Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
I hope that the Admins will not kill the thread as this is slowly becoming a burning issue.
As we know that India is seriously interested in participating in PAKFA and Indian share of R&D of US$ 8-10 Billion is stated/reported to be US$ 4-5 billion. We have had so called 50% developments or JV for brahmos, Barak, Shakti engine etc with less than stellar reports of indigenous content. Is the term JV a new way to side step tender based acquisition and rob the Indian taxpayer?????
The issue I want to raise is that why AMCA allocated budget of only US$ 1 Billion a step child while Russian bird gets US$ 10 (or even 4-5 Billion US$) of Indian money. The issue is still not answered in public domain as to where this money will be spent, In Russia or India? Where will the labs will be built in russia or india? Whether it will be payment in dollars or we will supply manpower and equipment of US$ 4-5 Billion? if it is JV then no cash should change hands and India should give only man, material and lab assistance worth US$ 4-5 Billion! Now Whether this concept will be extended to so called T-xx super modern tank, which is being touted to kill Arjun, karan and any possibility of future indian tank?
What are we getting for US$ 4-5 Billion? Engine tech? Radar tech? Labs? Whaaat? If we are just getting right to produce or license assemble then why give Russia US$ 4-5 Billion? The reports that most of the sub assemblies of Su-30MKI and raw material will always be Russian does not inspore confidence in "indigenous" PAKFA!
Have we tried caling/tendering any European Company like Dassault or BAe or Saab and asked what help can they give us for developing stealth aircraft if we offer US$ 4-5-6 Billion???
In addition even if we fund PAKFA by raping Indian tax-fool-payer, If we can spent US$ 3 Billion on ATV & US$ 5 Billion on PAKFA then why not on US$ 20 Billion on AMCA. One of the problems with LCA was low rate of funding and why have we have allocated a similar amount for a more complex aircraft? Do we intend to build labs that delayed Kaveri and LCA? Will be built adequate margin on Kaveri for AMCA weight gain, tvc & snake inlets?
Some relevant links
The director of ADA, Dr PS Subramaniam, confirmed to Business Standard, "The joint committee is likely to be formed within two or three weeks. This committee will finalise what will go into the MCA, as well as the budget and development schedule." According to Dr Subramaniam, the programme will aim to develop the MCA and build five to six prototypes at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore. That is approximately the same amount that has gone into the LCA programme.
link
The cost of developing the FGFA, which would be shared between both countries, will be US $8-10 billion (Rs 37,000-45,000 crores). Over and above that, say IAF and MoD sources, each FGFA will cost Rs 400-500 crores.
link
I hope that the Admins will not kill the thread as this is slowly becoming a burning issue.
As we know that India is seriously interested in participating in PAKFA and Indian share of R&D of US$ 8-10 Billion is stated/reported to be US$ 4-5 billion. We have had so called 50% developments or JV for brahmos, Barak, Shakti engine etc with less than stellar reports of indigenous content. Is the term JV a new way to side step tender based acquisition and rob the Indian taxpayer?????
The issue I want to raise is that why AMCA allocated budget of only US$ 1 Billion a step child while Russian bird gets US$ 10 (or even 4-5 Billion US$) of Indian money. The issue is still not answered in public domain as to where this money will be spent, In Russia or India? Where will the labs will be built in russia or india? Whether it will be payment in dollars or we will supply manpower and equipment of US$ 4-5 Billion? if it is JV then no cash should change hands and India should give only man, material and lab assistance worth US$ 4-5 Billion! Now Whether this concept will be extended to so called T-xx super modern tank, which is being touted to kill Arjun, karan and any possibility of future indian tank?
What are we getting for US$ 4-5 Billion? Engine tech? Radar tech? Labs? Whaaat? If we are just getting right to produce or license assemble then why give Russia US$ 4-5 Billion? The reports that most of the sub assemblies of Su-30MKI and raw material will always be Russian does not inspore confidence in "indigenous" PAKFA!
Have we tried caling/tendering any European Company like Dassault or BAe or Saab and asked what help can they give us for developing stealth aircraft if we offer US$ 4-5-6 Billion???
In addition even if we fund PAKFA by raping Indian tax-fool-payer, If we can spent US$ 3 Billion on ATV & US$ 5 Billion on PAKFA then why not on US$ 20 Billion on AMCA. One of the problems with LCA was low rate of funding and why have we have allocated a similar amount for a more complex aircraft? Do we intend to build labs that delayed Kaveri and LCA? Will be built adequate margin on Kaveri for AMCA weight gain, tvc & snake inlets?
Some relevant links
The director of ADA, Dr PS Subramaniam, confirmed to Business Standard, "The joint committee is likely to be formed within two or three weeks. This committee will finalise what will go into the MCA, as well as the budget and development schedule." According to Dr Subramaniam, the programme will aim to develop the MCA and build five to six prototypes at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore. That is approximately the same amount that has gone into the LCA programme.
link
The cost of developing the FGFA, which would be shared between both countries, will be US $8-10 billion (Rs 37,000-45,000 crores). Over and above that, say IAF and MoD sources, each FGFA will cost Rs 400-500 crores.
link
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
This post might be a little too early but I won't IB4TL this.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Why can't this be discussed in the "Indian Military Aviation" thread?
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Hey gadadhari bheem, adminullahs have passed a strict fatwa against dedicated AMCA/NGFA/MCA thread till the holy prophet allocates asrharfis from jannat. Till such compliance to shariat is achieved, its IB4TL onlee.
BTW my dhaga on MCA went shaheed thi way onlee.
BTW my dhaga on MCA went shaheed thi way onlee.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
We need Aircrafts and very fast..can't wait for ADA/HAL to come up with MCA. The time taken ( even with proper funding ) will be a minimum of 12-15 years for IOC. Better to fund PAKFA and simultaneously work for MCA. Funds should not be a problem as we are not able to spend bulk of the capital allocations for defence.In addition even if we fund PAKFA by raping Indian tax-fool-payer, If we can spent US$ 3 Billion on ATV & US$ 5 Billion on PAKFA then why not on US$ 20 Billion on AMCA. One of the problems with LCA was low rate of funding and why have we have allocated a similar amount for a more complex aircraft? Do we intend to build labs that delayed Kaveri and LCA? Will be built adequate margin on Kaveri for AMCA weight gain, tvc & snake inlets?
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
I dont see any possibility of technical discussion about this topic except bashing on babus.
so my firtst post on br.every one doesnt get this chance to say ib4tl on the first day of joining :PIB4TL
so my firtst post on br.every one doesnt get this chance to say ib4tl on the first day of joining :PIB4TL
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 185
- Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Well, AMCA vs. FGFA would certainly make an interesting discussion.
but, so would IBR4TL.
but, so would IBR4TL.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
- Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Last I checked, AMCA is slated to be DESI, PAK-FA is a collaboration, where by desi SDRE's would "INHERIT" their expeirences learned with the stealth technology and put it to good use as per IAF's ASR on AMCA...
hence
EYE BEE FOUR TEA YELL
hence
EYE BEE FOUR TEA YELL
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 723
- Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
- Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
- Contact:
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
What makes anyone think that military R&D budgets are ever fully publicized? Everyone else does mil R&D using at least partially dark or outright black budgets -- it's a requirement of keeping things secret (or at least looking like you've got secrets to keep). I see no reason why India wouldn't be doing the same. So..........
INDIA
BRAVO
4
TANGO
LIMA
INDIA
BRAVO
4
TANGO
LIMA
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
- Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
- Contact:
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Dude... IMHO It truly is a good topic to discuss but we have threads on both the MCA and FGFA in this forum so we can do it there...
So..
IB4TL...
So..
IB4TL...
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
its IB4TL time
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
IB4TL onlee
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Well, Eye Bee Fore Tee Yell
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 98
- Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:48
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
When will all these yahoos stop this IB4TL outrage? I ask you!
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Exactly....I literally have no idea about finances.....lol ..!
Sry...increasing my number of post...!
.
Sry...increasing my number of post...!
.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Yes. Yes. My first IB4TL
Mogambo Khush huaa
Mogambo Khush huaa
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
IB4TLs are spreading faster than the AIDS epidemic. We have a IB4TL epidemic on BRF.
Bheem, I don't know if the admins will let this thread to continue or not. Perhaps you can repost your post in the mil aviation thread too.
You do raise an important question, although there is no open source info available on this for us to be able to discuss and analyze.
Will India be able to afford two 5th gen fighter programs running simultaneously?
Or is the MCA slated to be an upgraded twin engined LCA - a 4.5 gen fighter with stealth features? The aim will be to make it as close to a true 5th gen fighter as possible.
Even more importantly, I can see the gurus having second thoughts on the validity of the MRCA program given that the PAK FA is now flying, and the FGFA must surely not be far behind.
Many questions that need to be discussed.
Bheem, I don't know if the admins will let this thread to continue or not. Perhaps you can repost your post in the mil aviation thread too.
You do raise an important question, although there is no open source info available on this for us to be able to discuss and analyze.
Will India be able to afford two 5th gen fighter programs running simultaneously?
Or is the MCA slated to be an upgraded twin engined LCA - a 4.5 gen fighter with stealth features? The aim will be to make it as close to a true 5th gen fighter as possible.
Even more importantly, I can see the gurus having second thoughts on the validity of the MRCA program given that the PAK FA is now flying, and the FGFA must surely not be far behind.
Many questions that need to be discussed.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
The issue is whether the funding for any "indigenous" product is adequate? Is the DRDO failing or our commitment towards adequate funding failing? Even LCA project (considering the depreciation of the rupee) has spent around US$ 2 Billon. Now are we trying to create MCA with half the funding? This still leaves the issue of present format of JV open. Real JV means contribution has to be in "kind" and not money. So are we paying the Russians or actually contributing to PAKFA while using US$ 5 Billion to build our infrastructure in long run?
I am not asking that we ditch PAKFA but we should/can do the following:-
1. Funding for AMCA should be atleast double of LCA i.e. around US$ 4 Billion
2. Inform the public what are getting for US$ 5 Billion for PAKFA
3. Ask for JV/tender with some European house for AMCA and compare the costs/potential with PAKFA
4. Almost any visit to Def expo or conversation with Arms manufaturers will tell you that concept of JV, MoU is being used to side step tenders in lot of cases (not all cases, off course)
5. In fact, it easier to get high tech for (non transferable sensitive projects) now but arms manufacturers don't give routine tech because final product can be sold as a JV, MoU or outright non-tender sale.
6. Time is proving lot of doubts over Gorky were correct, PAKFA is still R&D project with no firm cost, so what is our alternative?
I am not asking that we ditch PAKFA but we should/can do the following:-
1. Funding for AMCA should be atleast double of LCA i.e. around US$ 4 Billion
2. Inform the public what are getting for US$ 5 Billion for PAKFA
3. Ask for JV/tender with some European house for AMCA and compare the costs/potential with PAKFA
4. Almost any visit to Def expo or conversation with Arms manufaturers will tell you that concept of JV, MoU is being used to side step tenders in lot of cases (not all cases, off course)
5. In fact, it easier to get high tech for (non transferable sensitive projects) now but arms manufacturers don't give routine tech because final product can be sold as a JV, MoU or outright non-tender sale.
6. Time is proving lot of doubts over Gorky were correct, PAKFA is still R&D project with no firm cost, so what is our alternative?
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Well, LCA is a project started from scratch when not much knowledge is existing. What ever knowledge we acquired via HF-24 has faded with time. However, MCA since has a predecessor, need not start from ground up. Scientists can start from LCA and add on it. Some LRU's from LCA may also directly go into it. So by conventional wisdom, subsequent projects should not cost as much as the initial ones. Owing to this logic, they might have assigned only US$ 1 billion.Bheem wrote:The issue is whether the funding for any "indigenous" product is adequate? Is the DRDO failing or our commitment towards adequate funding failing? Even LCA project (considering the depreciation of the rupee) has spent around US$ 2 Billon. Now are we trying to create MCA with half the funding? This still leaves the issue of present format of JV open. Real JV means contribution has to be in "kind" and not money. So are we paying the Russians or actually contributing to PAKFA while using US$ 5 Billion to build our infrastructure in long run?
Anyway, budget will definitely see a northward curve when the project actually kick-starts.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Bheem Bhai,its no more MCA its NGFA
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
I think this thread starts off on a wrong note. Why does it have to be either of the two? Why can't we have both if them? Infact, I for one, believe PAKFA's development is crucial for MCA.
IB4TL.
IB4TL.
Re: Discussion: Funding of AMCA vs. PAKFA?
Bheem, clearly you have done some homework for this thread which is good to see but this topic is still a little premature. till the project gets official sanction, the best place to continue this discussion would be the indigenous R&D thread. could you re-post your comments there ?
as for the 1Bn budget, consider it tentative, more will be allocated as needed. that said, we do seem to much more liberal in funding foreigners than our own projects.
as for the 1Bn budget, consider it tentative, more will be allocated as needed. that said, we do seem to much more liberal in funding foreigners than our own projects.