MRCA News and Discussion

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 20 Sep 2009 13:31

RameshC wrote: unlike some previous posts, the APG-79 has ranges well over 250NM, it readily plays awacs roles in the USN and is the mainstay for defence against low flying cruise missiles.

link ?

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html
Have a look at the figure titled Comparitive Range Vs Target RCS.
And by the way, the RCS of cruise missiles and other stealthy ones will require a better and more powerful radar ( as seen in the figure) to play a truly AWACS role.

I agree with the one basket theory though, but if there is ToT and that one basket happens to be of our own, then I guess it won't be much of a headache..just a thought.

Can anybody here please elaborate on the diff btwn first generation and fourth gen AESA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Sep 2009 14:47

Given that all or most of the aircraft-and I think that the IAF would prefer a twin-engined aircraft for the Indian scenario where bird hits are very common,four key factors are emerging that might have vital significance.Provided a decision is taken in the latter half of 2010,the progress in the LCA programme,the comparative costs of the contenders and the emerging China factor,and the emergence of the PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter.Extra SU-30s are being acquired to give the IAF around 300+.The Chinese also have the Flanker in service,though inferior ones.So what the IAF requires is a speedy acquisition of the MMRCA to make up dwindling numbers.The numbers ,126+,some say might even go upto 200 of the type,will depende upon the speed with which the LCA MK-2 is perfected and arrives in full production.Any delays on this score will require additional purchases.Similarly,the spped with which the 5th-gen fighter is developed might see the IAF not wanting to spend too much on a new MMRCA with 4th-gen technology,when a vastly superior 5th-gen aircraft will be available in a few years time,by the middle of the next decade,arounbd 2015.

Acquisition of a cost-effective fighter appears to be the best course to take,not spending excessively on this class,as we have the LCA project to perfect,vital for our indigenous ambitions and the futuristic 5th-gen fighter which will give us a quantum advantage over our two traditional enemies,China and Pak.Maintaining the air dominance advatntage is being executed by the extra SU-30s on order and local production.Squaring the China factor by also acquiring the SU-34 bomber version for the LR strike and strategic role (preferred ,as our SSBNs haven't yet been commissioned) of the Flanker or even SU-35s,both types less expensive and more capable than their western rivals,will serve the IAF well.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Sep 2009 15:38

RameshC wrote:well gentlemen;

mrca i am up for the Rafale, EF, SV or SH. all of these are very capable and no matter which aircraft we choose from these we'll make sure its the best in the southern hemi. ....

ok, but that won't do for the IAF. for India is in the northern hemisphere.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 17:24

Rahul PS wrote:
RameshC wrote: unlike some previous posts, the APG-79 has ranges well over 250NM, it readily plays awacs roles in the USN and is the mainstay for defence against low flying cruise missiles.
link ?

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html
Have a look at the figure titled Comparitive Range Vs Target RCS.
And by the way, the RCS of cruise missiles and other stealthy ones will require a better and more powerful radar ( as seen in the figure) to play a truly AWACS role.

I agree with the one basket theory though, but if there is ToT and that one basket happens to be of our own, then I guess it won't be much of a headache..just a thought.

Can anybody here please elaborate on the diff btwn first generation and fourth gen AESA.

well these are estimates and i am sure they are inaccurate. The APG-73 the old f-18 SH's radar has a max detection range of 300km or 160NM, the apg-79 has nearly double that range.
the APG-79's track range for 1m2 is well over 150km. read the following, page 207,the apg-79 is far more relibale as well.the MTBF for the active array is over 15000hrs and 1250 hrs+ for the radar system itself. The MTBF for the Zhuk is 600hrs and for now can detect a 3m2 target at 130km the future upgrade versions will take timethe basic version is now under going weapons trails, i'd rather we go for rafale with RBE-2 AESA which is atleast cleared for production.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4484/zhukaemj2.jpg

http://books.google.com/books?id=4S3h8j ... ge&f=false

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... 79aesa.pdf

i too think IAF will go for a twin engined aircraft and the ideal options are EF/Rafale and SH, mig cant match their multirole abilities or payload flexibility, the mig is a gr8 air defence aircraft but makes a poor ground attack aircraft and last i checked we weren't so short on air superirority fighters. we will have 280 su-30mki, enough to handle any aircraft in PAF or PLAAF inventories.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 18:28

Interesting.

Could people have confused or actually misrepresented the actual range of radars just because they may have made a mistake in the units? Kms vs. Nautical Miles, etc?

Rahul PS wrote:September 17, 2009, (Sawf News) -

The publicly acknowledged range of the AN/APG 79 AESA that equips the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is 160 km. It is highly likely the AN/APG 79 AESA has a higher detection range than what is publicly acknowledged, but whether it goes up to 200 km is moot.

I do not have too much trust in either idrw.com nor "sawf news".

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 18:42

yup common mistake, but even the block 52 f-16 has 5,10,20,40,80,120,160NM range scales, max detection range for large ships is around 300km. the APG-79 is almost double that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 18:45

Perhaps we need to verify that. A mistake of 1.852X is a lot to make. And, worse no one catches it.

It seems to me that the sawf news item has made it. The problem there is that the person who started that "news" outlet is an ex IAF pilot(?)/person. I would have hoped he would have picked it up far before some yahoo like me.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 20 Sep 2009 18:50

manoeuvrability
MIG 35 > F-18
Avionics & weaponry
F-18 > MIG 35
single Vs multiple basket
F-18 > MIG-35 ?(ToT)
Geopolitics
F-18 > MIG 35
ToT
MIG 35 > F-18

And yes the Mig guys say they have an open architecture for incorporating weapons.So..we have a chance of adding the brahmos supersonic missiles by the time the tender is complete.Better avioincs and radar( although APG-79 ~ Zhuk-AE) can be all good, but nothing like a faster missile(it makes all the defence redundant).
And in the case of avioincs we can have a MIG 35 MKI.
And in the case of radar, we migh approach Israelis for ELTA.

The US is very cagey when it comes to modifying their weaponry, EUMA and all.

But one thing a faster missile in an allegedly comparitively lesser fighter is more potent than its competitor, it will smash it(notwithstanding the avioincs and situational awareness).

So there you go..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 19:00

And, just so that we all are on the same page:

Sept 9, 2009 :: Sweden’s Gripen combat jet in race for IAF order

"What we are offering is a second generation AESA (advanced extended search array radar) that incorporates a swishplate that enables it to rotate and considerably enhances its capabilities over the existing radar," Gripen International's India director Eddy de la Motte told reporters Wednesday.

I have not read what generation the Russians claim their AESA to be, but I doubt that it is even close to what the US has to offer. (not a knock on them - just the way it is. And, to get a bearing on when what happened: 2002 :: Aerospace System Improvements Enabled By Modern Phased Array Radar)

2nd edit, removed last line - NR

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 20 Sep 2009 19:00

NRao wrote:Perhaps we need to verify that. A mistake of 1.852X is a lot to make. And, worse no one catches it.

It seems to me that the sawf news item has made it. The problem there is that the person who started that "news" outlet is an ex IAF pilot(?)/person. I would have hoped he would have picked it up far before some yahoo like me.

I saw the same dishonesty in ausairpower.net and that too from a country which is a staunch US ally and uses these fighters.
Btwn am I missing something here, I still couldnt find in the links the kind of ranges that the APG-79 is supposed to have.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 19:06

Check the 2nd link provided by RameshC. There is a lot of technical language, but it does state the range to extend to 160 NM.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 19:10

Rahul PS wrote:manoeuvrability
MIG 35 > F-18
Avionics & weaponry
F-18 > MIG 35
single Vs multiple basket
F-18 > MIG-35 ?(ToT)
Geopolitics
F-18 > MIG 35
ToT
MIG 35 > F-18

And yes the Mig guys say they have an open architecture for incorporating weapons.So..we have a chance of adding the brahmos supersonic missiles by the time the tender is complete.Better avioincs and radar( although APG-79 ~ Zhuk-AE) can be all good, but nothing like a faster missile(it makes all the defence redundant).
And in the case of avioincs we can have a MIG 35 MKI.
And in the case of radar, we migh approach Israelis for ELTA.

The US is very cagey when it comes to modifying their weaponry, EUMA and all.

But one thing a faster missile in an allegedly comparitively lesser fighter is more potent than its competitor, it will smash it(notwithstanding the avioincs and situational awareness).

So there you go..

mig-35 cant carry the brahmos, its structure cant carry the 2.5 ton weight of brahmos-A. the F-18 could, its heavy and long enough for that but will Russia allow the missiles to be integrated on the F-18. ELTA and IMI have been kicked out from the competiton and chances are US will ban them selling radars on the mig.

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/report_details.aspx?id=60

Mr. Rao, correction, the apg-73 has range scales of upto 160NM, the apg-79 is said to have nearly twice the max detection range, my guess is over 500km.
page 207, right para.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4S3h8j ... ge&f=false

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 19:20

On AESA, IMVVVHO, there is not contest. Actually on three items there is no contest: AESA. network and sensors. (The rest personally I really do not care that much: dog fights, etc, etc, etc.)

Rahul PC,

There is one factor that should keep the MiG-35 out of the picture. MiG has stated that they cannot start production (the 18 that the vendor is supposed to deliver) by 2013. The RFP calls for the 18 to be delivered by 2012!! So, as we post right now, IF the MiG is selected then the first MiG-35 would/should be in India in 2014 at the earliest.

I had made this point a month or two ago. I suspect that MiG is no where close to manufacturing this plane if selected. And, my feel of news that RuAF will "order" some for their AF is just a gimmick - IMHO of course.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 20 Sep 2009 20:50

there are certain factors that go against mig-35 even if it gets a 200km zhuk-ae,

1.as claimed by NRAO sir the production won't start before 2013,,there are certain reports that mig-35 production won't start before 2014

http://www.timesnow.tv/MiG-35-fighter-p ... 324790.cms

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?664367

if production starts in 2013-14 period full operational capabilities won't be achieved before 2016 at the earliest,,by then both pak-fa and f-35 will be available

2.even if IAF ORDERS MIG-35 expect delays from russian side as was seen in case of su-30mki,gorshkov,mig-29k,etc. i love the mig-35 but i don't want the taxpayers money on an unproven jet with little chance of entering service in its parent air force.
rafale and super hornet are the 2 jets i would like the iaf to buy,both are frontline combat aircrafts ,both will be in service till 2035,so both will be upgraded ,have seen combat in afganistan, and come with more mature avionics,it is interesting to note that brazil rejected the su-35 offer even though su-35 was more agile than rafale and super hornet.i know the brazilian requirements are different but,we already will have 279 su-30mki and pak-fa, super maneuverable fighters so lets not put all the eggs in russian baskets.

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 20 Sep 2009 21:18

saptarishi wrote:there are certain factors that go against mig-35 even if it gets a 200km zhuk-ae,

1.as claimed by NRAO sir the production won't start before 2013,,there are certain reports that mig-35 production won't start before 2014

http://www.timesnow.tv/MiG-35-fighter-p ... 324790.cms

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?664367

if production starts in 2013-14 period full operational capabilities won't be achieved before 2016 at the earliest,,by then both pak-fa and f-35 will be available

2.even if IAF ORDERS MIG-35 expect delays from russian side as was seen in case of su-30mki,gorshkov,mig-29k,etc. i love the mig-35 but i don't want the taxpayers money on an unproven jet with little chance of entering service in its parent air force.
rafale and super hornet are the 2 jets i would like the iaf to buy,both are frontline combat aircrafts ,both will be in service till 2035,so both will be upgraded ,have seen combat in afganistan, and come with more mature avionics,it is interesting to note that brazil rejected the su-35 offer even though su-35 was more agile than rafale and super hornet.i know the brazilian requirements are different but,we already will have 279 su-30mki and pak-fa, super maneuverable fighters so lets not put all the eggs in russian baskets.

We are seeing what has happened with Admiral Gorshkov, I fear the same might happen for Mig-35. 2013 is just when the russians *plan* to produce Mig-35's. But we need to keep in mind that no planes can be delivered before 2011. If the Russians assure us that there will be no delays with Mig-35's production, then there shouldn't be a problem waiting a couple years more for a plane which is better than the rest.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Sep 2009 21:24

The Brazilians bought the Rafale due to political reasons. The PM went against all advice that was provided to him from the military services. There are still issues on how all of the deals which included a hull for a nuclear submarine will be financed.

Dassault are trying to finalise Rafale sales to Abu Dhabi. 80 is the number talked there.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 22:29

the Brazilian decision is not over and it might still go another way now that Boeing is offering all tech needed to maintain, operate and upgrade the aircraft. well Rafale for abu-dhabi or UAE will take a while because well the process has just begun. Russians have never assured us anything, thats part of the way they work. Their assurances are pointless if production actually begins in 2013 because 2013 or early 2014 is pushing the deadline beyond 2 years already, not to mention our fighter inventry will be the lowest at that time, i doubt IAF will accept any offer that cant deliver by late 2013. so mig is out. now waiting for the mig is no use because it is certainly not the best aircraft in the competiton. Rafale or EF out perform it any day, mig can neither match the agility of the EF or the Rafale both of which have the highest T/W ratio. the mig is not maintainer firendly either, EF, Rafale, Gripen, SV and SH are easier and faster to maintain. now SH production line is 3 months ahead of schedule and if it wins by end 2010, they can deliver inless than 36 months the first aircraft, not to mention the plant produces over 40 aircraft in a year, all 18 could be delivered in a space of 1 year. Rafale, SV or SH meets our needs, they are truly multirole in the sense that we need and anyone could fit in well. now Rafale is a safe bet, full-tot, source codes, though expensive i think we can bring down its operational price by going for US weapons onboard which are lot cheaper and often longer range and just as accurate as EU counter parts.

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 20 Sep 2009 22:35

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=30522&kwd=

On 3 May 2007, the Australian Government signed a contract to acquire 24 F/A-18Fs for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), at a cost of AU$2.9 billion, as an interim replacement for the aging F-111s.[56] The total cost with training and support over 10 years is AU$6 billion (US$4.6 billion).

Rs 42000(RFP) / current exchnage rate ~ US$9.3 billion.I agree it might be the other way around but even then its impossible to have 126 fighters.
26 fighters for RAAF cost US$4.6 billion.
Comparing with the RAAF the F-18 offered to us would be more advanced and more pricey.

The aircrafts are envisaged to have a lifecycle of 40 years( and not 10 years) from the time of delivery.We ask for offsets, US will have to build that from the scratch.They will be able to give us the first 18 on time but what abt the rest keeping in mind offsets.

Every body expects the competition to be dragged on beyond 2012.I think MIG 35 is definitely in.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 22:48

hi gurus!
iam new to bharat rakshak
please treat me gently and guide me accordingly
now
i have some IAF friends who had this to offer:
they have following analysis
F-16 : IAF is not much impressed.it has same or less capabilities than MIRAGE 2000
F-18 : a good plane but it has been sucessfull only in the naval variant and the ground version in yet not fully tested in any war.
EURO FIGHTER: the most balanced one in terms of technology and effectiveness.also it is the best in terms of weapons also.
rafale: again good and has good precision guided missiles.
MIG 35: after the eurofighter the second most favourable one,its option of thurst vectoring and it's guided weapons system is really good.it is also the most cheap also.can buy more in the same money and performed well in all the tests.
gripen: it was the original choice of mmrca along with mirage 2000n/rafale.
it's most unique feature being it can be landed anywhere on any road.
also it is the most light.
mig 35 is the most cheap.

all experts please elaborate and explain with a lot of facts ( for my sake ) and post comments.......
awaiting your responses........

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 22:49

Rahul PS wrote: Comparing with the RAAF the F-18 offered to us would be more advanced and more pricey.

They might be, but, I do not think we can compare ANY of these competitions one-to-one. There are too many variables that are in play. Politics being the biggest one.

The aircrafts are envisaged to have a lifecycle of 40 years( and not 10 years) from the time of delivery.We ask for offsets, US will have to build that from the scratch.They will be able to give us the first 18 on time but what abt the rest keeping in mind offsets.

Hmmmmm..... Why? In fact, if at all, it has been the US (Boeing more than LM) that has been doing a lot more work (from open source). Besides, I cannot compare, but having worked with the supply chain aspects, I really do not think there is any other vendor out there that can match the US - not even close. What the US vendors have to be built from scratch (which is tru eto some extent) will actually benefit India in a big way - India will get the best in all aspects. (There is a down side to that too - learning curve will be greater - more l8r if need be).

Every body expects the competition to be dragged on beyond 2012.I think MIG 35 is definitely in.

[/quote]

First time I am hearing that. Who is this "Every body"? Any leads that you can provide?

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 22:55

Rahul PS wrote:http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=30522&kwd=

On 3 May 2007, the Australian Government signed a contract to acquire 24 F/A-18Fs for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), at a cost of AU$2.9 billion, as an interim replacement for the aging F-111s.[56] The total cost with training and support over 10 years is AU$6 billion (US$4.6 billion).

Rs 42000(RFP) / current exchnage rate ~ US$9.3 billion.I agree it might be the other way around but even then its impossible to have 126 fighters.
26 fighters for RAAF cost US$4.6 billion.
Comparing with the RAAF the F-18 offered to us would be more advanced and more pricey.

The aircrafts are envisaged to have a lifecycle of 40 years( and not 10 years) from the time of delivery.We ask for offsets, US will have to build that from the scratch.They will be able to give us the first 18 on time but what abt the rest keeping in mind offsets.

Every body expects the competition to be dragged on beyond 2012.I think MIG 35 is definitely in.

well if the US vendors win they will begin offset developement soon after the deal is signed hence the delivery past the first 18 wont suffer any time delays. offcourse it will go past 2012 but if we go for the mig-35, we wont get the first aircraft till 2015 or beyond which is too late. besides being late is only one major shortcoming the mig is not a truly multirole patform while others like SV, SH , Rafale, EF can pull many roles and are far superior in avionics. mig stands no chance once testing proceeds to weapons trials.

and mr. abhi well your IAF friends are wrong, the IAF is impressed both with the SH and the SV. besides any dis-interest will be made clear once the IAF puts them thru weapons trials where the SV and SH will lead due to sheer payload flexibility and their avionics are best value for the price.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 22:58

hi guys
a question which my friend ( IAF guys ) has asked me
a lot of our weaponary is of russian origin in all the three services
are we ready to say good bye to russia(aka MIG 35) which is not that bad either and also russain aircrafts are always reliable.
please do not consider whether it is a good plane or not.
please elaborate wether we can take that risk of losing russia
USA has never been reliable in weapons export.
also we have HAL FGPA and fifth generation aircrafts jointly developed with russia.

also do not consider me in favour of mig 35
but iam worried about losing russia as a friend
will this affect other deals with them
like they helped us with ATV (INS ARIHANT) believe me they did ............ i know
like the S-300 MISSILE SYSTEM
like many other deals

please respond ............

Rahul PS · Post by **Rahul PS** » 20 Sep 2009 23:05

They might be, but, I do not think we can compare ANY of these competitions one-to-one. There are too many variables that are in play. Politics being the biggest one.

Politics and variables and nuances are not there in a pure science like mathematics(1=1).Numbers are immutable.RFP in this case is quoted in base currency, 40,000 INR.

What the US vendors have to be built from scratch (which is tru eto some extent) will actually benefit India in a big way - India will get the best in all aspects.

yeah US has got a great record in ToT compared with russia vis a vis India.I dont think ToT is a strong point of US vendors.

First time I am hearing that. Who is this "Every body"? Any leads that you can provide?

Agreed Sir, make that to 'I expect'.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 23:06

and mr. abhi well your IAF friends are wrong, the IAF is impressed both with the SH and the SV. besides any dis-interest will be made clear once the IAF puts them thru weapons trials where the SV and SH will lead due to sheer payload flexibility and their avionics are best value for the price.[/quote]

hey thanks ramesh
dear as i have said iam a begineer.
(my friend is more interested in eurofighter or rafale which he feels is the best choice for the requirements of IAF)
a question sir ji
do you feel politics pay a major role in this deal?
also can we trust usa to be a reliable supplier if thing s become rough between india - pakistan/china?
i don't think so.
i have also reservation about MIG 35 simply because it is not tested in real conditions.
also the engine for me is a concern.
for me eurofighter still i the best choice.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 23:13

if you guys can please take time to explain it to me
can we trust USA for TOT
we can trust france/eurofighter/russia
also i again reiterate that f-16 is not that favoured simply because in joint exercises it has been pitied against mig-29 ovt,mirage 2000 and even in BVR and radar based fights it is not that potent a force.
besides it is there with porkistan air force
i have strong reservations about having US planes in IAF.
believe me guys they have done this to india before
we cannot trust them in for TOT and even when they have superior assembly lines they have done this before.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Sep 2009 23:21

aha, this thread goes round and round, round and round !

I feel so lost when I read about MRCA competition. how do you guys decide which one should be selected ?

@ rao sahab, which is the dark horse at the moment according to you ?
keeping in mind all of the assorted strategic, economic, military, technological, tactical, political and psychological(of the PAF) factors at play ?

p.s. abhi.enggr, plz use the quote tags while quoting others' posts.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 20 Sep 2009 23:25

engr saar whats with those three monkeys , err i mean smileys in every post of yours

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 23:36

no worries abhi sahab, i am sure even if we go for US platform our Govt. will find a way to get full autonomy in use and we will extract full-tot, i have confidence in the competitive nature of this deal. i believe that once the top 3 are selected for price negotiations, things will heat up, Rafale, EF, Gripen use a lot of primary US weapons, because US weapons are cheaper, combat proven and have similar and in some aspects better firepower, if we go for EF or Rafle we'll have to go for US weapons on board in order to keep the price within acceptable limits, certain EU weapons like the Meteor can be acquired if needed. EF is ideal but Rafale and SH are gr8 aircraft as well, EF has had 2 crashes in operational service and its maturity is questionable, secondly BAE's fiaso with old and bad quality parts in the Hawk sheds light on whether EF is acutally as reliable as they claim it to be. SH is the only aircraft with no crashes due to technical failures. now one vendor, one country deal is easier to implement going for EF will be a logistical nightmare with parts coming from all over the globe, i think Rafale, SH, SV and mig have better logistical chains. EF, Rafale and SH are my favorites, any one of those is fine by me, mig not my favorite. going for mig will be a massive mistake, we'll have all our eggs in same basket and thats not good at all. if the US doesnt give full tot and full autonomy in usage well the Rafale will fill the need very well.

now EUM clearly states we use the platform for its 'intended use', the only intended use for a platform like SH is multirole pounding. I dont think US has the power or the right to stop us from retaliating against Pak if things really heat up. Pak is an economic burden for the US taxpayer, they will only ask us to calm down if something happens but if we choose to defend our selves at all costs, US cant and wont stop us, we have more economic value to them. the old F-16s are not much of a threat but F-16IN is whole different ball game as well...
LM is willing to customize as much as we want and things like MATV are under options.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... index.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... eopts.html

yet only time will tell how things turn out, i hope we scrap the deal and simply order the F-35 coz its the only aircraft that could satisfy all 3 services and go for Issy style tinkering. offcourse we wont get fulltot but we'll get some really advanced tech. order 200 and i am sure we'll get a lot of the tech needed to maintain, operate and upgrade them later on.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 23:39

krishnan wrote:engr saar whats with those three monkeys , err i mean smileys in every post of yours

are that is only because of habit. will not post them agian
bhudape ke karan aadat pad gayee hai yaar

please answer my questions
and can anyone give a comparative analysis for rafale vis a vis eurofighter
i consider them to be the most obivious choices
also i repeat my question can we trust USA
for information to all guys concerned they (usa) have reservations about giving india f-414 engines to india for LCA.
and this is from me who has at least inside knowledge about this
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD TRUST usa
and please guys i have a lot of knowledge about defence acquistion ( i am involved with them day and night )
so anyone having questions is welcome
iam here to discuss political and military implications about this MRCA deal.

so gys help me and please answer my questions.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 20 Sep 2009 23:49

RameshC wrote:no worries abhi sahab, i am sure even if we go for US platform our Govt. will find a way to get full autonomy in use and we will extract full-tot, i have confidence in the competitive nature of this deal. i believe that once the top 3 are selected for price negotiations, things will heat up, Rafale, EF, Gripen use a lot of primary US weapons, because US weapons are cheaper, combat proven and have similar and in some aspects better firepower, if we go for EF or Rafle we'll have to go for US weapons on board in order to keep the price within acceptable limits, certain EU weapons like the Meteor can be acquired if needed. EF is ideal but Rafale and SH are gr8 aircraft as well, EF has had 2 crashes in operational service and its maturity is questionable, secondly BAE's fiaso with old and bad quality parts in the Hawk sheds light on whether EF is acutally as reliable as they claim it to be.

thanks dear for your response
sir ji one more
how can we handle the russian fallout if this deal is not going to them
we have much at stake
many of our deals with all three services are with them

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Sep 2009 00:06

abhi.enggr wrote: ....
thanks dear for your response
sir ji one more
how can we handle the russian fallout if this deal is not going to them
we have much at stake
many of our deals with all three services are with them

All I can say is that this is not the cold war and even then we were "non-aligned". The Russians are already getting plenty of money from us for the Nerpa, Gorshkov, Mig-29, Su-30MKI, Brahmos, IL-76 for the Phalcon, etc. Words like "fallout" have no place here.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 21 Sep 2009 00:11

The ruskis have the PAKFA, MTA and various other deals, i dont think the fall will hurt our relations at all. we'll only trust the US if they give full tot which will show their strategic commitment to India because full-tot will be something they have never given before. LM and Boeing say that both F-16IN and f-18IN can deploy Indian nukes. F-16IN can also deploy almost all weapons/avionics in Issy, EU and US inventory, though our enemy operates it, i wouldnt brush it off so easily. besides this deal is going to the EU or US, chances for Russian are low because we are finally willing to move away from the Russian strangle hold in Indian defence. moreover the US companies are lobbying hard both in India and US to give us what we need. besides with EU/US platforms we can take to excercises like Red flag and operate all avionics freely and our pilots become deadlier because of the sheer intensity of training they recieve at red flag, with the mig we wont be able to turn on the radar during excercises with western airforces, this dampens training. Russia doesnt conduct so many aerial excercises with India. matter of fact since 2004 the US and india have aerial excercises on a bi-annual basis while Russia and indo aerial excercises are very rare, i wonder why, we buy 1/3 of their yearly production. Russian after sales service is shady, i'd rather we pay more and go for Rafale F-4+ or EF T-3 if US wont budge on tot.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 21 Sep 2009 00:16

abhi.enggr wrote:
for information to all guys concerned they (usa) have reservations about giving india f-414 engines to india for LCA.
and this is from me who has at least inside knowledge about this
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD TRUST usa
and please guys i have a lot of knowledge about defence acquistion ( i am involved with them day and night )
so anyone having questions is welcome

Saar, since you claim to have inside knowledge, please provide us with some info that is not available in the public domain
I am not trying to single you out, but I personally am not a big fan of tall claims with no evidence in the first 10 posts
please prove me wrong saar...but then again I know you don't have to...but I would love to be proven wrong on this claim of inside info

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:31

Raveen wrote:
abhi.enggr wrote: Saar, since you claim to have inside knowledge, please provide us with some info that is not available in the public domain
I am not trying to single you out, but I personally am not a big fan of tall claims with no evidence in the first 10 posts

hi dear
my apologies it was not meant to be a tall claim.
well i really don't need to prove you wrong,it will not serve the purpose and iam not a neta yaar
mine is actually a profession to know what my countrymen think about such a critical thing.
well i only meant that i have some inside knowledge and credible one at that.
okay continuing on the MMRCA here are credible facts
have you ever realised why is it that it is taking so long to get it moving.
do you also know that senior IAF people have given their verdict on a particluar a/c long back.
again although i don't need to prove you wrong but dear if you have anything particular in mind please ask and i will see if i can be of any help
and insiders need not be politicians
there are a lot of other people involved.
anyways iam not a big hot shot politician
i joined this thread to learn a few technical things and a lot of perceptions from other people.
it is my intention to actually provide some information on things i know and share with you guys authentic info and get technical info which is actually one thing iam weak at.i found that people on this forum are actually much accomplished in that regard

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:39

RameshC wrote:The ruskis have the PAKFA, MTA and various other deals, i dont think the fall will hurt our relations at all. we'll only trust the US if they give full tot which will show their strategic commitment to India because full-tot will be something they have never given before. LM and Boeing say that both F-16IN and f-18IN can deploy Indian nukes.

hi ramesh thanks for the reply
you are absolutely right on that front.thanks for the elaboration.
but i have learnt that the full tot is subjected to us congress approval.also this does not include the transfer of software codes which are critical component.without the software codes we cannot program the a/c for full multi role operations without some involvement of the original makers.
and there are voices in the russian media by gov officials that their fifth gen a/c si not being jointly developed with india.PAKFA is different.
coming back to mrca
i favour rafale because they are ready to transfer full software codes also.
also rafales laser guided bombs are much better than any other in the pack.
but as far as BVR capacity is concerned iam not so sure.
if you have nay info please share

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:43

PratikDas wrote:
abhi.enggr wrote: ....
thanks dear for your response
sir ji one more
how can we handle the russian fallout if this deal is not going to them
we have much at stake
many of our deals with all three services are with them
All I can say is that this is not the cold war and even then we were "non-aligned". The Russians are already getting plenty of money from us for the Nerpa, Gorshkov, Mig-29, Su-30MKI, Brahmos, IL-76 for the Phalcon, etc. Words like "fallout" have no place here.

hi pratik thanks for reply man
dear words like fallout sadly do have meanings.
it has created problems already.
i myself support india taking a tough stand but don't know how we can do it
the modernisation delas that we have pending will either require a complete reshift or we have to find a solution.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:51

okay guys
as our moderator said we should have a verdict.
i have mine on eurofighter or rafale.
please reply with tech analysis and also with your choices.
eurofighter has one more added advantage.
if we chose eurofighter than we will automatically have not only access but all new wurofighter version will automatically come to india as well.
sounds more comforting to me.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Sep 2009 01:52

abhi.enggr wrote:
PratikDas wrote: ...
All I can say is that this is not the cold war and even then we were "non-aligned". The Russians are already getting plenty of money from us for the Nerpa, Gorshkov, Mig-29, Su-30MKI, Brahmos, IL-76 for the Phalcon, etc. Words like "fallout" have no place here.
hi pratik thanks for reply man
dear words like fallout sadly do have meanings.
it has created problems already.
i myself support india taking a tough stand but don't know how we can do it
the modernisation delas that we have pending will either require a complete reshift or we have to find a solution.

If India didn't have the wherewithal to resist arm-twisting from the Soviets then how did we buy the Mirage fighters from the French? Later, if we didn't have the wherewithal to resist arm-twisting from the Russians and the French then why did we open up the MRCA competition at all? Why did we not choose from the Russian or French options? History has shown that we can diversify and we shall continue to do that.

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:55

PratikDas wrote: ...
If India didn't have the wherewithal to resist arm-twisting from the Soviets then how did we buy the Mirage fighters from the French? Later, if we didn't have the wherewithal to resist arm-twisting from the Russians and the French then why did we open up the MRA competition at all? Why did we not choose from the Russian or French options. History has shown that we can diversify and we shall continue to do that.

[/quote]

hi great reply man
it will actually be great if it si done that way
i agree with you completely.
what will be your final verdict on which a/c should we take

abhi.enggr · Post by **abhi.enggr** » 21 Sep 2009 01:57

okay i ahve to go
it was my first day and was really great
please reply on my posts and help me learn a few things.
also iam new and don't know much about other interesting threads
please guide me through
i will be back tommorow
till then.........!