MRCA News and Discussion

BurhanGabaji · Post by **BurhanGabaji** » 24 Sep 2009 19:50

Dear Freinds
i am still waiting for more comments of splitting the tender between Super Hornets & Mig 35.I did get a comment from Rajesh, but would like to hear from igorr,vishnu etc.
Your comments would be highly appreciable.
thanks

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 19:58

RameshC wrote:. There is no need for IOC for aircraft like f-16 because they recieved their IOC ages ago, any new block only requires a few weapons trails and its all operational, mig is a new platform, it needs it basic IOC which it wont recieve till next year

same thing you said about f16 also true about mig

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 19:59

BurhanGabaji wrote:Dear Freinds
i am still waiting for more comments of splitting the tender between Super Hornets & Mig 35.I did get a comment from Rajesh, but would like to hear from igorr,vishnu etc.
Your comments would be highly appreciable.
thanks

and what did govt say

BurhanGabaji · Post by **BurhanGabaji** » 24 Sep 2009 19:59

Dear Mr. Ramesh
When we are talking of 126 SH , we are talking nothing less than 22-24 billion dollars. This is a whopping amount. We need to take into accounts for other developments which we are doing. eg FGFA.
It would be wise to invest more on FGFA & LCA MK2. Rather then to dump all the money on Super Hornet, which can backfire us any time with a sanction, the moment we anoy US. Pakistan is a best eg for that. But with this i dont rule out SH. They are beautiful machines with expereince.
I strongly recommend to split the deal between SH & Mig.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 24 Sep 2009 20:28

BurhanGabaji wrote: I strongly recommend to split the deal between SH & Mig.

My friend ... If it is about changing basic format of the deal... I will say..we should go out with 90+ Mig-35s and around 30 Tu-160 BlackJacks. That will be the ultimate answer to all of our problem ....!!!

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 20:34

sumshyam wrote:
BurhanGabaji wrote: I strongly recommend to split the deal between SH & Mig.
My friend ... If it is about changing basic format of the deal... I will say..we should go out with 90+ Mig-35s and around 30 Tu-160 BlackJacks. That will be the ultimate answer to all of our problem ....!!!

oh my god !!!

where are we going ???

any idea about the cost of maintaining one Tu 160...

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 24 Sep 2009 20:41

rajeshks wrote:
oh my god !!!
where are we going ???
any idea about the cost of maintaining one Tu 160...

My idea not be of your std...but I think 1 B$ around...but with that...we can Rename
1. Arab Sagar as West Coast Sea
2. Bay of Bengal as East Coast Sea.

Don't you agree...??

We need to have a strategic bomber ... which can do carpet kinda thing... with any such ability we can CUT tail of the dragons ... for our collections.. ... This is how i think...!!!

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm

In July 1999 the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Alexander Kuzmuk confirmed that Kiev officially proposed that Moscow accept as payment for the gas debts "about 10 strategic bombers Tu-160 and Tu-95". He refused to tell the exact cost of missile carriers, however, in his judgement, it would be "considerably more" than 25 million dollars for each machine.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 20:43

A question for the gurus... Can some one come out with a wish list of weapons for each of these fighters? A2A, A2G and anti ship weapons..

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 20:47

sumshyam wrote:
rajeshks wrote:
oh my god !!!
where are we going ???
any idea about the cost of maintaining one Tu 160...
My idea not be of your std...but I think 1 B$ around...but with that...we can Rename
1. Arab Sagar as West Coast Sea
2. Bay of Bengal as East Coast Sea.

Don't you agree...??

We need to have a strategic bomber ... which can do carpet kinda thing... with any such ability we can CUT tail of the dragons ... for our collections.. ... This is how i think...!!!

sir am also a beginner..

i think few pages back we have discussed the same thing wrt Tu 160...

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 24 Sep 2009 21:04

Baldev wrote:
RameshC wrote:. There is no need for IOC for aircraft like f-16 because they recieved their IOC ages ago, any new block only requires a few weapons trails and its all operational, mig is a new platform, it needs it basic IOC which it wont recieve till next year

same thing you said about f16 also true about mig

i doubt it even if it, production still wont begin before 2013, too late...i doubt they will split the deal. even the Griepn is better option than the mig, its faster, claims supercruise, Northrop is looking to export SABR for Gripen NG and EF, we could go for SABR on the Gripen thats if the Swashplate isn't already good enough for now.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... stores.jpg

the weapons payload is pretty good as well it has 10 weapons stations one more than the mig. Issy, EU and US weapons, its cheap enough for us to spend more on weapons. their line is not too busy either, so 2013 delivery shouldnt be a problem, now if GE f414 wins the LCA mk-2 engine deal, Gripen NG could be another low cost option, its bound to turn heads when its put through weapons trails next year. If the GE bid wins for LCA, the engines have to be locally assembled in India and hence if SH is chosen no worries of engine related problems in the event of war, because if the SH wins, the GE engine order will be big enough to demand full-tot and local lincence manufacture. i am sure if SH wins IAf will secure TOT on the radar for sure, matter of fact it will be a must for it to win. please stop comparing us to Pakistan, we have never been, never are and never will be like Pak. our way of working is different, US understands this and i know they pull all stops to win this deal. We dont pose any threat to the US, our mutual trade is bound to expand, thousand of jobs will be created both in the US and India because of the nuke deal contracts, this isnt the only deal they are competing in and their products are often better than the competition, IAF will see this during trails of all these platforms and realise that they cant avoid buying from US if they need real proven capabilties. a friendship built over night is always disastrous, which is why we and them are taking slow step towards embracing eachother and we are bound to be strategic partners, we have too much in common to ignore.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 24 Sep 2009 21:12

We could demand ToT for engine and radar but will they give? Evenif they agree to give what if some one introduces a bill in US congress to block that? We have seen such a trick by US in case of nuclear deal... first they agreed certain things and when the deal came to congress they introduced lot of new conditions..

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 24 Sep 2009 21:24

Baldev wrote:
nikhil_p wrote:The cost of an A/c is not just the purchase cost, but also the lifecycle cost of the aircraft.
Including the support functions....etc...
P.S: I will elaborate on this post later. (Meeting to attend )

IIRC...vivek or someone had done a small study on this....
even life cycle cost of aircrafts is secondary thing

first is cost of procurement of aircrafts with TOT,means if gripen ng can be procured at less than half the cost of f18,rafale for equally advanced technology

main thing is industrial base need to be created for the production and support of fighters for over 40 years of service.

industrial base will provide spares,engine overhaul,avionics overhaul for over 40 years etc.

ground based infrastructure for aircrafts at each AFB,
not only this every aircraft needs separate technical support for its avionics and other parts right at each AFB at all times.

in MRCA IAF will require at least 1000 air to air missiles and similar amount of air to ground PGM to buy these weapons we need to spend few billion more.every new fighter needs different weapons,so for support of every new weapon there is need of separate trained personnel at each AFB

mid life upgrade cost.

life cycle cost of aircrafts is shadowed by the all the points mentioned above

The costs that you mentioned are precisely what 'life cycle costs' mean...

I am doing a small research on this...gimme some time...I will post with my findings....

Neeraj Bagga · Post by **Neeraj Bagga** » 24 Sep 2009 21:38

nikhil_p wrote:
Baldev wrote: even life cycle cost of aircrafts is secondary thing

first is cost of procurement of aircrafts with TOT,means if gripen ng can be procured at less than half the cost of f18,rafale for equally advanced technology

main thing is industrial base need to be created for the production and support of fighters for over 40 years of service.

industrial base will provide spares,engine overhaul,avionics overhaul for over 40 years etc.

ground based infrastructure for aircrafts at each AFB,
not only this every aircraft needs separate technical support for its avionics and other parts right at each AFB at all times.

in MRCA IAF will require at least 1000 air to air missiles and similar amount of air to ground PGM to buy these weapons we need to spend few billion more.every new fighter needs different weapons,so for support of every new weapon there is need of separate trained personnel at each AFB

mid life upgrade cost.

life cycle cost of aircrafts is shadowed by the all the points mentioned above
The costs that you mentioned are precisely what 'life cycle costs' mean...
I am doing a small research on this...gimme some time...I will post with my findings....

Another element that is considered for TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)* is integration with existing infrastructure. The further west we go the further we are in terms of integration.

* I consider TCO to be
TCO = Life Cycle Cost + Integration Cost+ Ghoos + some unknowns.
I think considering all the points Su 30 MKI would be a hands down winner (If it was in the competition and same class). Everything we need from an (M)MRCA can be achieved with our Su 30 MKI*. And Pump rest of the money into LCA**. (I know I know, this suggestion has been repeated about 1 Mil times already).

For Nay Sayers:
* Were you going to say that Su 30 MKI is not the best platform for point defense?
Response: We can use 21s, 29s, Jags and 2000s for that, till LCA comes in full force.
** Some things can not be expedited by putting extra money.
Response: Still we can expedite a lot of things. Example: Mosquito Single Seat fighter, arguably, it was the fastest operational aircraft in the world. Design began in 1937 and went into production in 1941.
*** We will not get access to new(er) Technology like radars, engines, etc
Response: Purchase that off the shelf. There are a lot of vendors that are already in communication with us and are willing to give us engines (GE, Snecma, Euroject, Kilmov), and radars (ELTA, Phazotron Zhuk AE).

Advantage of this alternative:
1. For the same cost we will get more aircrafts. 100-126 MKIs + 50-100 LCAs .
2. Fleet augmentation will be quicker. (Assuming LCA starts serial production 2015-16).
3. Will give LCA a boost.
4. MKI manufacturing and support infrastructure already exists.
5. Induction will be smooth.

1mil + 1 time

I think we need to change our perspective a little. MRCA has its roots in IAF's interest in 2000s (1 mil + 2 times). Now the scenarios have changed. We should not ask "Why Su 30 MKI". We should Ask "Why NOT Su 30 MKI".

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 22:25

RameshC wrote:i doubt it even if it, production still wont begin before 2013, too late...

Russians and french understand very well how fast Indian decision making is.

when India was not quick to procure M2000 or MIG29 SMT/M2 so both russians and french know this very well,that why Russians know when India will decide to sign the contract thats why they do accordingly at slow speed that they will start producing mig35 only by 2013.

main thing this MRCA project will run till 2020 means last MRCA aircraft will be delivered in 2020.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 23:09

deleted

dukenukem · Post by **dukenukem** » 24 Sep 2009 23:20

Hello folks!
First time posting on BR! I have been going through this thread for a while now and while and I had one question which i hope someone could answer for me ..

Lets say IAF picks the best aircraft to suit their needs and we get the ToT attached to the deal, will this really make us self sufficient in case of future sanctions/ war? Will the ToT also include manufacturing procedures to make the high tech components neeeded to make the engines/ airframes/ radars? My gut feeling is while ToT will definitely help us in our future indigenous projects we still have some ways to go before we are truly self reliant.

Any comments?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Sep 2009 23:28

L150 RWR and electro optical countermeasure systems

http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... 11-116.pdf

various rockets fired from mig21,27 other helicopters
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... 33-136.pdf

various unguided bombs in IAF inventory
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... 30-132.pdf

note- these rockets are most effective to destroy targets in large area sometimes as effective as PGM

anti G suite specifications
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... 46-148.pdf

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 00:02

well the deal for mrca and su-30mki is a LRCA, it has its own league and will remain a very potent aircraft through out its life. and we can always order more till production lines finally close...but as of now 280, is good, but delivery is slow. the fact remains our numbers are dwindling as we phase out more aircraft every year and i really dont think IAF is going to delay the purchase not while contenders like F-16IN and F-18SH are offering pretty good state of the art technologies for medium range prices unlike EU counter parts which will end up costing a lot. This deal is very competitive and towards the end of the bidding proces it will become very clear that only contenders who provide full-tot will have a favorable chance of winning. and i am sure the US will give it, we just have to make sure we remain persistant, when the Pakistanis could convince the US to give, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, over and over again, you think we who on any given day generate more value for so many US businesses and organizations cant convince them to do proper business in India. the US needs schooling in doing defence bsuiness in India, its a new market for them and a new relationship for us. the nuke deal was important, sure they say we cant test, but i wonder why do need to test, as of today its been confirmed that we have 200kt ability, a few mirvs will easily result in MT explosions, what more do you want??? we dont need to test anymore, new designs and explosions can be simulated, computing power is increasing more and more, no need for tests. besides our defence is catered for regional threats, why on earth do we need any more, EU, US dont pose a threat to us. sure many rats come across the valleys every year, lots of rats across the border waiting to cross, bring them on , they are target practice.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 25 Sep 2009 01:08

Peepulll analysis is gonna take time...boss gave me a deadline...

Will do it SOON though!

PrithviRajChauhan · Post by **PrithviRajChauhan** » 25 Sep 2009 01:12

RameshC wrote:well the deal for mrca and su-30mki is a LRCA, it has its own league and will remain a very potent aircraft through out its life. and we can always order more till production lines finally close...but as of now 280, is good, but delivery is slow. the fact remains our numbers are dwindling as we phase out more aircraft every year and i really dont think IAF is going to delay the purchase not while contenders like F-16IN and F-18SH are offering pretty good state of the art technologies for medium range prices unlike EU counter parts which will end up costing a lot. This deal is very competitive and towards the end of the bidding process it will become very clear that only contenders who provide full-tot will have a favorable chance of winning. and i am sure the US will give it, we just have to make sure we remain persistant, when the Pakistanis could convince the US to give, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, over and over again, you think we who on any given day generate more value for so many US businesses and organizations cant convince them to do proper business in India. the US needs schooling in doing defence business in India, its a new market for them and a new relationship for us. the nuke deal was important, sure they say we cant test, but i wonder why do need to test, as of today its been confirmed that we have 200kt ability, a few mirvs will easily result in MT explosions, what more do you want??? we dont need to test anymore, new designs and explosions can be simulated, computing power is increasing more and more, no need for tests. besides our defence is catered for regional threats, why on earth do we need any more, EU, US dont pose a threat to us. sure many rats come across the valleys every year, lots of rats across the border waiting to cross, bring them on , they are target practice.

No offence but your post looks like an American PR for Indian defence establishment. I can very well see the change in attitude of Obama administration towards India and under these circumstances would it be good to give our balls on a silver platter to Khans so that they can squeeze it at their convenience. I will try to decipher your post point wise:
1. You say contenders like F-16IN and F-18SH are offering pretty good state of the art technologies for medium range prices unlike EU counter parts.
I can understand the above comment wrt F18SH but what makes you feel that gripen NG is expensive or less capable then F16IN. I feel that it is cheaper and at least as capable as F16IN.

2. You say that only contenders who provide full-tot will have a favorable chance of winning.
I somewhat agree with this but Khan seems to be the only supplier who will transfer least ToT. (Read previous post in which it was mentioned how reluctant Raytheon and northrop grumman to provide software codes for their AESA). In my opinion this is not the strong point of Khans and the rest of the contenders are better placed here.

3. You say that when Pakis can convince US so can we.
Can you tell me any good example of such belief with the present US administration. For the past more than a decade India always offered bigger market for US but what stategic benefit have we extracted? If you say nuke deal then the present administration is increasing its pressure on India for signing NPT, read "Nuclear Castration" here. Also not to forget the military aid its providing to TSP with full knowledge of how TSP is using this aid against India, increasing its nuclear arsenal. Dont you feel Khans hypocrisy by equating India with TSP when it knows AQ Khans role in N proliferation.

4.You say that we dont need to test anymore, new designs and explosions can be simulated.
I would term it as highly dangerous and little irresponsible statement. There is very healthy debate still going within the scientific community. Its a known fact that no nation on this planet were able develop a TN device with just one test. The only exception would be India and TSP which seems hard to believe as nation like US, Russian and France were unable to achieve this. What I am emphasizing here is that we should not convince ourself that since we did Test in 1998 its enough for our security and the rest can be taken care by Computer simulation. Let the scientific community and the security situation of the nation decide this.

5. "sure many rats come across the valleys every year, lots of rats across the border waiting to cross, bring them on , they are target practice". Just remember 26/11 and till now what we have done to avenge it. Were they were just a target practice? We need to have a clear and large advantage in conventional as well as non conventional forces wrt our neighbors.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 03:46

c'mon stop being so naive..26/11 happened not because of renewed LET will to disrupt life in India, they have always been doing that, there is nothing new about it, besides 26/11 happned and which is why now our seas are much more secure, just like after 9/11 the US is much safer, i remember i could carry a massive kitchen knife on an US aircraft while travelling those days are gone. things happen, they hit the parliament what heck is the oberoi, they had the balls to come in our own capital and hit our symbol of democracy, you think those people care, 26/11 has highlighted gaps in training, equipment and martime security, terrible things happen but everything is a learning exp. today 3 jawans and major died in encounter in J&K trying to kill 4 militants..3 jawans and 1 major for 4 militants, sorry but poor training, these daily casualities shows more gaps in training, equipment and tactics. besides the constant activity at border is why our troops are very potent because they always keep busy, an army cant afford to laze around, besides we have no problem killing them...so yes they make good target practice, matter of fact i think they should just dump young probationary jawans into the field and gain some exp killing those ********.

full-tot has nothing to do with source codes, US can give full-tot but source codes...no way...they could allow us to add to the source code which is possible. well even with source codes it will take us well over 7 years just to understand the flow of the code not to mention learn to add to it or customize it further, this even for a mig or rafale will take just as much time. its not easy working with source codes or understanding them. who cares if we dont have bomb that makes a bigger explosion, regardless of what anyone tells you, India is never going to bomb an enemy city, its not in our nature to hit cities, our enemy will try to hit our cities but our BMD will prevail, our smaller, easily deployable nukes will be used on key targets like air bases, naval bases and army divisions, one dosesnt need 200kt bonbs to level Pak. regardless of what you believe you never bomb civilians or cities with nukes, karma has way to come back around. we already have 200kt nukes so i dont think we need any more powerful weapons. for the past decade, we have slowly begun working with the US, you dont expect this to be one night stand right, both US and India are looking for a long term relationship, so yeah long term relations need work, a basis has to be set, and what nuclear castration, please stop being so foolish, as if we didnt have enough weapons to level both china and Pak what more do you want, these are nukes and not some toys.

people find ways to talk shit all the time, nuclear castration, trust me if we set on off now in Pak, millions will still die, nuclear castraion, what a load of bs. shame on you for wanting a bigger weapon. what we need is good platforms and need to stop worrying about some strategic stuff that hardly matter, instead of acting like begger, we should simply take control, tell the US to put up or shut up and if we do it properly they will oblige. you underestimate the power of the worlds' largest democracy. indo -us relations are beyong one admin. ofama or whoever the fak he is dont matter, because in the end its companies like LM, boeing that decide his fate, without defence lobby, president is nothing. defence products are their biggest exports, companies are powerful and can influence. moreover Gripen , Rafale, EF, SH and F-16 all have US made parts, mig is late, in one way or the other you will have to deal with them. they can as of now cancel the delivery of remining 2 awacs if they want. even with mig doesnt matter, India cant go to war with Pak or china without US permission or atleast letting them know. so please stop the whining, more people flood from india to US than to any place else, we are both democracies and have much to learn from eachother.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Sep 2009 04:11

Baldev wrote:If someone wants to look flight range of various mig29 varients without fuel tanks/with fuel tanks along with total life hours of various mig29 series fighter can see here ,along with mig31 Zaslon radar range which you all already know.

http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... _16-19.pdf

http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... _20-24.pdf

missiles r73,77,27,33 which everyone on BR knows but do check the hit probability of each missile

http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craf ... 18-121.pdf

thanks, but its in the wrong thread. put in the Indian Military Aviation thread.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Sep 2009 04:27

RameshC wrote:but as of now 280, is good, but delivery is slow.

the delivery schedule is not slow, its been set up as per what the IAF wanted. the IAF wanted it speeded up, and HAL will have to comply. the IAF is adding nearly 1 squadron of MKIs every year, with 5 squadrons currently operational. beyond that, its not easy for them to absorb aircraft either- they need to set up ground infrastructure, train pilots and set up logistics.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 25 Sep 2009 08:20

russian targeting pod for mig and sukhoi fighter
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1167/u ... svvk1s.jpg

Application:
day-and-night high precision targeting of guided weapon of MiG and Su aircraft

Standard components:

* field-of-view stabilization system
* TV (thermal or TV thermal imaging) channel
* ranging channel
* laser illumination channel
* electronic units
* thermal control system

Specifications:

Field of view, deg.:

- in elevation +10 … -150

- in azimuth ± 10

- in roll ± 150

Working temperature range, °C: - 60 … + 50

Overall dimensions, mm: Ø360x3000

Mass of set, kg 250

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 25 Sep 2009 08:27

The heavyweight high power KNIRTI SAP-14 Support Jammer ECM pod is a Russian analogue to the US ALQ-99E pod carried on the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler.
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7089/k ... dvvk1s.jpg

wait and see if this jammer can be fitted to mig

The KNIRTI SAP-518 ECM pod is a new technology replacement for the established L005 Sorbstiya series wingtip ECM pods
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8730/kni ... dvvk1s.jpg

no more details as of now

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 25 Sep 2009 10:29

RameshC wrote:when the Pakistanis could convince the US to give, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, aid, weapons, over and over again, you think we who on any given day generate more value for so many US businesses and organizations cant convince them to do proper business in India. the US needs schooling in doing defence bsuiness in India, its a new market for them and a new relationship for us. the nuke deal was important, sure they say we cant test, but i wonder why do need to test, as of today its been confirmed that we have 200kt ability, a few mirvs will easily result in MT explosions, what more do you want???

Ramesh, what is wrong with US is their attitude, attitude towrds everyone else.. Whatever they do is intended to take care of their interests only and absolutely zero respect towards others. See Obama's latest threat on NPT. No one can trust them for anything..

I am not an anti american, lived both in america and europe, any day i would prefer americans over europeans. But when it comes to america and europe, i will pick european countries.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 11:51

well as of now i think they seem committed to have a strategic alliance with Inida, they participate in more training excercises with navy, AF and army everyear since 2004, farmore than Russians, we seem to have had more aerial excercises to gether. US has to wake up our democratic prowess because they wont have choice bu to do so, as time evolves we are bound to have a larger population than China. US can never pose a threat to us ,they know they cant bully us and they know they will learn this over time, they have very little exposure on how India behaves with strategic partners. its better to make a friend over time than to have a one night stand, so yeah we have too much in common and too much at stake. NPT calls for no proliferation, gradual diasarmament and peaceful use of nuke tech. we wont sign it adn not the CTBT till we have certain basic assurances, so the US will have to work with us anyways. You think just because we didnt sign NPT and CTBT, ofama can block US investments worth well over 40 billion just in civilian nuke plants over the next 10 years??? do you know how many jobs will be lost if the deal has to cancelled, in the US, ofama cant and wont do stuff like that, their economy depends on such large deals and investments, no president is over the business lobby. no president can stop US companies from wanting to sell to India, wanting to invest in India. ofama has made it his policy to try and cut down nuke arsenal world wide, he cant do anything if we dont share the same view. what can he do?? nothing. our market is too big, too democratic and too tempting for US companies to avoid any longer and if Ofama actually comes between those companies and their over 100 billion in options, well they will have him shot or even worse stop party funding, he wont win re-election, because if US companies dont win MRCA and other deals because congress's unwillingness to offer full-tot and budge on some strings, well jobs will be lost and job losses are a major election concern, lots of jobs will be created due to growing Indo-US relations both in US and India, besides US platforms offer better off-sets and hence more inputs into our private sector. Russian deals get worked on mostly by state owned companies which is why our tech base grows very slowly. i ahve lived in the US and now live in the EU and i have found that EU is better pace to live but everything EU comes wih a hefty price tag now even if EU wins mrca they will have US weapons or else the entire package will cost over $30 billion. mig doesnt fit the bill comes too late and its capabilties are useless for the time frame at which they arrive.

i know we have to be careful with US buys but i am sure talks and mounting pressure from US companies will end with them giving us full-tot. if they dont well Rafale all the way, though it too has US made parts, the number and percentage is the lowest among all western contenders.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 12:40

how come those russian pods are as big as missiles if a platform has to carry them wonder how many weapons it can still carry?? they seem awefully big , as if the rcs of the migs arent big enough and you want to add such large pods, the f-16IN, SH can detect something like this well over 180-200 km away. either way i think it better for these pods to go on the mki.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 12:45

Two French fighters crash, one pilot recovered
By Herve Asquin (AFP) – 13 hours ago

PARIS — Two French Rafale fighter jets crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on Thursday as they were returning to their aircraft carrier after a test flight, the navy said.

One of the pilots was rescued "safe and sound" after he ejected from his supersonic aircraft, navy spokesman Commander Bertrand Bonneau told AFP. A search was under way for the other aviator.

"It is not known yet if there was a collision," Bonneau said. "All efforts now are directed at finding the second pilot."

The Rafales -- similar to those used by the French military in Afghanistan, and which France hopes to sell to Brazil -- went down at 6:09 pm (1609 GMT) about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Perpignan, southwest France.

They were flying back to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle after an unarmed test flight, Bonneau said, adding that both planes were "in the hands of very experienced pilots".

A patrol boat from the French national maritime rescue service, four helicopters, a Hawkeye surveillance aircraft and an Atlantique 2 long-range patrol aircraft were mobilised.

It was the first accident ever to involve the seagoing version of the Rafale, of which 17 have been deployed with the French navy.

Defence Minister Herve Morin immediately ordered an investigation, the French military said in a statement, adding that he intended to go to the crash site as soon as possible.

Built by French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation, the 50-million-euro (72-million-dollar) Rafale first rolled out of the production line in 1998.

France plans to have a fleet of 294 Rafale jets, including 60 for its navy. So far 80 jets have been delivered to the air force and the navy.

It has yet to find a foreign buyer, although Brazil recently expressed interest in buying 36 Rafales in a deal that would be worth several billion euros (dollars).

The Rafale, which can fly as fast as Mach 1.8 -- 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) per hour, or nearly twice the speed of sound -- is designed for air-to-air combat, reconnaissance flights and nuclear bombing missions.

It flies regularly in Afghan skies, dropping 250-kilogramme (550 pound), laser-guided US bombs to support NATO troops on the ground.

For the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle, the flagship of the French navy and its only serving aircraft carrier, the crash is just the latest in a string of problems.

For 15 months beginning in September 2007 it was out of service for nuclear refueling, then in March 2009 it was back in port after faulty parts were discovered in its propulsion system.

It returned to sea three days ago for the "requalification" of its Rafale and Super Etendard pilots and the qualification of new aviators.

The Charles de Gaulle sails with four Rafales, three Super Etendards and three helicopters -- two Dauphins and an Alouette III.

The French air force suffered the first-ever loss of a Rafale in December 2007, in a crash in Correze, central France, blamed by the military on spatial disorientation on the part of the pilot, who was killed.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... Lw2JaCpxGg

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 13:14

Rafales crashes during Testing. Why no LCA crashes?

IAF must be right. LCA doesn't match global standards.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 13:20

RameshC wrote:how come those russian pods are as big as missiles if a platform has to carry them wonder how many weapons it can still carry?? they seem awefully big , as if the rcs of the migs arent big enough and you want to add such large pods, the f-16IN, SH can detect something like this well over 180-200 km away. either way i think it better for these pods to go on the mki.

In India, size matters. Bigger are beautiful.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 25 Sep 2009 13:23

Ramesh... The risk of crash/accident is always there with aircrafts.. What i was wondering is the reason for crash.. two aircrafts piloted by experienced pilots were lost, most probably a collision..

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 13:24

rajeshks wrote:We could demand ToT for engine and radar but will they give? Evenif they agree to give what if some one introduces a bill in US congress to block that? We have seen such a trick by US in case of nuclear deal... first they agreed certain things and when the deal came to congress they introduced lot of new conditions..

That's why India went for PAK-FA. India knows Americans can't be trusted.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 25 Sep 2009 13:26

vishwakarmaa wrote:Rafales crashes during Testing. Why no LCA crashes?

IAF must be right. LCA doesn't match global standards.

Or is it because its the best aircraft in the world... even Raptor crashed...

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 13:29

RameshC,

your posts are sounding like American media propaganda on Russia. They are based on hearsay and twisted facts.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 13:31

I recommend a few LCA crashes to prove that they meet IAF's Western standards.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 25 Sep 2009 13:44

Slightly OT
Two French Rafales crash, one pilot recovered

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 25 Sep 2009 14:23

lca has outperformed global standards, we build the world's lightest and smallest combat jet, our approach is far better, lca mk-2 will be the deadliest single engine aircraft ever made...watch and wait. crashes happen because thse aircraft are too powerful with a lot of agility a high speed turn could put a pilot out of conciousness for a few seconds enough for disaster to strike. operational F-22 crashed in the hands of an experienced pilot due to heavy G-loc, first rafale crash was also due to spatial dis-orientation, this is offcourse a problem that could occur on any high G-aircraft like the EF, Rafale, SH, MKI, mig, PAKFA, f-35, f-22. they push pilots to the edge of human physiology. lots of crashes occur due to human error no nation is immune to that even the su-35 crashed during testing dont know why but it did. LCA has been very fortunate because we have had long time for developement and a lot to learn on the go as well. LCA mk-1 trainer still make the best super sonic trainer in the world and hence i think IAF should order at least 40-60 just for the final stage of super sonic training for fighter pilots, they should convert the existing ones to two seat trainer versions and make our the only AF to have 4 stages of training for fighter pilots.

i know how US lobbys works, being a democracy, US congress is not immune to different voices, majority wins, if you can convince more than 50-60% of the house and most of the senate into a particular policy, bill, law, treaty or whatever, its done. i have studied US lobbying laws, i have seen the house and senate in live action, its just a very advanced level of babu-giri, many voices , any opinions, many ideologies, many prejudicies, many concerns they have, sometimes even looks stupid...but hey we have seen such mockery even in our Lok sabha , democracies are not immune to it. we have a lot in common, we have to make our voice heard, Pak gets away with it because believe it or not they have a very strong lobby in DC, i have seen them too,. they are those well educated types, with fake accents, talking about aid, talking about how sincere their efforts are, how much India poses a threat to them. we indians have always have a nature of adjusting which has to change first, 3 jawans dies 1 major for 4militants, adjust kar lo, why is it that even today most of our police dont even carry guns, why is that our soldiers at the frontline dont have decent BP jackets?? very few genuinly care and do something about it.

US obviously has a long way to go before we get comfy with them, but they are taking small steps, which is good, its better than taking large rirrational steps which is why its gr8 the nature of this competiton, i said it before if US doesnt give full-tot no way we go for its platforms but we can still hope they do, because if they do well it shows their strategic commitment and if we have full-tot, i dont think India will shy away. its as simple " i am customer, we want full-tot, put up or shut up", if we are direct, persistent and push for it, we can get what we want, we certainly wont get anything if we just keep thinking we wont get anything and not do anything about it.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 14:53

RameshC wrote:i know how US lobbys works, being a democracy, US congress is not immune to different voices, majority wins, if you can convince more than 50-60% of the house and most of the senate into a particular policy, bill, law, treaty or whatever, its done. i have studied US lobbying laws, i have seen the house and senate in live action, its just a very advanced level of babu-giri, many voices , any opinions, many ideologies, many prejudicies, many concerns they have, sometimes even looks stupid...but hey we have seen such mockery even in our Lok sabha , democracies are not immune to it.

Geopolitics is not decided by India or Pak lobbies in white house. Its decided by anglo-saxon interests.

Don't believe in "Discovery" channel psy-op shows on "WhiteHouse of Truth".

These lobbies are just a way to control political motives of immigrant lobbies. They have no holdings on policy.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 15:04

RameshC wrote:i said it before if US doesnt give full-tot no way we go for its platforms but we can still hope they do, because if they do well it shows their strategic commitment and if we have full-tot, i dont think India will shy away. its as simple " i am customer, we want full-tot, put up or shut up", if we are direct, persistent and push for it, we can get what we want, we certainly wont get anything if we just keep thinking we wont get anything and not do anything about it.

I don't agree.

Its better to go for DRDO-private industry defense complex, where NRI's are directly hired from around the world. Rather than inviting American defense MNC's to create a weapons lobby in Delhi which will be stronger than Russian lobby and we will end up in permanent foreign dependence in defense security matters.

Instead of running after ToT(noone gives defense tech. on PLATE), we should do what Russians, Americans are doing at their home and what China is trying to do now.

We are in full reverse gear with MRCA.