MRCA News and Discussion

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 05 Sep 2009 08:53

VijayKumarSinha wrote:Why is it right for U.S. to arm Pakistan with weapons that would be used against the "terrorists" in the short term and then for ever against India?

In his defence, all MRCA contenders nations barring may be Russia are ready to sell Pak their a/cs (which also happen to be their top-of-the-line a/cs).

@ George, The thing that hurts India's sentiments the most is the fact that the US uses its defence equipment sale to pakistan like an aphrodisiac, to romance her(it's her right ?) while the other contenders are just selling them bread in exchange of money (with no love or lust involved).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Sep 2009 09:52

dorai wrote:MMRCA a topic in the September issue of DTI.

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416096376&p=38

If I interpret what they say it means all jets will demonstrate AESA during the trials.

Except for the Eurofighter.

ah ! I finally found a source for the breakup of the numbers of single and twin seat MRCA fighters..I had said it more than a year ago, but never could find the original article that I read it in. so now we know for sure- its 86 single seat and 40 twin seat.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Sep 2009 10:09

We just had this discussion (pak-US relationship) few pages back on this thread. Please read it before you make everyone run in circles again.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Sep 2009 10:42

Dmurphy wrote: all MRCA contenders nations barring may be Russia are ready to sell Pak their a/cs (which also happen to be their top-of-the-line a/cs)

Russia too sold stuff to Paki , 4 Mi-17 and 1 An-26 transport

kit · Post by **kit** » 05 Sep 2009 11:34

VijayKumarSinha wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Sorry George, there is an important difference here.............I must say that you have made some very cogent arguments on how the SH is the best fit for the MRCA contract. I wish this aircraft was offered by a country other than the one that is the main funding and arming source of Pakistan military.

I completely and whole heartedly agree with Kakaji Kahin

This giving away of weapons to Pak is no different from USA's giving away of weapons to Mujahideen's against Soviet's or the Soviets giving away weapons to the North Vietnamese.

USA has to stop hedging its bets and pick its side once and for all. Would it be OK for any country to arm the Taliban? Or Iraq leading up to the Iraq war? Why not? Because they were terrorists and producing weapons of mass destruction(which btw disappeared into thin air)? Gimme a break.

Why is it right for U.S. to arm Pakistan with weapons that would be used against the "terrorists" in the short term and then for ever against India?

I have absolutely nothing against buying 16's or 18's if thats what the IAF thinks is right for it, all that I have said so far and would continue to say is that I believe that it is possible for us to use our $10 billion leverage in convincing which ever country we are going to buy the MMRCA from, that they have to pick sides.

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Even then they could see where it was heading. However the reality at the time was that the technology was not mature enough.

Now it is.

If they knew that the future was BVR why did they start Red Flag which is meant to teach US+Nato+other allies manueverability. If the future is BVR why is the manuverability based red flag still continuing? Why did they even start the F-22 program if they new the future was BVR? Why is the world's best dog fighter F-22 still in American arsenal, if it is not needed in this BVR age shouldn't they retire it like SR-71? Also, let me repeat it once again there are only a limited number of BVR weapons that you can carry in one aircraft because they are very big. When they run out, especially against a numerically superior enemy (as they would if we were fighting the Panda) we would have to resort to WVR tactics.

Also, are you sure, that the technology is mature enough now? I mean, back then they were sure enough that it was good enough then thats why they went in there with BVR's and suffered heavy casualities.

GW, its not just for any reason that they say that history repeats itself.

Have been saying that for some time now.There is no use in pondering over how technologically F18 is suited for IAF the US can and will stop support and spares when it suits them.Thats for sure.So strategically speaking buying American is a very bad idea especially in the long run.If russians cant put up something state of the art in the numbers required , the Typhoon consortium certainly can.Now thats all possible unless there are people willing to sell the country.. why doesnt it come as no surprise that more than a trillion dollars of Indian money is locked up in swiss banks.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 Sep 2009 11:57

"sell the country"

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 05 Sep 2009 13:09

sell the country

started with the nuclear deal -

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Sep 2009 16:17

More on the Russian order for Flankers.The complete order is for 64 Flankers for just $2.5 billion! This works out to approx.$40 million only for a Flanker.The break up is for 12 SU-27SM single seaters,4 SU-30M2 twin seaters between 2009-11 and 48 SU-35S single seaters by 2015.Last year Russai ordered from Sukhoi 32 SU-34s for just $1.25 billion.Again the twin seat Flanker deep penetration strike version comes at a cost of also $40 million a piece.

Sukhoi is also goping to get $100 million in funding from the govt. and MIG is likely to get $470 million.The OAK (Russian United Aircraft Corp.) expect to get further orders for MIG-35s and SU-35s until the PAK-FA comes into production,by the decade end.It may be that first production of the 5th-gen fighter would be for India.

Now when we see the very attractive prices for the SU-35s,etc.,the $100+ million per piece prices of the twin-engined western MMRCA contenders,smaller and less capable aircraft than the Flanker series,is simply absurd.Imagine getting 2+ SU-30MKIs or SU-34/35s for the cost of one F-18SH,Typhoon or Rafale! Which aircraft would you want? Since the NIIP AESA radar for the PAK-FA has already been unveiled and will be offered with the SU-35 in advance,the cost would still be not more than $50 million per piece,half that of a western MMRCA! BY these prices,the MIG-35 should come in at an even lesser price,barring MIG padding some of its losses into a higher price.

It is quite clear that the way to go for the IAF is to acquire more Flanker versions,SU-34/35s and upgraded SU-30MKIs,as much as we can get during he next 5 years,to have a Flanker inventory of at least 300 of the type.The key to successfully adding to the IAF's punch will be to simultaneously acquire two lines of heavy and medium aircraft from Russia/westren manufacturers (if prices are competitive) and keep producing the LCA MK-2 version.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 05 Sep 2009 16:54

Now when we see the very attractive prices for the SU-35s,etc.,the $100+ million per piece prices of the twin-engined western MMRCA contenders,smaller and less capable aircraft than the Flanker series,is simply absurd.Imagine getting 2+ SU-30MKIs or SU-34/35s for the cost of one F-18SH,Typhoon or Rafale! Which aircraft would you want? Since the NIIP AESA radar for the PAK-FA has already been unveiled and will be offered with the SU-35 in advance,the cost would still be not more than $50 million per piece,half that of a western MMRCA! BY these prices,the MIG-35 should come in at an even lesser price,barring MIG padding some of its losses into a higher price.

well price is one of the main attractions of Russian aircraft always - just becasue we got it cheap we never valued them and not doing it even now -ghar ki murgi dal barabar syndrome

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 05 Sep 2009 17:17

Me thinks, this thread should be locked, we have the same usual suspects & occasionally new posters making the same arguments & we keep going round in circles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2009 17:22

Good news.

ZHUK-AE Radar Passes Flight Test {for the MiG-35}

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 05 Sep 2009 19:39

All aircraft meet the specifications. I think the political package that comes with the deal will the deciding factor.
What will be the kind of support that we will get from US, should China create some trouble in North-East ?
What will be Russia's stance ?
Europe can't really give us the kind of support that US can give, when it comes to the China factor.
I don't think even the Russians can match what US can give in this case.

Given things hotting up in North-East, India should take some tangible guarantees from US in exchange for any arms deal with them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2009 19:55

technical support - as in timely delivery of spares, etc?

Or political support?

The prior, IMHO, is important. The latter? I would not depend on it in this era. IMHo India, the next time around NEEDS to deliver a solution that should either reduce future occurrences of problems in teh region or totally manage to eliminate them.

For either it is India, actually, that needs to buckle up and stop - totally - or as much and quickly as possible even having this mind set.

It is A mind set that is actually the problem.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 05 Sep 2009 20:09

Yes, agree, we need to get rid of the mind set and start doing things on our own. But, it will take time. Please note that India has had its share of invasions, foreign rule. I think the country is discovering itself only after the economic reforms of 1991.

Now, for the next 20 yrs, we cannot have China spoil our growth process. Hence, a comprehensive political package is the need of the hour till, we have learnt to stand on our own.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 05 Sep 2009 21:11

VijayKumarSinha wrote:If they knew that the future was BVR why did they start Red Flag which is meant to teach US+Nato+other allies manueverability.

You should read up on Red Flag, it is not about maneuverability.

VijayKumarSinha wrote:Why did they even start the F-22 program if they new the future was BVR?

Stealth

Another way to look at is, if maneuverability was so important, why did the US end the F-22 and bet the farm on the F-35?

VijayKumarSinha wrote:there are only a limited number of BVR weapons that you can carry in one aircraft because they are very big. When they run out, especially against a numerically superior enemy (as they would if we were fighting the Panda) we would have to resort to WVR tactics.

Or return to base and rearm.

By the time the F-22/F-35 have used their 6 AMRAAMs, the enemy is going to have had a very bad day.

VijayKumarSinha wrote:Also, are you sure, that the technology is mature enough now? I mean, back then they were sure enough that it was good enough then thats why they went in there with BVR's and suffered heavy casualities.

Back then it was all very new and such thoughts were based on projections of where they thought the technology would be.

It is mature now, we no longer need projections, we have the actual devices and can conduct real, difficult tests to demonstrate that they meet requirements.

VijayKumarSinha wrote:GW, its not just for any reason that they say that history repeats itself.

Technology is not history, technology just advances.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2009 22:10

Why did they even start the F-22 program if they new the future was BVR?

To add to GW's comment of "stealth".

Stealth to specifically operate in very hostile environments. Use F-22 to knock the "eyes" and use the F-22 to complete the rest.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Sep 2009 22:14

prabir wrote:Yes, agree, we need to get rid of the mind set and start doing things on our own. But, it will take time.

Why? Kargil we changed preeeeeeety quick I would say. India has the ability to change on a dime, but we do not until an external force forces us to - inertia. Time is our greatest enemy.

Please note that India has had its share of invasions, foreign rule. I think the country is discovering itself only after the economic reforms of 1991.

In fact all the more reasonS THIS should make Indians chance mind set 'right now'.

Now, for the next 20 yrs, we cannot have China spoil our growth process. Hence, a comprehensive political package is the need of the hour till, we have learnt to stand on our own.

depends on Indian Mind set. If it is weak, wishy washy, need time to change - bet they will take advantage and "spoil our growth process". What do you expect?

Anyways, back to MRCA.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 06 Sep 2009 09:19

Maybe from interest for the Rafale fans among us: http://www.france24.com/en/20090904-fra ... -air-force
Mostly political bla bla, but one sentence cought my attention: "The Rafale is not the most expensive offer in terms of operating cost. That's the F/A-18."

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 Sep 2009 13:58

Like all BRFites I have been following the Great Indian Debate on the Great Indian MRCA Competition. Each person has stated his views, his beliefs, his bias, his political leanings etc.

What is the answer ?

From whatever little that I do know about combat aircraft I think all the aircraft are almost equal. Yes there is a little bit to choose, one has a super advanced radar, one has TVC, one is smaller (read stealthier), one has a longer range, one has this-this-this and the other one has that-that-that. I think that in an actual combat situation it will be the skill and training of the pilot rather than just the aircraft, which would win the day.

So what do we select ?

Rather than an “unknown” entity I think we should buy from a friend, a friend who will stand by us i.e. no embargoes !! I am personally very scared of the word “friend” and the word “love” both these are very powerful words but used very loosely by all of us. So how do we know who is our “friend” ? Past track record may be a good indication but is it sufficient ? NO !

Let us create a difficult situation FOR OURSELVES (our politicians are experts in this field). Let us see who is going to stand by us.

Let us have a (series) of underground nuclear tests. We will validate our designs, at least those made after 1999. We instigate Pakistan to do something stupid.

But most important……
Let us see who shouts against us ?
Who supports us ?
Who embargoes us ?
Who thinks that we have “right” to conduct these tests ?

The one who supports us……

Gets the MRCA contract

Kersi

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 06 Sep 2009 18:47

Kersi D wrote: Let us have a (series) of underground nuclear tests. We will validate our designs, at least those made after 1999. We instigate Pakistan to do something stupid.

But most important……
Let us see who shouts against us ?
Who supports us ?
Who embargoes us ?
Who thinks that we have “right” to conduct these tests ?

The one who supports us……

Gets the MRCA contract
Kersi

Kersi D,

I find your argument really absurd!
To give you an analogy, it is like a slum child who suddenly got himself 1 million Indian rupees and wants to buy a car. He thinks by waving his 1 million around he will get Mercedes and BMW and GM to dance to his tune! He thinks now that he has the 1 million he owns them! Which is utterly naive and absurd!

India's MRCA is pretty much the same. $10 billion is a big money but its a mere pittance required to convince anybody to stop applying FULL sanctions on India for resuming nuclear testing. While the 10 billion MRCA will go some way with individual companies that are bidding in the MRCA. It is a small contract for Boeing, LM or Eurofighter than have made orders worth 500+ aircraft for their domestic markets.

Rather the MRCA is a good opportunity for India to try to pick somebody they want to develop close ties with and while customer might be King in a capitalist world, India is far from being a "WHALE" !

shanth · Post by **shanth** » 06 Sep 2009 20:03

India's MRCA is pretty much the same. $10 billion is a big money but its a mere pittance required to convince anybody to stop applying FULL sanctions on India for resuming nuclear testing.

I agree.
For example, here is what Boeing has 'pre-ordered' for its dreamliner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

Even after the cancellations, the Dreamliner has more advance orders from airlines — about 850 — than any other commercial plane in history..........
At an average sales price that aviation analysts believe to be about $125 million each, those 850 Dreamliners could turn into $110 billion.

Wiki says the Boeing has a yearly revenue of 60 B$.
Wiki says that Lockheed Martin has a yearly revenue of 42 B$, with ~81B$ in back orders...

I dont think the MRCA will deliver 10$ B in 1 year...so if you assume the 10 B$ is to be payed out over 4 years.

Perhaps, MRCA matters more to India than to the outside world?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2009 20:08

Philip wrote:More on the Russian order for Flankers.The complete order is for 64 Flankers for just $2.5 billion! This works out to approx.$40 million only for a Flanker.The break up is for 12 SU-27SM single seaters,4 SU-30M2 twin seaters between 2009-11 and 48 SU-35S single seaters by 2015.Last year Russai ordered from Sukhoi 32 SU-34s for just $1.25 billion.Again the twin seat Flanker deep penetration strike version comes at a cost of also $40 million a piece.

Orders for state will always be at lower cost and base line price with minimum profit , so what will cost ~ $ 50 million to India will cost ~ $ 40 million to RuAF.

There are other hidden cost like training , logistics ,TOT cost , MKI'esd cost which are borne by the importing country

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 06 Sep 2009 21:37

NRao wrote:technical support - as in timely delivery of spares, etc?

Or political support?

The prior, IMHO, is important. The latter? I would not depend on it in this era. IMHo India, the next time around NEEDS to deliver a solution that should either reduce future occurrences of problems in teh region or totally manage to eliminate them.

For either it is India, actually, that needs to buckle up and stop - totally - or as much and quickly as possible even having this mind set.

It is A mind set that is actually the problem.

Amen Rao sir,

But in my humble opinion, the latter is also just as useful.. Because we cannot hope to contain either Pakistan or China or both of them all by ourselves, no matter how strong our Defence forces are...

Hell even in 1999, pakistan was only able to de-escalate situation only with the help of USA. Otherwise we would have definitely beaten them black and blue.. Imagine, if pakistan didn't have the political support of USA, what would have happened to them???

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 Sep 2009 22:27

shanth wrote:
India's MRCA is pretty much the same. $10 billion is a big money but its a mere pittance required to convince anybody to stop applying FULL sanctions on India for resuming nuclear testing.
I agree.
For example, here is what Boeing has 'pre-ordered' for its dreamliner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp
Even after the cancellations, the Dreamliner has more advance orders from airlines — about 850 — than any other commercial plane in history..........
At an average sales price that aviation analysts believe to be about $125 million each, those 850 Dreamliners could turn into $110 billion.
Wiki says the Boeing has a yearly revenue of 60 B$.
Wiki says that Lockheed Martin has a yearly revenue of 42 B$, with ~81B$ in back orders...

I dont think the MRCA will deliver 10$ B in 1 year...so if you assume the 10 B$ is to be payed out over 4 years.

Perhaps, MRCA matters more to India than to the outside world?

A US$ 10 billion order maybe peanuts to Boeing or LM but not to any of the other contenders especially SAAB or Dassault or even MiG, under their present order bookings.

WHICH COUNTRY HAS PLACED A SINGLE ORDER WORTH US$ 10 BILLION IN LAST 10 YEARS, ON A COMPANY OUTSIDE THAT COUNTRY ??

WHICH COUNTRY HAS ORDERED ANY MILITARY EQUIPMENT WORTH US$ 10 BILLION IN LAST 10 YEARS, ON A COMPANY OUTSIDE THAT COUNTRY ??

And if Boeing or LM think that a US$ 10 billion IAF order is peanuts then they can go to the dogs (monkeys is more appropriate). We would be better of buying form somebody who appreciates us, appreciates our business and values our moolah.

Waving US$ 1 million may not make Mercedes or BMW dance to your tune but certainly Toyotas and Hondas and Suzukis would be interested.

The final objective is to find out WHO will stand by us when our chips are down, And if the government of Boeing or LM or Mercedes or WXZDRFFG ban us.... too bad.

Let us not forget China has made US dance to its tune. Of course the trade between US & China may be several times US 10 billion. As usual we are under estimating ourselves.

I will give you an analogy (similar to a slum kid winning and waving US$ 1 million lottery). We Indians have REGULARLY received "erroneous" decisions on the cricket fields at the hands (er fingers) of gora and the not-so-gora umpires. We woke only when our icon was a victim in SA, many years ago. And we did shake up ICC. Similarly it was Harbhajan Singh who gave it to the Aussies what they have been giving to others since past several years.

It's time we wake up and stand up for ourselves

K

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Sep 2009 00:13

It's India's largest ever, It strategic from Indian's POV and any govt or company would love have it but commercially it's insignificant for making countries change their strategic policies.

MRCA is Rs 40K corer or $10 Billion (minus $5 billion in offset, local production)

Air India placed an order for Rs 66K corer for civilian aircarfts

Indians have placed power equipment orders with chinese companies for projects worth $50billion in last couple of years

Nuclear deal is worth more than $200Billion for rest of the world

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2009 03:22

Money talks. Proof just a few days ago:

Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'

August 30, 2009

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

Just millions.

BUT, it can work BOTH ways. It just depends on who is worth "millions".

The MRCA vendor or the MRCA purchaser.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 07 Sep 2009 03:32

its money dude.every one needs money.be it Boeing or LM.No one wants to loose money.If any one of these contenders take this deal home,the aftermath is much more valuable to them.a spin off will be they net value increases as much as like the share value.If this $10 billion is nothing for these American majors then why all this BS ?then why the hell are they moving so agressively to take down the contenders with latest technology.

Since the $10 billion is nothing for them, why would they take pain in establishing production facilities in terms of offsests and providing TOT for no reason?
Cmon,get real.On the virtual basis this MMRCA is a life saver to few companies and not to mention a face saver to others.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Sep 2009 07:34

Why do you say $10 billion is "nothing" for them? It is $10Billion for them and US both.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Sep 2009 10:35

jaladipc wrote:its money dude.every one needs money.be it Boeing or LM.No one wants to loose money.If any one of these contenders take this deal home,the aftermath is much more valuable to them.a spin off will be they net value increases as much as like the share value.If this $10 billion is nothing for these American majors then why all this BS ?then why the hell are they moving so agressively to take down the contenders with latest technology.

Since the $10 billion is nothing for them, why would they take pain in establishing production facilities in terms of offsests and providing TOT for no reason?
Cmon,get real.On the virtual basis this MMRCA is a life saver to few companies and not to mention a face saver to others.

You have nicely sunned up what I am trying to say.

Kersi

adel ansari · Post by **adel ansari** » 07 Sep 2009 13:00

Let the Games Begin...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Aer ... 981104.cms

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Sep 2009 14:09

We are being heard,or are telepathetic and the age of miracles has not passed us yet! News from MAKS 2009.Apparently,the IAF is to buy an additional 50 SU-30MKIs in addition to the extra 40 ordered to make up a grand total of at least "320".The PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter will enter production from 2015,arriving at the right time for production for India once Flanker arrivals are complete.The IAF has clearly seen the light that acquiring more SU-30MKIs is both qualitatively better,easier to absorb into the force,is non-controversial given its performance against western opposition and cost-effective too, instead of waiting for an MMRCA decision which might arrive only in 2011.The delay in the LCA development has compounded the serious depleting numbers in the IAF and even if is developed on time,LCA MK-2 will enter production around the same time as the 5th-gen fighter! I forsee that we will not be producing more than 120-150 LCAs includingthe naval variants,as more capable aircraft will be acquired by the enemy than possessed right now.The LCA will also be behind the SU-30MKI and 5th-gen fighter too and when the MMRCA arrives will be third in the list in terms of capability.The demand for more capable fighters will be far stronger then than as of now.

With Russia buying both SU Flanker variants in alrge numbers and MIG-35s in the procurement pipeline too,the MIG-35 is likely to be a very affordable bird with its AESA radar and vstly enhanced capability ,plus TVC too,making it the most agile fighter of the whole lot.If the Israeli air force trains its pilots for digfighting with such seriousness,it goes to show that BVR is not a magic bullet.As many have said,how many BVR missiles can you carry? Once you have evaded them with the assortment of decoys,towed ones too these days,or shot them down with a close range missile,you will then have to rely on your guns when all your missiles have been exhausted,or on dogfighting skills to gain an advantage in the air to use your short range missiles.Unlike the USAF,the PAF trains its pilots differently.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Sep 2009 14:59

F-16s are doing fair number of short sorties today.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Sep 2009 17:06

Phillip saheb,

I thought your nara was to stop the MRCA program and buy more MKIs.

I for one am glad that MRCA has not been stopped. That the IAF is prepared to absorb 50 more MKIs is a far better news.

I still feel that the MRCA will bring some valuables that the MKI cannot (as great as the MKI is).

So, it is good that either the IAF BR reader just read part of the post or that the telepathic communication is not fully mature or a combination of both.

However, with this proposed purchase (I have seen that 50 MKI purchase only in Force, so .................. will wait a day or two longer to get some other source to confirm it) I am not rather sure that the MRCA purchase would be at 126. I was hoping that they would boost it to 200. But, now I do not see that happening.

pavel · Post by **pavel** » 07 Sep 2009 18:19

[www.bharat-defence.com] the show really begins now

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Sep 2009 18:34

Yes,at the publically stated prices of approx.$40 million per Sukhoi for the Russian air force,the cost for a foreign buyer cannot be considerably more,especially for an old client like India,who operate and are produicing at home the same aircraft.More Fmalner derivatives for both the RuAF and the IAF will gladden the hearts and pockets of OAK and Sukhoi and make the aircraft an attractive proposition in foreign markets too.Even the MIG-29/35 is allegedly receiving attention from diverse sources,and orders from Russia,etc. are on the cards.320 Sukhois in the IAF roundel will be the equivalent of at least 500 fighters of yesteryear.

This gives the IAF the freedom to carefully make its choice for the MMRCA,keeping a careful eye on the cost.In fact the Sukhoi order will keep the pressure on the MMRCA contenders as if the costs are exorbitant,the IAF will simply reject the aircraft and buy more of the same as it is doing.With 120+ Jaguars also to be upgraded with new engines and a host of avionics,towed decoys,stand-off weaponry,etc.,the cost of the MMRCA will be closely compared with the upgraded and extra Jaguars at the lower end and the Flanker at the top end.Its cost should be somewhere in the middle.or at least the same as the Sukhoi,because of large numbers being bought.If the LCA is going to be delayed even further and its production clearly going to be a limited one,then the dark horse,the Gripen has a fighting chance (being cost effective) against the MIG-35.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2009 19:20

I saw "muscular deltoids" F-16s fly overhead 7-8 times this afternoon.(Bangalore)

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 07 Sep 2009 20:19

Philip wrote:News from MAKS 2009.Apparently,the IAF is to buy an additional 50 SU-30MKIs in addition to the extra 40 ordered to make up a grand total of at least "320".

Link?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 Sep 2009 20:20

^^^
http://www.forceindia.net/showfeaturereport3.aspx

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Sep 2009 20:25

Dmurphy wrote:^^^
http://www.haraaaaaaaam.net/showfeaturereport3.aspx

whoops- plagiarist sites must not be lined off BRF

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Sep 2009 20:39

what would be a better music to hear is India plans to "make" another 40 MKIs rather....

I think, we have heard enough about buying more MKIs and making more LCAs, along with buying many refurbs for different airforces as a means to boost numbers. This just shows, we are only interested in the numbers.. (is important of course), but should not be more than roles and features, especially the quality of product and services that should take more precendence.

Except for the expensive france, none thus far as suppliers and licensed products we manufacture could claim anything to what IAF wants in the MRCA. Hence, it is important to see MRCA into IAF strengths is in any sane's guess.

.. and we can always live with mig21 bis, btw. we could increase produciton of their numbers to 1000s ..just to keep the russkies happy. Is that not what many want?