MRCA News and Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2009 14:06

...the last bit of BK's article is the key factor.

Delhi will have to make a judgment call on two things: on the United States as a reliable strategic partner and military supplier, and on the implications of such a supplier relationship for India’s independent posture.

The US, on the other hand, is an unknown commodity, insisting that its partners adhere to its policy guidelines and with a worrying record of violating contractual, even treaty, obligations and treating its military customers in a high-handed and arbitrary manner.

With the news that the LCA production will be a massive 8 aircraft per year,ramped upto 12 with some effort (and there is no mention if this is for the MK-1 version or future MK-2 version,yet to fly) ,it is quite clear that the LCA can now never be the mainstay of the IAF's future force,no matter what cost it comes at.This means that the MMRCA deal will be crucial and if cost is going to be a major factor,then the single-enginedGripan could well be the dark horse as acquiring it in large numbers 200+,would offest the shortfall in LCA numbers,plus allow the IAF to acquire more heavy SU-30MKIs (possibly even SU-35s and 34s ) until the 5th-gen fighter arrives ,supposedly by 2015.Once the IN starts operating the MIG-29K,the IAF might even want to acquire more MIG-29Ks/35s as it is atype in service already available at reasonable cost.The LCA's gripes are giving the Gripen some extra thrust!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Dec 2009 18:51

interesting BK is into MMRCA now-a-days! whats happening with Pok-II yields?

clearly sounding some semaphores are exchanged and certain strategic forces have tipped him some thing!? what car is he driving by the way?

any change there?

--
ps: its time to cancel the MMRCA RFP itself. this mil decision is entirely politics now.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 11 Dec 2009 20:03

The irony is that India’s desire for a new fighter plane is in the context of even the cutting edge manned aircraft obsolescing so fast as to become expensive museum pieces before they serve out their 30-year life span with the IAF. Had the IAF been visionary in its approach, it would have foreseen the end of the “man in the loop.” As a habitual laggard, however, the IAF seems satisfied with equipping itself fully for yesterday’s war.

Thats uncalled for. The F-22, F-35, PAK-FA etc are all manned. So who exactly is the IAF lagging behind in its vision?

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 11 Dec 2009 20:25

Hiten wrote:
Bharat Karnad has probably inadvertently omitted a sentence here, possibly referring to the MiG-35

Worse, unlike the Indian Navy with its warship directorate, the IAF has no in-house expertise in designing aircraft and never acquired a stake in indigenous manufacture.(_______????______) Dispassionate analyses suggest that it matches or surpasses either of the American aircraft in the race and, in its more advanced configuration, can outperform even the Joint Strike Fighter F-35, a plane Lockheed Martin have promised to replace the F-16 with on a “one for one” basis were India to buy the latter aircraft.

I noticed it too. A glaring oversight in proof-reading. IMO, he must have meant SU-30 MKI.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 11 Dec 2009 20:28

SaiK wrote:interesting BK is into MMRCA now-a-days! whats happening with Pok-II yields?

clearly sounding some semaphores are exchanged and certain strategic forces have tipped him some thing!? what car is he driving by the way?

any change there?

--
ps: its time to cancel the MMRCA RFP itself. this mil decision is entirely politics now.

Agreed. Never understood the rationale behind the MRCA anyway. I think the RFP is kept alive more for H&D preservation than anything else.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2009 15:04

Had a conversation reecently with a celebrated ex-AM,who earlier headed the outfit that is evaluating the birds on offer.

His views:The team will not specify rankwise which bird is best,but show a capability comparative study instead.Political factors will decide the issue,especially reliability of support during times of war-where there is a big questuion mark about the US-no problem with the Russians,and with price being a major factor too.In his view,it is preferable that the IAF acquire a twin-engined fighter because,as he says,"we've lost so many pilots and aircraft due to bird strikes ,and in a single-engined aircraft,the pilot has no other option but to eject.There's no problem with the Jaguars..."
He also said that a twin-engined fighter was also better because of the high performance required from the aircraft (range,payload,etc.) and that a single-engined aircraft acquisition could clash with the LCA project.

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 Dec 2009 17:31

shameekg wrote:
The irony is that India’s desire for a new fighter plane is in the context of even the cutting edge manned aircraft obsolescing so fast as to become expensive museum pieces before they serve out their 30-year life span with the IAF. Had the IAF been visionary in its approach, it would have foreseen the end of the “man in the loop.” As a habitual laggard, however, the IAF seems satisfied with equipping itself fully for yesterday’s war.
Thats uncalled for. The F-22, F-35, PAK-FA etc are all manned. So who exactly is the IAF lagging behind in its vision?

Not now.When the MRCA enters the IAF in numbers in maybe 10-15 yr the 5th gen UCAV tech will be mature and state of the art.More like inducting F16 s in an era of F22s.Manufacturing technology is where India is still lagging in, hopefully the MRCA tender would address some of the issues.just look at the dismal rate of LCA production.

Kalle · Post by **Kalle** » 12 Dec 2009 18:34

Prem Kumar wrote:[I noticed it too. A glaring oversight in proof-reading. IMO, he must have meant SU-30 MKI.

Yes, the origilan article is here. http://casi.ssc.upenn.edu/iit/karnad

But I do not really agree, he seems to have forgotten the operational costs of such a big twin engine aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Dec 2009 20:06

I have Pitor write up on Future Fulcrum which was published in Nov 2009 AFM issue , can I mail this to some one and then who can upload it here , its a scanned B/W pdf copy but readable nevertheless.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 12 Dec 2009 20:42

kit wrote:Not now.When the MRCA enters the IAF in numbers in maybe 10-15 yr the 5th gen UCAV tech will be mature and state of the art.More like inducting F16 s in an era of F22s.Manufacturing technology is where India is still lagging in, hopefully the MRCA tender would address some of the issues.just look at the dismal rate of LCA production.

Note that its not manufacturing he is talking about. He clearly says the IAF is lagging in vision. And as anyone who has followed the MRCA saga will know, the IAF's demands were made long back and had nothing to do with this long drawn 'competition'. Besides I doubt major air forces will be replacing their premier fighters with UCAVs in the next 15 years.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Dec 2009 11:55

There was a doubt earlier expressed about the number of air forces equipping themselves with 5h-gen stealth fighters.A report from the Gulf had this "shocker".The general of the Abu Dhabi air force said that he hoped that within a few years,the Abu Dhabi air force would have 5th-gen fighters in service.Specifically,the F-22 and JSF were mentioned in passing.Abu Dhabi plans to dump its large fleet of M-2000-9s and acuire a new fighter.Though intense negotiations are on regading the Rafale,nothing has bene finalised and the statements about the "5th-gen stealth fighter" could mean that they are now looking seriously at the JSF if the F-22 is not for export.Another little snub to the F-18SH,whose manufacturers claimed to be "stealthy",were corrected as the F-18 is apparently offocially classified as not "stealthy",but "low observable." Wiriting in "F"mag,an EADS executive said in a clear referenece to the F-16 and F-18,that they were offering India an aircraft "20 years ahead" in technology.

If the Gulf state is dumping their old M-2000-9s,as they feel that the aircraft is not worth retaining for future challenges,then what is the use of India also upgrading the M-2000s that we have at prohibitive cost? It appears that tAbu Dhabi is trying to get the French to take back the whole lot of M-2000s and replace them with Rafales.Will the French try and dump them onto India as aprt of the MMRCA deal? In the emerging threats from the Sino-Pak axis of evil,we should maintain a technological advantage and possess enough numbers,as China is making maximum effort to develop its own stealth fighter within the next decade and upgrade its J-10 and J-17 aircraft which Pak is acquiring in large number.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 13 Dec 2009 12:24

Austin wrote:I have Pitor write up on Future Fulcrum which was published in Nov 2009 AFM issue , can I mail this to some one and then who can upload it here , its a scanned B/W pdf copy but readable nevertheless.

can you send it over - youcanmailmeanytime AT gmail

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Dec 2009 12:29

Philip wrote:Another little snub to the F-18SH,whose manufacturers claimed to be "stealthy",were corrected as the F-18 is apparently offocially classified as not "stealthy",but "low observable."

um, no one's claimed that the SH is stealth

of course neither is anyone else in the MRCA competition

the relevant question is if it is stealthIER than it's competitors

and my opinion is that it is

Philip wrote:Wiriting in "F"mag,an EADS executive said in a clear referenece to the F-16 and F-18,that they were offering India an aircraft "20 years ahead" in technology.

which is hilarious considering they aren't even sure when they're going to have AESA

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Dec 2009 12:32

Oh they do have one up their sleeve somewhere,or praps it in nether regions!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Dec 2009 12:35

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Philip wrote:Wiriting in "F"mag,an EADS executive said in a clear referenece to the F-16 and F-18,that they were offering India an aircraft "20 years ahead" in technology.
which is hilarious considering they aren't even sure when they're going to have AESA

As a platform/design and flying qualities the Typhoon is certainly a gen ahead of Teens,Miggy.

In fact in an interview given to Force magazine , the RAF chief stated that in close combat at lower altitude the Typhoon matched the MKI and above 40000 feet it excelled the MKI.

One can argue that it will get AESA some time later or its A2G is not as great as teens , but that does not take aways the basic qualities of the platform which is atleast a gen ahead , all the ding doing can be added making it a better performer than what it is now.

Hiten done , Please do the needful.. Thanks

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 13 Dec 2009 12:49

Austin wrote:As a platform/design and flying qualities the Typhoon is certainly a gen ahead of Teens,Miggy.

And when you get blown out of the sky because your inferior electronics gave you no warning, that will be cold comfort

Austin wrote:One can argue that it will get AESA some time later or its A2G is not as great as teens

There is no argument, it's a fact the EF is already 5 years behind and counting

Austin wrote:but that does not take aways the basic qualities of the platform which is atleast a gen ahead

So?

No plane is going to outrun or outturn a missile once it's within it's NEZ.

With 360 sensors, HOBS missiles and HMDs, maneuverability is steadily ceding ground to the electronics side of the equation.

Those who don't keep up are doomed to die quickly.

Austin wrote:all the ding doing can be added making it a better performer than what it is now.

The electronics are such a critical part that they can't be an afterthought.

If you are behind, you WILL lose.

Yeah you can add better later, but the 'better' you can get from Euroland will ALWAYS be behind what you can get from the US for the simple reason that their military budgets are miniscule by comparison.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 13 Dec 2009 13:00

Thanks Austin saar for the scans

Jpeg Files
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/23/0001iv.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/1016/0002n.jpg
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/2540/0003ob.jpg
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5788/0004n.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8998/0005bb.jpg

Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24032087/Future-Fulcrums

Rapidshare
http://rapidshare.de/files/48828402/Fut ... m.pdf.html

rahul_h · Post by **rahul_h** » 13 Dec 2009 15:01

As a platform/design and flying qualities the Typhoon is certainly a gen ahead of Teens,Miggy.

In fact in an interview given to Force magazine , the RAF chief stated that in close combat at lower altitude the Typhoon matched the MKI and above 40000 feet it excelled the MKI.

One can argue that it will get AESA some time later or its A2G is not as great as teens , but that does not take aways the basic qualities of the platform which is atleast a gen ahead , all the ding doing can be added making it a better performer than what it is now.

Hiten done , Please do the needful.. Thanks

There are several articleson the internet which talk about Typhoon vs. MKI and if MKI is so much capable then why shouldnt we scrap MMRCA all together and order more MKI's as IAF stated that they are considering 50 more of them. A few days back IRkutsk delivered 3 MKI's which were 40 additionally ordered with 140+50 earlier ordered and russians are saying they will deliver all 40 by 2011-2012. Then that production line will sit idle why not order 100 more MKI's instead of 50 and dumping MMRCA all together also IAF chief once stated they have now infrastructure to handle 150 Mirage 2000 to fill the gap then why not add second hand mirage 2000 from middle east and france itself. In my opinion...

Instead of MMRCA:

100 MKI (5 squadrons)
60 Mirage 2000 (3 squadrons) +3 squadrons being upgraded by FRance at bargain

and join JSF program as an new mmrca with Lockheed martin for both IN for its new carrier born fighter as F-35B and IAF as F-35A to compliment PAKFA.

Frankly speaking everybody in the nation will love to have JSF as an MMRCA not the 1970's vintage stuff which IAF is about to take.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 13 Dec 2009 15:28

MMRCA might seem like a waste of time and money to some but ultimetly is a well thought out move. For the fist time , we're looking at production of a supersonic combat jet in India i.e. Tejas. It has no base to rely on and is the first platform of it's kind in India.

If we're looking at establishing a full blown aeronautical industry in India then we need to diversify and have access to all sorts of advanced technologies , by now I presue the people at HAL know the MKI inside out and we'll have the best of what Russia has to offer in the form of PAK FA.

MMRCA is vital to gain access to plaforms such as SH , Rafale and Typhoon and use these technologies to our future expertise.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Dec 2009 16:38

what does inside out mean? does it include the precise metallurgy required? semi conductor design? mathematical algorithms? construction techniques? etc., etc....?

reverse engineering can only go so far

Neerajsoman · Post by **Neerajsoman** » 13 Dec 2009 18:05

Lalmohan wrote:reverse engineering can only go so far

Well, we certainly haven't taken it far enough. DRDO is so concerned with indigenisation, it has insisted on re-inventing the wheel every time. Until recently we were still stuck on Nehruvian principles in our design processes--the kind that rejected a donation of 5000 tractors from the USSR in the 50's, because it would put farmers out of work.

Indigenisation has three major priorities, the first being the most important:
1. Production Capability
2. Reverse Engineering
3. Design Capability
4. Employment
5. Pride

We've gone the opposite route--we designed the Tejas and attempted to build an engine from scratch instead of reverse-engineering the RD-33. Now, we're asking for ToT so we can avoid the dirty business of reverse engineering, and we don't have the production capability to produce more than 8-10 Tejas a year. Consequently, 4 and 5 have been lost in the game, 3 is limited by expertise and an unwillingness to carry out 2, while historic policies have restricted 1.

What we need is an Directorate of Aeronautics to figure out a long-term strategy. Our air-warriors are so invested in our defensive doctrine, that their strategic decisions are purely reactive. The MMRCA tender is essentially nothing more than a panicked reaction to the revelations of PLAAF expansion, and their own low serviceability. Where we are proactive, we are just screwing around--the Phalcon system is all well and good, but did we need to buy three for an air-force that has spent 60 years relying on Ground Controlled Interception, and has had no opportunity to evolve AEW&C doctrine?

The same will happen with our new toys--whichever ones we buy. We will assemble them at Nasik, but we'll send them abroad for airframe overhauling. Come 2017, we'll realise that China has the J-XX in mass-production, so a panicked IAF ill deem the Tejas, the MMRCA and the MKI utterly useless, and ask for 200 PAK FA. In the meantime, the Indian taxpayer will be paying for 12 different types of overhauling and base facilities for each type of fighter and each variant.

Does Typhoon vs. MKI really matter, then? It probably doesn't, because the MMRCA will be decided by geopolitics. Lets just hope we let the Russians screw us instead of the Americans or the Europeans--just because they're the lesser of all evils when it comes to pushing their agenda in South Asia.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2009 18:28

In terms of who has the best technology, there should be no doubt it is khans!.. but what would be available for us under ToT, may be 20 years behind. May be this is where Eurofighters are projecting under their 100% ToT banner.

Indeed, they are lagging in TVN, AESA and stealth shapes. One aspect is for sure for all things Euro-peeans, they are definitely 20 years ahead in terms of pricing, perhaps a projection of their open ToT policy.

Its hard to say no them, if they come down to near +/- 5 year ahead-ness either tech or pricing.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Dec 2009 22:00

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Austin wrote:As a platform/design and flying qualities the Typhoon is certainly a gen ahead of Teens,Miggy.
And when you get blown out of the sky because your inferior electronics gave you no warning, that will be cold comfort

Austin wrote:One can argue that it will get AESA some time later or its A2G is not as great as teens
There is no argument, it's a fact the EF is already 5 years behind and counting

Austin wrote:but that does not take aways the basic qualities of the platform which is atleast a gen ahead
So?

No plane is going to outrun or outturn a missile once it's within it's NEZ.

With 360 sensors, HOBS missiles and HMDs, maneuverability is steadily ceding ground to the electronics side of the equation.

Those who don't keep up are doomed to die quickly.

Austin wrote:all the ding doing can be added making it a better performer than what it is now.
The electronics are such a critical part that they can't be an afterthought.

If you are behind, you WILL lose.

Yeah you can add better later, but the 'better' you can get from Euroland will ALWAYS be behind what you can get from the US for the simple reason that their military budgets are miniscule by comparison.

Electronics is one important part of the matrix , Typhoon has true 4 plus gen capability like Highly Manouverable/Agile Fighter ,Very Good Thrust to weight ratio, Low RCS by Design ,Supercruise that is quite basic and fundamental to an aircraft.

The teens and miggys lack few of the important fundamental characteristics and they try to make that up by electronics/sesors/weapons in some respect.

Typhoon is just at the beginning of its service life from here on it gets better be it Electronics/Sensors/Weapons , Engine T/W ratio , LO and maneuverability if 3D TVC is opted for.

It all depends if the host countries needs these capabilities but if some one like India needs it , it can be added as part of its life cycle growth.

Strictly speaking Typhoon is in a different league when compared with Teens or Miggys , the only other aircraft that comes closes is the Rafale.

Regarding Typhoon vs MKI debate , the Interview by RAF chief is clear and explict that Typhoon can hold its own against an MKI at low level and above 40K feet it excels over the MKI in close combat , there is a lot that both IAF and RAF would have learnt about each other platform from the exercises conducted.

Neerajsoman · Post by **Neerajsoman** » 13 Dec 2009 22:52

Austin wrote:Typhoon is just at the beginning of its service life from here on it gets better be it Electronics/Sensors/Weapons , Engine T/W ratio , LO and maneuverability if 3D TVC is opted for.

By that token, the Typhoon has been at the "beginning of its service life" for nearly 7 years. The Europeans can afford to mess around and take their time under the US nuclear umbrella, and an all but defeated Russia. We cant.

Austin wrote: Regarding Typhoon vs MKI debate , the Interview by RAF chief is clear and explict that Typhoon can hold its own against an MKI at low level and above 40K feet it excels over the MKI in close combat , there is a lot that both IAF and RAF would have learnt about each other platform from the exercises conducted.

Close combat in excess of 40k feet?? Close combat is a game of energy--you drive each other into the ground. Nobody is going to have close combat at 30k ft, let alone 40k. Also, the TACDE is still evolving techniques using TVC. In Red Flag, we were still pulling over corner-speed turns, with our noses too close to the horizon, losing altitude (and hence potential energy). In addition to that, we usually rotate our less experienced pilots for foreign trips.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Dec 2009 23:28

A wet dream of an ignorant person!

Why can't India buy 100 Su-30 MKIs to cover eastern sector and 50-60 F-18 SHs for western sectors? Our threats and allies are different in each sector naaa?

100 Rambhas @ $60m a piece = 6B
60 F-18 Tilottamas @ $70m a piece = 4.2B

Remaining <$1B change can be given to Brahmos academy to supply 500-1000 apsarasas.

Appreciate some gyan from gurus.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Dec 2009 23:36

nice dream is all I can say !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Dec 2009 23:44

In Red Flag, we were still pulling over corner-speed turns, with our noses too close to the horizon, losing altitude (and hence potential energy).

the very point of TVC is nose-pointing ability without going into stall speed in order to achieve the best firing attitude.
IAF's 1v1 record was exemplary in that trip (what you are describing didn't happen in red flag but in mountain home air base) it was 21:1 IIRC.

Close combat in excess of 40k feet?? Close combat is a game of energy--you drive each other into the ground. Nobody is going to have close combat at 30k ft, let alone 40k.

true if you consider only past incidents. does not mean won't happen in the future.

secondly hi-alt CAPs can certainly lead to hi-alt dogfights, I don't see why not.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Dec 2009 23:46

Austin, Hiten,

Thank you for the "future fulcrums" article by Pibu. Interesting that they are setting up a MiG-29K as a test bed for the MiG-35. Just as I had mentioned a few weeks ago, this is a good idea. The most interesting part in the article for me was that a 1000+ TRM AESA is already on this fighter. IIRC, MiG/Phaza got v. respectable results out of the 680 module AESA on the bort 154 MiG-35 proto that we see around all the time. The 1000 TRM radar should be much better, I guess this is what the IAF will see when evaluating weapons/avionics in Russia next year: MiG-29K with full blown Zhuk A and OLS.

As far as the Typhoon vs other MRCA is concerned, it is a no brainer that the Tiffy has a solid edge in performance. Arguments regarding its avionics being hugely inferior to the teens are a joke - the Tiffy already offers something the teens can't/don't, a superb IRST fused nicely with all the other sensors. An AESA is a matter of when, not "if"; right now (or for the next 5-10 yeas) the current Captor M is reportedly good enough for most AFs operating the tiffy. By 2015 the AESA version (1400 TRMs) will be out and should be v. competitive.

BS apart, the phoon certainly has its pluses in the A2A arena.

VS MKI, yes it will have certain advantages; then again the MKI will also have certain advantages. The BARS II upgrade will clearly make the MKI a more potent BVR platform. Other advantages include incredibly endurance and slow speed (below 350kts) performance. Anyways, as a purely A2A platform, the Tiffy will have to deal with the likes of a Pakfa or F22 and there it will come up short imho. Even against an uber MKI, it might not have the goods.

CM.

Neerajsoman · Post by **Neerajsoman** » 14 Dec 2009 00:21

Rahul M wrote:
In Red Flag, we were still pulling over corner-speed turns, with our noses too close to the horizon, losing altitude (and hence potential energy).
the very point of TVC is nose-pointing ability without going into stall speed in order to achieve the best firing attitude.
IAF's 1v1 record was exemplary in that trip (what you are describing didn't happen in red flag but in mountain home air base) it was 21:1 IIRC.

When you know the engagement is 1 V. 1, you can afford to go below stall speed to achieve optimal attitude for a firing solution, as the single kill is all that matters. You wouldn't push past stall-speed in a shooting war, because it wrecks your situational awareness and puts you in a vulnerable tactical position for at least 5 seconds--enough for someone you may not have spotted to take you down. It's the reason why even Sukhoi's own pilots say that maneuvers like the Cobra and Chakra are tactically useless, even if they are thrilling.

The loss of altitude itself is a symptom of losing situational awareness, no matter where it occurred--over enthusiastic pulling on the stick?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Dec 2009 00:45

Cain Marko wrote:Austin,

Thank you for the "future fulcrums" article by Pibu.
CM.

Thanks Austin..CM, did you notice what was written about the next batch of 29 MiG-29Ks for the IN ? they will be costlier than the original 16 MiG-29K's unit price "although a source at RSK MiG confirmed that the price increase will be much less than that reported in the press, quoting Pakistani sources(which said the price would increase by 60%)"..I was blown away reading that ! so its now confirmed that stories are planted in the press at the behest of the enemies of India to try and scuttle projects.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Dec 2009 01:35

Kartik,

I did read that part and was a bit surprised; however, admittedly did not put 2+2 together. The word "sources" confused me - are the paki sources just newspapers/media reports in the Pak press or are they some kind of unidentified type of sources (who are paki) that plant stories in the media (indian, russki, paki etc) against a variety of issues.

However, this should not be surprising. The media at large is ahem, "yellow" and lifafas seem to be a way of life. Integrity is a word that is sorely missing, sensationalism otoh is ubiquitious, esp. in indian outlets - the TOI is a prime example, no more than a bloody bollowood rag. Utter trash! Journos are poorly trained in defence matters, but still feel competent enough to comment on issues they have no clue about. What makes matters a lot worse is that they often do hitjobs. First there was a spate of articles against inhouse projects, then I noticed that the indo-russki relationship was seriously maligned. These two episodes convinced me that the media has been bought - lock, stock and barrel. Its only usefulness is to see if you get some inkling of the technology involved.

Re. IN MiG-29K cost escalation. I'd expect it to be similar to the MKI escalation, which came to the fore when the additional 40 were ordered circa 2007. I think the russkis scrutinized all their deals and decided that all new purchases would be upped. However, nothing outrageous and still well below western counterparts but definitely not the throwaway prices of yore. Also, it'll be interesting to see if the new batch of Ks come with upgrades - AESA perhaps?

CM

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Dec 2009 03:42

please leave out the teens from the competition.

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=12073
The US has been pushing India to sign the CISMOA as it intends to enhance the inter-operability of the Indian and American forces.

It ensures secrecy of its C4ISR (command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems.

The khans have high hopes!!!!

what more legal way they can say this? an inter gov agreement to install secret listenting and c4isr systems.

its time to petition online if gov continues to further this.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 14 Dec 2009 05:06

I was wondering if it would be a pre-requisite for India to sign the CISMOA prior to all TOT (if the American's ever allow it) if we choose the F/A-18 (my favorite) or F-16??

Here are some links in relation to the same -

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... lk/546833/
(US keen on India signing CISMOA & LSA)

http://ncrsamaylive.com/NewsDetails.asp ... goryID=105
(India in no hurry to sign CISMOA)

I have no clue why India is reluctant to sign the CISMOA? I can understand its logical reservations to the LSA - which might work in favor of the Americans but if it expects American TOT then CISMOA is imperative. I can see no logic in Indian reluctance. Unless it is a sign that it might not go for the F-16 & F/A-18.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2009 06:56

Neerajsoman wrote:
Rahul M wrote: the very point of TVC is nose-pointing ability without going into stall speed in order to achieve the best firing attitude.
IAF's 1v1 record was exemplary in that trip (what you are describing didn't happen in red flag but in mountain home air base) it was 21:1 IIRC.
When you know the engagement is 1 V. 1, you can afford to go below stall speed to achieve optimal attitude for a firing solution, as the single kill is all that matters. You wouldn't push past stall-speed in a shooting war, because it wrecks your situational awareness and puts you in a vulnerable tactical position for at least 5 seconds--enough for someone you may not have spotted to take you down.

go below stall speed ?

what are you talking about ?
do you know what happens when aircrafts go below stall speed ?

The loss of altitude itself is a symptom of losing situational awareness, no matter where it occurred--over enthusiastic pulling on the stick?

I'm not sure what you mean. in a turning fight with similar maneuvers, a TVC fighter will always bleed energy more slowly than a non-TVC but otherwise equivalent fighter.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Dec 2009 07:58

Cain Marko wrote:...
Re. IN MiG-29K cost escalation. I'd expect it to be similar to the MKI escalation, which came to the fore when the additional 40 were ordered circa 2007. I think the russkis scrutinized all their deals and decided that all new purchases would be upped. However, nothing outrageous and still well below western counterparts but definitely not the throwaway prices of yore. ...

CM

The Russians have traditionally quoted their prices far far lower than similar weapon systems (in terms of capability) offered by the Western counterparts. I doubt they include "true" costs associated with development and production, which includes things like R&D costs, market price of raw materials, competitive labor rates, etc. It seems like they learn about all the costs as they build the first order and subsequently up the costs based on that lesson learned. I would think the profit margin is quite low (relative to what Western defense industries make). I'm sure they also have problems retaining talent, based on low labor rates, in a competitive marketplace.

Also, they sell aircraft in deals that include only the fly-away costs with very little regards to the "true" costs of ownership to the user, such as its 30-year service-life costs associated with the operational and support usage. So it is cheap to buy, but as the IAF has learned (repeatedly), it is far more expensive to operate.

Reading a side sub-article that was on the "Future Fulcrums" article, MiG corporation hasn't been profitable over the years and probably the same goes for a whole bunch of Russian defense industries, who are constantly short of cash or in need of bailouts from the government. I think the higher price quotes probably reflects this reality ... as well as once the user has taken the "bait" so to speak (purchase a weapon system), they are pretty much forced to follow on order of a whole range of subsystems (which tends to have lower parts life relatively) and of the whole weapon type if the purchaser wants to increase its fleet commonality and size.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Dec 2009 09:55

Ash_Aussie wrote:.. I can see no logic in Indian reluctance. Unless it is a sign that it might not go for the F-16 & F/A-18.

That would be another way to put it!.. but I see a lot of logic:

1. France, Russia or Eu has no similar conditions for Tech Transfer. Its only the money aspect perhaps.

2. CISMOA guarantees Americans to install location based services under the command and control logic.. a few logic and push buttons can make the $10-12b crafts as flying ducks.

3. How long does it take to write software to satisfy 2? its already in the system as FPGAs.

Why get b@lls squeezed when a few fist full of $$ more, we could get similar A/C from other nations with no prostrate effects?

Further we have enough bandwidths and capacity for infromation intelligence that be captured via sonic, radar, optical data and by other means as inputs, documents, perhaps get free information of all these and more, along with american handle on the MRCA b@lls.

India should be very careful in leapfroging with such a leash.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Dec 2009 12:32

srai wrote:The Russians have traditionally quoted their prices far far lower than similar weapon systems (in terms of capability) offered by the Western counterparts. I doubt they include "true" costs associated with development and production, which includes things like R&D costs, market price of raw materials, competitive labor rates, etc. It seems like they learn about all the costs as they build the first order and subsequently up the costs based on that lesson learned. I would think the profit margin is quite low (relative to what Western defense industries make). I'm sure they also have problems retaining talent, based on low labor rates, in a competitive marketplace.

When one mentions "traditional" russian transactions, one can refer to freebies/goodies given for strategic reasons during the cold war (ala MiG-29/Kilo) OR deals made at really cheap prices during the desperate situation they faced in the 90s (ala Su-30mki).

Since neither of those two contexts remain, why should the prices ? Despite this and the russki awakening to market forces, their hardware is extremely inexpensive. LIfe cycle costs notwithstanding. I have yet to see a proper life cycle cost analysis that would prove russian hardware more expensive over the entire lifecycle.

To illustrate, a brand new MiG-29K cost India 46 million USD in 2004 (pre russki awakening) including support, training, and sims. The RD-33MK that comes with it is a highly improved engine with advertised excellent serviceability rates and low SFCs. THe airframe too is guaranteed for 6000 hours. In what way can a comparable western a/c (say Rafale, TIffy or Shornet) do better over the lifecycle? And not just "Better" but enough to equalize that massive upfront cost difference (possibly to the tune of $ 100 million), figure in the cost of MLUs as well.

Also, they sell aircraft in deals that include only the fly-away costs with very little regards to the "true" costs of ownership to the user, such as its 30-year service-life costs associated with the operational and support usage. So it is cheap to buy, but as the IAF has learned (repeatedly), it is far more expensive to operate.

So? Nobody is stopping western counterparts from doing the same. What is the cost of a Rafale fly away? Or Tiffy Or Shornet Or F-16blk 60? Btw, what deals include 30 year service life costs? Are you saying that the EF-2000 contract with Austria or Saudi for instance included 30 year life service costs? Like I said, russki hardware might be more expensive to operate but does this really make up for the difference in upfront costs?

Reading a side sub-article that was on the "Future Fulcrums" article, MiG corporation hasn't been profitable over the years and probably the same goes for a whole bunch of Russian defense industries, who are constantly short of cash or in need of bailouts from the government.

No different from what the ROW is doing towards respective economies. Kind of ironic really, I can understand russians being in this boat considering the massive upheavals that happened during the 90s. What excuse do the rest have? AFAIK, they all had solid, stable political/economic structures over the last 20 years.

I think the higher price quotes probably reflects this reality ... as well as once the user has taken the "bait" so to speak (purchase a weapon system), they are pretty much forced to follow on order of a whole range of subsystems (which tends to have lower parts life relatively) and of the whole weapon type if the purchaser wants to increase its fleet commonality and size.

[/quote]
No different from other countries. In many ways, far better. Take the USA for example - the stories of Iranian tomcats or Venezuelan vipers are tragic. Looking a little closer to home, the poor Pakis had their solahs sunning in Nevada for a good 2 decades. In India's own case, the sanctions fiasco left the LCA hanging iirc.
Lets look at the other possibility, the hoity-toity frenchies - the plight of the Taiwanese with their fabulous mirages is truly pathetic. In the case of the IAF, upgrading those oh so wonderful mirage 2000s makes one seriously wonder if French hardware is worth it. Shell out a cool 2 billion dollahs to keep 'em beauties looking beautiful. A price hike every now and again doesn't look too bad does it?

All in all, for having worked with all the idiosyncrasies of the Indo-russian relationship over the last 40 odd years, the results on the ground are not only satisfactory for the most part, but also quite promising in some instances. Btw, is it just me or did others notice that the russki prices took a bit of a hike only after 2005? That is only after the GOI showed an unprecedented bonhomie with the USA, sometimes it was said - even at the cost of cold shouldering Rodina. Just may be the russians thought this warranted a marginal increase in the cost, what with India in its new found wealth deciding to buy off the shelf trentons, C-130s, P8s etc.

JMT

CM.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 14 Dec 2009 14:08

I see your point of India not being keen on signing the CISMOA!

But looks like we are our b@lls are already in big brothers fist... we've already committed to buying the P-8i's, Hercules & now the C-17's... Don't think there is any running away from the CISMOA as the American's have been harping on the fact that TOT on these projects and the mega-buck MMRCA projects is pinned on India signing the dotted lines.

The point I'm trying to make is if Indian concerns about the CISMOA remain paramount and a sticky point.. The F/A-18's & F-16's are already out of the race. (As India wont accept any winner minus TOT - and so it shouldn't) Also, we'll get all the C-17's, P-8i's, Hawkeye's, etc but without TOT.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2009 14:22

Consdering that the earlier deal was finalised some time ago,there must be some extra price increase for inflation,etc.In fact,whwt the MOD should've done was to keep the extra options at the same price with a cut-off date for the order's confirmation,as it was inevitabel that more MIG-29K s would be required.Remember how the Russians offered us the second lot of three Talwars at the same price,but the MOD dithered and we had to pay extra,the same was the case with the extra Sukhois.We have paid the French a hefty increase for the Scorpenes,which PC strongly objected to,but it was a deal like the Gorshkov,desperately required at the time with the Pakis merrily building their own Agosta 90Bs indigenously and our sub manufacturing line rusted and comatose for lack of orders.The decision for the second line of subs has been hanging fire for several years now,and a Brahmos equipped conventional sub is sorely needed,perhaps for a role just as we have seen with Dhanush,successfully tested with a certain gent in charge of our strategic arsenal watching!

Coming back to the MMRCA,the point being made about life cycle costs and the huge difference between costs per unit is very valid.There was an article in an issue of VAYU a few months ago,where the author said that the Russians found from experience how to be cost effective in determining the lifespan for some of their aero-engines,wiser when compared with their western counterparts who built in extra lifespan,etc. which was not neccessary.he made many observations too about the same design philosophy in Russian aircraft comparing the MIG-21s wing dsign and that of some western ones.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 14 Dec 2009 15:06

Last week the IAF and industry visited Swedish Air Force bases F 17 and F 7 (Gripen Centre) to look at operational Gripens and training/support system.

http://www.mil.se/sv/Forband-och-formag ... ar-Indien/