MRCA News and Discussion

[GeorgeWelch]

Not on your nellie,Welch! The MIG-29/35 dates from the '80s when it was first revealed ALONG with the SU-27 Flanker at Farnborough

Sorry, it first flew in 1977.

What date it was 'revealed' is irrelevant

As to which aircraft amongst the contenders will be the most cost-effective,the twin-engined Eurocanards along with the F-18SH (without TVC,tich,tich!) will be the most expensive,judging from recent deals made and quotes.The F-16,Gripen and MIG-35 will be the cheapest.

Initial acquisition cost is only a small part of total lifecycle costs.

[GeorgeWelch]

But isn't it also correct that the basic airframes of Mig 29 or Su 27 where so good a design that upgrades can make Mig 29/Su 27 worthful for another 30-40 years while F-16 and to an extend the F-18 cannot.

That's just being silly.

It could be argued the Russian designs HAD to be upgraded because they had no other choice.

The USAF had F-22 and F-35 coming online and thus felt little need to invest more in the F-16.

The USN however saw the F-35C as further out (it's the last F-35 model schedule to be operational) and thus they continued to upgrade the SH and it is currently a very formidable aircraft. It is every bit as capable as any MiG or Su variant you want to throw out there.

In fact they just adjusted the budget to include another 26 SHs for the USN to cover delays in the F-35 program. The SH is the best supported program in the world, and that's worth a lot.

[johnny_m]

Chances are that if we choose the MIG 35 we will have to fund for the development of its upgrades in future. I do not know how it is different from an F 16 or an F 18 which many say will not have US support. If India chooses the Gripen NG and Brazil doesn't the chance of us being the only user of that platform are also high. If we really want others to fund for the upgrades then the choice must be either the Rafale or the Eurofighter. But this does not necessarily mean it will be any cheaper than it will be to fund for development of these upgrades. Look at the off the shelf upgrade issues we are having with the Mirage 2000. So in effect the support from home country is a non issue. The Jaguar is not operated by Britain or France now but we are doing well with it.

[SaiK]

did we miss this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0622871920071206

A split in the Pentagon over how much cutting-edge technology to share with India is complicating bids by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Boeing Co (BA.N) for a potential $10 billion fighter jet contract.

Boeing has said it is pursuing U.S. government approval to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornet "Block 2" strike attack aircraft

"There's advocates and non-advocates" of meeting India's hopes for maximum radar technology-transfer and co-production,..

"The Indians want as much co-production and as much technology transfer as they can get,".."The U.S. government has to decide how far it will go toward meeting India's requests."

"I think this a very critical decision that needs the attention of top government officials,"

"a tremendous opportunity for U.S. companies that should not be missed."

"We hope the U.S. government will get its act together,"

"Time is of the essence if we hope to compete with foreign companies for this hugely important deal."

"The F/A-18 has an advantage in that we are the only airplane in the competition with a fielded production AESA radar,"

"The United States has the most advanced AESA technology in the world,"

"No other country currently has an AESA radar in production."

problem:-

The United States already has sent AESA technology to Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, but they did not demand as much access to the underlying know-how as India has done

Washington might resolve its AESA-related dilemma by clearing a "dumbed down" version.

Well a dumbed down version would go against other merits. Its hard for the Americans to ToT India for the full AESA version as is.

If the dumbed down version is w.r.t range only, and further prevent us from augmenting it from later upgrades, then there is a high chance Europeans take the cake and eat it too.

[GeorgeWelch]

Chances are that if we choose the MIG 35 we will have to fund for the development of its upgrades in future. I do not know how it is different from an F 16 or an F 18 which many say will not have US support.

F-16 probably won't, but the SH is scheduled to remain in USN service till mid 2030s, and if history is any indicator, far longer than that

[Viv S]

Not unless the F-22s were grounded. Its the world's foremost fighter aircraft in all respects by a very large margin. It would be stretching incredulity rather far to believe it came up second best against the Rafale.

Read carrefully, it doesn't mean it was beaten on the other encounters. Draws happen on simulated dogfights.

So, the Rafale fought the Raptor to a draw five out of six times and scored a kill once. Sorry... still having trouble swallowing that. The Raptor can out-climb, out-turn and out-run the Rafale by a quite a bit, and has a marginally better pilot view. Yet, the Raptor got zilch in six engagements?

[johnny_m]

The Eurofighter and Rafale will be too expensive and Americans are not willing to transfer critical techs.

That leaves us with Gripen and MIG 35.

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Gripen not healthy for Tejas,

Ef2k will be win win situation, too expensive yes but we can go for only 126 instead of 200 [go for extra LCAs instead]
Not to mention the same Engine for both the planes.............

[Nihat]

I suppose you could say the same about SH if F414 is chosen for LCA tejas

[nrshah]

I suppose you could say the same about SH if F414 is chosen for LCA tejas

I wish we could have said that. But recent news related to dumb radar with SH shows all

Whereas others are sweetening the deal by offerings extra (Russian - Co develop next gen aesa radars with us / Typoon - offering sc tec with LCA engines and partnership in the consortium/ France - Radar Source / Grippen - Next gen fighter co development), Americans seems to be very possessive of even there soon to be retired aircraft and related technology.

[Philip]

If there are any doubts about the MIG-29/35s capabilities,I ask you to re-read AM Masand's article in VAYU,where the original MIG-29 whacked the Mirage-2000 again and again.The 35 is a fully modernised and upgraded multi-role fighter with AESA and TVC,which no other competitor has and a feature which the Typhoon's manufacturers are touting as an "extra",with the EJ TVC engine,having suddenly discovered its virtues (TVC).The F-18SH's production is being discontinued as almost all the west's allies have used it and the F-16 for decades and are switching over to the JSF.Why should we buy a "cast-off" aircraft which has come to the end of its development capabilities and has no future?

[rachit]

i thought the USN was committed to the SH till near 2030!!

[Philip]

Nein Rachit,production will soon cease unless the IAF bails Boeing out.The last avatars of the F-18,the USN SHs will serve for another decade or two,being progressively replaced by the delayed JSF.It is only the JSF delay that has made Oz buy 24 F-18SHs at a price of around $100m each! According to Oz aviation analysts,even the JSF will be inferior to newer versions of the SU-27/30/35,which will feature more powerful 3-D TVC engines,AESA radars and long range AAMs.It is why the Japanese afearing large numbers of Chinese Flankers,want the F-22 Raptor and not any other fighter from the US and may consider the Typhoon instead if the Raptor is unavailable.

[jai]

Makes Sense.

No Point buying planes that US is going to phase out, and which appear to be at the end of their development cycle; even if US intends to continue using older platforms because they can not replace all their older assets overnight..we shd see our options, and go for more modern platforms being offered to us. Its business....US style !! In our position, what would the US do?

My choice is for either Rafale or EF in a single plane deal.......with 50/100 additional SU 30 MKI's. The planes may be more expensive but we have the money and can pay for quality to ensure no compromise with our national security. I can think of many other places where the govt is sinking more money without stellar results so I see this as a good investment. In any case, see what is China spending each year on aquiring weapons that we are being targetted with !

In case, decision is to go for a multiplane deal, then split between Rafael's and EF's.....buy the AESA tech separately from Russia for existing 29's in the inventory...additionally order 50 more SU 30 MKI's or increase the order for FGFA to 300 planes to keep Russian's happy.

I think India needs to clearly let US know that we mean business and better be taken seriously as far as tech transfers and freedom to use equipment is concerned.

Agree with earlier posts that the only way to earn respect from US is by having the guts to go with others' better products. In any case they have not helped us in anything so far to merit our tax dollars going to them for their outdated platforms that are riddled with conditions.

[merlin]

If there are any doubts about the MIG-29/35s capabilities,I ask you to re-read AM Masand's article in VAYU,where the original MIG-29 whacked the Mirage-2000 again and again.The 35 is a fully modernised and upgraded multi-role fighter with AESA and TVC,which no other competitor has and a feature which the Typhoon's manufacturers are touting as an "extra",with the EJ TVC engine,having suddenly discovered its virtues (TVC).The F-18SH's production is being discontinued as almost all the west's allies have used it and the F-16 for decades and are switching over to the JSF.Why should we buy a "cast-off" aircraft which has come to the end of its development capabilities and has no future?

Maybe the MiG-29 whacked the Mirage 2000 but can the MiG-35 whack the Rafele? That's what matters.

[Philip]

That is what our men in blue will have to ascertain.AS far as close combat goes I think that the MIG-35 will have the edge with its TVC,but when it comes to BVR it's anybody's guess as accurate comparative radar capabilities are unobtainable.Since we already have the SU-30MKI for air domination,supposedly the best since it has a very large and powerful radar,if you also remember a Russian expert saying that if the Flanker has to engage in close combat then it has "lost the plot",it may not be the most crucial factor/capability that will decide the issue.We will have to look at what our chief adversaries are flying and ou unique mission requirments in the sub-continent.The variety,range,accuracy and capability of the strike munitions and the cost of the entire package,maintenance,life-cycle costs,will decide the technical rating.The political ratings will make up the other 50% of the final decision.

[sumshyam]

The political ratings will make up the other 50% of the final decision.

Would not it be t oooo much Sir.

[Asit P]

Initial acquisition cost is only a small part of total lifecycle costs.

GeorgeWelch, do you have any concrete figure on the life cycle cost of Super Hornet vis a vis Mig 35 or any other MMRCA competitor? If yes, please share it with us. In my humble opinion, that will add more weight to your argument.

Personally I feel that operation cost is indeed an important aspect of the total life cycle cost. However I find it hard to digest that "Initial acquisition cost is only a small part of the total lifecycle costs".

[johnny_m]

The TVC is not really that important in this age of HMCS/HOBS missiles. The MIG is however evolving as a realistic choice alongside the Gripen as the Americans are trying to play hardball with respect to tech transfer and dumbed down AESA. The two twin-engined Euro Canards are IMHO too expensive for a 10-11 billion deal with ToT. The Price of the Rafale quoted in the Brazilian tender for example is 140 million USD and the Super Hornet at 100 million USD.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=181

The Gripen NG is 70 million USD, I think the F 16 IN will also come around at the same price and the MIG even cheaper. Hence for me these are the three realistic contenders.

1. The F 16 IN may also be affected by the U.S reluctance to transfer AESA tech and a dumbed down version of APG 80 should not be what we are looking at. Apart from this despite PAF using inferior versions, IMO its a strong contender.

2. The MIG-35 has a lot of things going for it especially when it comes to ToT, the price of Eurobirds and the American reluctance to share tech. Being the only twin engined bird amongst the three cheapest birds and being potentially cheaper than the single engined competition is a real plus for it. The fear of putting too many eggs in Russian basket and the IAF's current love affair for things western may however prove too big an obstacle.

3. The Gripen IN is a good offer with AESA source codes and a futuristic radar. I do not think SAAB will have problems transferring technology to India either. Potential engine similarity with Tejas MK2 can be seen as another plus. Many here believe it may adversely affect the Tejas, which may or may not be true, regardless I do not believe it is something the IAF will care about, It may think of it as a cheaper single engined fighter it can induct in larger numbers if anything goes wrong with Tejas MK2.

[Jean_M]

So, the Rafale fought the Raptor to a draw five out of six times and scored a kill once. Sorry... still having trouble swallowing that. The Raptor can out-climb, out-turn and out-run the Rafale by a quite a bit, and has a marginally better pilot view. Yet, the Raptor got zilch in six engagements?

Not so sure about out-turning rafale at low speed/altitude. Even with its TVC it's quite a massive beast. Well future (exercices) wil tell.

The new about snecma/kaveri had been announced by The Hinu on dec 31, 2009: http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/31/stories ... 962000.htm

Kaveri project: DRDO gets nod for tie-up with French firm

Ravi Sharma

Talks with Snecma could start early next year: GTRE officials

BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been given the go-ahead by the government to take up an offer of French firm Snecma to ‘partner’ with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for jointly developing the Kaveri aero engine.

Senior GTRE officials told The Hindu that talks with Snecma “could start early next year.” The Kaveri’s eventual user, the Indian Air Force now appears to have softened its opposition to the tie-up, they said.

The Rs. 2,839-crore Kaveri engine programme was launched in 1989, specifically to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, now under development at the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). In 2005, the GTRE indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own.

Interestingly, the government’s nod, which is expected to cost the exchequer at least Rs 1,000 crore, comes nine months after a team, headed by Air Vice-Marshal M. Matheswaran and comprising officials from the ADA, the IAF and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, submitted a report that stated that an engine developed jointly by Snecma and the GTRE would not meet the IAF’s performance requirements. The IAF also wanted the Kaveri project delinked from Tejas programme.

According to informed sources, members of the Matheswaran team were critical of the French passing off their existing and fully developed ‘Eco’ engine core. This, the team felt, would not give India the engine core design knowledge or even control over it. It also pointed out that the design technology being handed out would take years to come.

Based on the report, the French offer was put on the backburner with even officials from Snecma stating that the “chapter was closed.” But the IAF for reasons not yet clear, appear to have reversed its stand.

Snecma, which indicated that an engine run of at least 250 is required to make their offer economically viable, agrees that an existing core would be at the heart of the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri engine. It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.

Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: “Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it.”

[SaiK]

Didn't we hear that cancellation of airbus order for air refuelers by fin min. They would just go by the cheapest in the list.

Unless, the political setup has it mentioned very clear in the RFI/RFP about cost and the selection process criteria, we have to pretty much go by what has happened.

The cheaper of the top three? is what appears to be the more realistic winner. Watch out for Gripen.

[Gagan]

I would say:
If its $ 100 million for the FGFA, it going to be ~$ 60 million for the MRCA.

[RKumar]

I would say:
If its $ 100 million for the FGFA, it going to be ~$ 60 million for the MRCA.

100 million + (6 billion/birds) <- Hidden cost

[SaiK]

But Gagan, that would be the production cost for FGFA. Besides, we would be spending $10b for development costs [it is not r&d cost, but dev cost, since it is based on pakfa baseline].

[johnny_m]

Didn't we hear that cancellation of airbus order for air refuelers by fin min. They would just go by the cheapest in the list.

Unless, the political setup has it mentioned very clear in the RFI/RFP about cost and the selection process criteria, we have to pretty much go by what has happened.

The cheaper of the top three? is what appears to be the more realistic winner. Watch out for Gripen.

Exactly my thoughts, however in some interviews Boeing cheifs have maintained that the SH price is comparable to that of the Single engined fighters in the MRCA. The Brazilian leak is a bit contradictory to that, may be he is talking about flyaway cost/unit.

The Gripen IN will do well I think especially when meteor is integrated. Low RCS/ Wide Scan AESA + Meteor looks like a winning combo for me.

[ragupta]

Off all the MRCA competitors, F16 and F18 are in production and battle proven. Mig35, Gripen and Eurofighter are new and just trying to integrate the technology that IAF is seeking.

The changes for getting cutting edge, proven and reliable platform with F18 and F16 is much higher. For the simple reason they are deployed in large numbers and will continue to be deployed in larger numbers than any of the other competitors. So the availability of spares and skills to maintain them will be better.

To mitigate the risk of sanction for F18, there is SU-30KMI, LCA and PAK-FA. Make sure to get local production and Maintenance support for F114 engine.

To further reduce the risk, India should take French offer of 40 Rafale were they gave an option to integrate Kaveri in Rafale, This is what the Indian Navy should go for. Make this an extension of the snecma-kaveri deal.

For LCA -MKII, select EJ-200.

LCA Mk II must be designed so that its engine is easily replaceable with F114/EJ-200/Developed Kaveri

India has to pay for ignoring several years of R&D and investment in technology.
This is the way to jump start and catch up with several years of research world wide. Manpower must be developed to understand and master these technology, so that in future these engineers can design and develop world class indigenous engine. In the meantime the developed aeronautical workforce can be used to provide worldwide maintenance support for different class of engine.

[sumshyam]

To further reduce the risk, India should take French offer of 40 Rafale were they gave an option to integrate Kaveri in Rafale, This is what the Indian Navy should go for. Make this an extension of the snecma-kaveri deal.

For LCA -MKII, select EJ-200.

Do you have any link in support of your statement regarding 40 rafale....?

And you are suggesting that we should buy aircraft from America and engine from Europe...then what is wrong in buying both from same place....it will make a good buffer stock...i think.

[ragupta]

What I wanted to mean above was:

Lets not use this MRCA exercise to get a military hardware, but acquire strategic depth by involving, engaging, deepening the relationship with US. I am sure it will be beneficial to both India and US.

Also, use this investment to build indigenous technology base that can act as aeronautical back office/maintenance depot for world wide requirement similar to IT.

For this to happen more players need to create not just HAL. There are so many areas to master and develop. Making HAL the only player for all things aeronautical in India, will delay and hamper the development of this vision.

HAL needs to be broken into multiple companies with its own goal, at the same time private players in public private partnership needs to be created on a priority basis.

There needs to be separate division for

Fighter aircraft
trainers
civil aircraft
engine
helicopters
avionics
weapon systems

With one public and private players in each of these areas. With all the deals in the pipeline the amount of work for one company is going to be too much to handle, that too in a monopoly environment.

Indian govt must float companies with public, private and DRDO partnership sharing resources and technology.

[ragupta]

To further reduce the risk, India should take French offer of 40 Rafale were they gave an option to integrate Kaveri in Rafale, This is what the Indian Navy should go for. Make this an extension of the snecma-kaveri deal.

For LCA -MKII, select EJ-200.

Do you have any link in support of your statement regarding 40 rafale....?

And you are suggesting that we should buy aircraft from America and engine from Europe...then what is wrong in buying both from same place....it will make a good buffer stock...i think.

===

The Rafale is 2-3 years old news. I will search and find the link if still available.

We keep fearing about sanctions for US supplied equipment, that is why it would be hedge to go for Ej-200 for LCA.

I am assuming that with F-18Sh, uprated F-114 would be assembled and produced locally, so we would have that technology as it is. The cost will be higher to go for 2 different engine, where one would suffice, but there are pros to it as well of beating the sanction, acquiring additional technology and diversifying the source, maintaining competition by engaging multiple players.

What I am thinking is India should take this opportunity to build aeronautical maintenance workforce that could work and provide worldwide support for several streams of technology.

We are not short of manpower and educational institute. With IT not so hot any more, this would be one area where tons of engineers graduating from Indian educational institute could find employment. would meet both Military and economical goal in long term.

Focusing on reducing cost would be a short term goal, which probably India should avoid at this time. As it is several Billions are being spent, few additional B will give strategic depth and help long term development.

[SaiK]

The selection criteria and selection process can be made public, I guess. Anybody thinks otherwise? we could ask this from MoD against 'right for information" laws.

[ragupta]

check the following news item
---

French company offers upgraded fighter jet
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/21jet.htm

About Dassault offering to mount Kaveri engine
==
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archiv ... 54095.html


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/
--
Excerpt:
---

In a related move, French engine maker Snecma, which is also bidding for DRDO’s joint collaboration project on the Tejas LCA’s Kaveri engines, has reportedly offered to mount Indian-made Kaveri engines in Rafale fighters. ..

===

[GeorgeWelch]

Nein Rachit,production will soon cease unless the IAF bails Boeing out.

Tell me Philip, how long will production of the MiG-35 last if IAF does not bail it out?

The last avatars of the F-18,the USN SHs will serve for another decade or two,being progressively replaced by the delayed JSF.

False, the F-35 is to replace the original F-18 Hornet, it is not intended to replace the SH. Even after the full F-35C buy is completed, USN squadrons will be about half SH and half F-35.

According to Oz aviation analysts

By which you mean Kopp and friends, who have their own vested interests

[GeorgeWelch]

Initial acquisition cost is only a small part of total lifecycle costs.

GeorgeWelch, do you have any concrete figure on the life cycle cost of Super Hornet vis a vis Mig 35 or any other MMRCA competitor? If yes, please share it with us. In my humble opinion, that will add more weight to your argument.

Let's look at this way: How much will parts costs when they simply aren't available at any price?

If you buy the MiG-35, you're standing alone. No one else is going to buy it and once it's out of production, spares will become increasingly difficult to obtain.

And that's just maintaining the current state.

Fighters have to be continually upgraded if they are not to become obsolescent. Who will be funding all these upgrade programs?

The US stockpiles MASSIVE amounts of spares for its fighters. If you get the SH, you can piggyback off its logistics support and guarantee availability of parts for decades to come.

Also the USN is committed to keeping its fighters current, so it will fund its own upgrade programs, allowing you to buy-in at substantially reduced cost and risk

[rajeshks]

The US stockpiles MASSIVE amounts of spares for its fighters. If you get the SH, you can piggyback off its logistics support and guarantee availability of parts for decades to come.

... only if India agrees with everything US does and do everything US want India to do. This is exactly the scenario US want to create and every Indian want to avoid. India and US have different political views and 'different histories'(borrowing from Mr. Bush).

[Asit P]

Let's look at this way: How much will parts costs when they simply aren't available at any price? If you buy the MiG-35, you're standing alone. No one else is going to buy it and once it's out of production, spares will become increasingly difficult to obtain.

This argument is somewhat plausible. However no one has a crystal ball that could accurately predict the future. Yes it is true that as of now, there is no other country which has shown its interest in Mig 35, but to say that situation will exactly be the same even in the future, is taking it a bit too far. Who knows after the successful induction of MIG 35 by India, many more countries may get interested in it (Just as it happened in the case of Mig 29) .

Moreover, 100% of SU 30 MKI is now indigenously produced in India (Infact India also exports many parts of Sukhois to countries like Malaysia). So why can't a similar arrangement be made for MIG 35 as well? This will eradicate the problem of spare parts forever.

Fighters have to be continually upgraded if they are not to become obsolescent. Who will be funding all these upgrade programs?

Russia and India ofcourse. Both the countries are already working on FGFA and there is no law that states technologies developed for FGFA cannot be incorporated in MIG 35. Assuming that the airframe of MIG 35 or any other operational issue does not let the features of FGFA to get incorporated in MIG 35, even then there is no law that states that India or Russia cannot come up with upgrade programs specific to Mig 35. Don't forget that MMRCA is a big competition. It involves a minimum of 126 (perhaps even 200) birds. The money involved in upgrading these birds will be huge enough to keep the Russians interested. And the stakes involved will be high enough to keep DRDO on its toes at all the times. When DRDO could design and develop some cutting edge products for SU 30 MKI, there is no reason to believe that it will not be able to do something similar for MIG 35 ten years down the line, when it would have gained more experience and expertise.

The US stockpiles MASSIVE amounts of spares for its fighters. If you get the SH, you can piggyback off its logistics support and guarantee availability of parts for decades to come.

The US also stockpiles massive amounts of sanctions which can be imposed at any point of time. Since you have already assumed the worst in case of MiG 35 (and you were very right in assuming so), let me now assume the worst for SH. What if some time in the future, USA imposes a sanction on India owing to changed international scenarios (as it has done in the past)? What will India do then?

Finally, I am not trying to compare MIG 35 with SH. I am no fan boy of any bird. I am just a fan of my country who wants the best bird to win. I don't care whether it is the birds in question or whether it is one of the other birds in the competition. My only request to you is that no one knows the percentage of operational cost in total life cycle cost of any bird. So please don't make statements such as:-

Initial acquisition cost is only a small part of total lifecycle costs.

to strengthen the case of SH. And if you do, then please back up your claim with proper figures. Thanks

[jaladipc]

Dude,

Buying anything that has national security implications from US is a win loose situation.If India has to buy these damn 126 fighters from US, then India has to obey and has to keep mum on whatever US does/say.
US may sell the same bird with same specs to pakistan in future to fight the taliban
Do we have any say in that matter?

Since rest of all the fighters apart from the initial 18 need to be manufactured in India with TOT(varies upon the country and their definition of TOT) we can be somehow safe,but not fully.
Dont forget that a bow might be there wihout a string, but a product purchased from US comes with ample strings {its is only dependant on you and your available energy to count the number of strings )

White house is looking to offer TOT for degraded ones.{Any US fan boy can run after that TOT}

For India to be on the safe side for the next 30 years atleast, A russian fighter would be the wise bet(considering the co-dev of FGFA and IN acquiring more Mig-29`s) and the next bet would be a Gripen/Typhoon(considering the amount of TOT).

Since the bosses put this deal as a strategically important and all fighters in the fray met the min requirements ,it is only about who can offer the best(FM has no issues with the total amount of deal,means--- the probability of winning and loosing are 1/6)
Any country want to make their respective deal a certain? Has to shower goodies(be them of strategic importance/VAP )

[Surya]

100% of SU 30 MKI is now indigenously produced in India

Are you kidding?

Read the report from the HAL on SU 30 manufacturing - posted somewhere on this forum.

[Marut]

^ I think he meant 100% of the items earmarked for indigenous production in the SU-30 MKI are being produced locally.

[SaiK]

Well, I didn't read that way too. Even the LCA is not 100% yet.

With regards 100% of the earmarked, had also issues in terms of adhering to schedule.. as some % were got done from sukhoi@Russia. [per some long time ddm reports/google knows it better]

Also, per reports we lost the sole rights for MKI, and gave back to Russians the right to produce to bump up the numbers quick.

We have to be careful in projecting our product capability against production capability

pardon, I didn't mean to undermine any jingoistic feelings.

[Surya]

Marut

nope because he ties it in with the explanation of problem of spare parts being solved.

and that will never happen except in la la land.

And if he did not mean it he can always correct himself -