15:27

Hi All,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/busin ... ted=1&_r=1

The Rafale and EF2000 were offered at $95 million each to Singapore and South Korea. So my point is if we go for one of them, then we might get at the $95 million each including the complete technology transfer. I m just guessing here. But I feel it is worth.

R Arun · Post by **R Arun** » 01 Sep 2009 15:43

avinash.rd wrote:Hi All,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/busin ... ted=1&_r=1

The Rafale and EF2000 were offered at $95 million each to Singapore and South Korea. So my point is if we go for one of them, then we might get at the $95 million each including the complete technology transfer. I m just guessing here. But I feel it is worth.

for a lower price we can get a more capable SU35.