MRCA News and Discussion

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 20 Feb 2010 23:07

Why not buy MKIs and install an AESA radar from whoever wants to sell it to us?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Feb 2010 23:54

You are right....old though, I just came to the conclusion independently!

Sure (and that is great). And, just for kicks, you are not the first - and that is the issue. Issue: bandwidth. Same posts - plenty of times - all original.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 21 Feb 2010 01:25

MMS, INC and sellouts, the never-ending saga....
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/ ... -deals.htm

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Feb 2010 01:37

Austin wrote:There is no enigma or any thing of that sort , AL-31FP has a thrust rating of 12.5 T and in emergency mode you can take it higher thrust for short burst.

That needless enigma is create by GJ guy because MKI is like his first love

What I said has little to do with GJ. Still, if the FP pumps out as much (or as little) as you say, the TWR on the bird is approximately ~ Mirage 2000, which is considered a bit underpowered. Definitely lower than an F-18, F-16, F-15, MiG-29, Rafale, and Typhoon. I find that a little hard to believe considering the reputation of the bird as a high powered "air dominance" aircraft. There are other issues as well, but I'll let them be.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I see no real issue in getting a higher thrust version of the AL-31F on the MKI, it has already been readied for the SM and 33.

Yes check this link The aircraft's engines have also been improved to the 117S and the air intakes are enlarged.

Thanks.

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Feb 2010 03:33

derkonig wrote:MMS, INC and sellouts, the never-ending saga....

US dictating India's big defence deals?

I recall a conversation, when MMRCA was MRCA, that the feeling was that since India was getting so much business from the US, that the US wanted India to spend on US def products.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 21 Feb 2010 04:26

Well MMRCA is the last opening for US to get a stake/leverage in IAF's fighting inventory. After this I only see either totally/mostly indigenous development & production or joint development & production. They know that very well. It will be in our best interest to keep them out of here and let our fighting force remain totally independent.

Airbus refuellers are really good. In 2008 even USAF went for them but bowed out of the decision due to extraneous pressure. IAF was happy with them as well but had to change the decision because of dictat from elsewhere.

It is in India's best interest that we keep American weaponry out of our arsenal as much as possible. Defense is just not the right arena to engage with Americans.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Feb 2010 07:47

Sumeet wrote:Well MMRCA is the last opening for US to get a stake/leverage in IAF's fighting inventory. After this I only see either totally/mostly indigenous development & production or joint development & production. They know that very well. It will be in our best interest to keep them out of here and let our fighting force remain totally independent.

Airbus refuellers are really good. In 2008 even USAF went for them but bowed out of the decision due to extraneous pressure. IAF was happy with them as well but had to change the decision because of dictat from elsewhere.

It is in India's best interest that we keep American weaponry out of our arsenal as much as possible. Defense is just not the right arena to engage with Americans.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the KC 767 comes into play here. If the Fin Min really wanted to keep the prices down, the contract could have just gone to the IL-78. But no! Still, there may be hope. Perhaps, by giving the U.S all of these fine deals, the road is being paved for an uber oiropean MRCA design (not the Gripen NG).

CM

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 21 Feb 2010 08:06

@nitinm , leaving Us no other country has any operational AESA radar in any of their aircraft's , if we are buying jets mainly for AESA tech then Americans win hands down since their radars are of second gen AESA radars compared to inexperienced European Aesa tech ,has some one pointed out European AESA radar on MKI or a JV with Israel on New AESA radar can still give us the tech .

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 21 Feb 2010 08:10

it is like this which ever aircraft in MMRCA fall well within 10 billion will win MMRCA ,any other aircraft going above will be shot down , since FM already has budgeted the MMRCA

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Feb 2010 08:24

karan_mc wrote:it is like this which ever aircraft in MMRCA fall well within 10 billion will win MMRCA ,any other aircraft going above will be shot down , since FM already has budgeted the MMRCA

Wish it were that simple.. If the Mig doesn't pass the evals for some reason, neither of the aircrafts are going to fall in that bracket (not even considering maintenance, support,.....)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Feb 2010 10:10

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12425 Analysts say buys from the United States have implications of strategic deterrence and cost to the taxpayer, particularly because the American firms never transfer critical technology, have intrusive clauses inbuilt in every contract and the US government always holds the threat of sanctions for use of the American weapons and technology that do not suit the American interests.

Now, if these are true that we were forced to buy american weapons because of the nuke deal, then we are the only poodle nation on the planet who is poodling even before the poodle handshake is done.

hame yeh banana chaye, woh banana chaye, bolke bolke, banana re-public ho gaya!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Feb 2010 12:51

Cain Marko wrote: Don't understand this. The original F-15 was designed for 4000 hours. An MLU that cost about $ 3 billion will give it the extra lifespan you speak of taking it to a total of 16000 hours. Why is this not possible on the MKI? The MiG-29 was originally slated for 2500 hours as you point out, however, the IAF is about to add another 4000 via the SMT upgrade. Doesn't this make its TTL 6500 hours? Point is, how does this make cost of ownership more for the russian frames? Firstly, they seem to have the same amount of lifespan as their counterparts (possibly more) after upgrades and extension and the like of course. And their upgrades seem to cost a lot less. I mean $ 1 billion for 60 MiG-29s to get another 4000 hours on them sounds super bang for the buck. Even if the Mirage 2000 airframe does not really need an airframe extension, it still costs a bloody packet more. Its not like western aircraft go the whole hog (6000 hours) without any MLUs whatever. And when the time for MLU comes, they sink a pretty deep hole in the pocket.

CM

4000 hours being added for the MiG-29UPG ? do you have a source for this ? Only asking because I haven't seen that anywhere.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Feb 2010 18:28

Rafale in more trouble..now with Brazilian deal...

São Paulo-based body that represents almost 60% of Brazil's aerospace and defence companies has issued a scathing attack on the government's open support for the Dassault Rafale in its 36-aircraft F-X2 fighter contest

In a public letter, the board of the CIESP organisation says it "is concerned with the conclusion of this [selection] process in which the meticulous, professional and serious work developed by the air force may be cast aside". Declaring that "the French fighter, if chosen, represents a defeat",

Including maintenance costs, these total $10.2 billion for the Rafale, $7.7 billion for the Super Hornet and $6 billion for the Gripen NG, it claims. At just 2,500 positions, the Dassault-led proposal would also provide the smallest number of new jobs, while forging yet-closer defence industrial links with Paris would be "a grievous error for a country that wishes to assure its sovereignty", it alleges.

Boeing not to be left behind to rub some salt...

Boeing manager of international business development Michael Coggins says: "The right solution for Brazil's F-X2 programme must be affordable, while guaranteeing air force supremacy in the region, national autonomy, and aerospace industrial development opportunities. Boeing believes the best way to achieve that solution is with the selection of the Super Hornet."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... spute.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Feb 2010 19:18

cost comparision..

12:10:8:6:5
EF2K:Rafale:SH:Gripen:Mig35

Just a guess onlee

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Feb 2010 19:34

SaiK wrote:cost comparision..
12:10:8:6:5
EF2K:Rafale:SH:Gripen:Mig35
Just a guess onlee

I see no F-16 in your 'guess-list'

jai · Post by **jai** » 21 Feb 2010 19:46

This is like a game of chess right now, with everyone trying to guess what do the IAF/MOD/GOI really want from this contest....numbers,tech, reward someone for something - (right now no idea who and why) and I am not sure all answers would ever emerge even after closure of this contest.

IMHO our salvatation is in LCA and MCA "getting there" and quickly. Given the rate at which old migs are falling out of the skies, the sooner IAF retires them the better. The LCA production needs to go upto 100 / year, with twin engined variants (Snecma/eurojet/Rd 33) with TVC coming out quickly with Israeli radar if our's is not ready.

jai · Post by **jai** » 21 Feb 2010 19:51

Given the rate at which old migs are falling out of the skies, the sooner IAF retires them the better.

.........before a 'Significant" number of our experiened pilots are lost to "Accidents".

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 21 Feb 2010 20:01

jai wrote:The LCA production needs to go upto 100 / year, with twin engined variants (Snecma/eurojet/Rd 33) with TVC coming out quickly with Israeli radar if our's is not ready.

Twin engine variants of what? Also this 100/year production does not make sense till there are orders to justify such a setup.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Feb 2010 22:08

Kartik wrote:4000 hours being added for the MiG-29UPG ? do you have a source for this ? Only asking because I haven't seen that anywhere.

Kartik, you are right - for some strange reason I kept reading 4000 hours at every source and took it to mean 2500+4000, in actuality it is 2000 additional hours bringing it to 4000 TTL. My mistake. So now, the MiG-29 will see a 40 year frame - while the M2k was slated for 60 years from the beginning.

I guess, this would mean that the pilots on the Baaz would be give fewer hours per year? Or probably that the fulcrum would be retired a decade earlier? Btw, does the M2k get additional airframe life after the upg?

C M

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Feb 2010 23:16

RKumar wrote:Interesting comments
On February 19, 2010, at 10:05 PM, SamJack59 wrote: The price offered will be one of the key aspects but not the biggest. They've asked for a large amount of Transfer of Technology. However, the POTUS would prefer against transferring key technologies including but not limited to engine manufacture (Single Crystal Blades) as well as materials technology. Boeing by itself might offer a great price and back it up with excellent manufacturing methodologies. but will be hamstrung by the customers not signing the CISMOA or agreeing to accept similar terms to protect both our IP and potential use against US allies. ......

Marten wrote:Welcome to PsyOps. The comment was from a BRF member.
OT: How else do you influence the opinion of the vast number of Boeing investors? It's a shame we don't have a larger team at work to keep buttressing the Indian viewpoints wherever we can positively impact public opinion.

These comments are from the this link and I dont think it is from BRF member.

shukla wrote:Boeing Curries Favor in India

nitinm · Post by **nitinm** » 21 Feb 2010 23:46

Guys,

I am here only for a few days and I sense this tendency of people on the forum to show how others have no original thought. That all they do is read other articles, rephrase and post on the forum. Am I the only one that feels this is rude??

I don't think Boeing will offer a very good price for the simple reason that if it wants the deal, it can always pull other levers for it. I don't think price is what Boeing likes to compete on, its not their way of doing things.

If you see the Eurofighter as a match for the MKI, it is easily worth $50m a piece. Other than that, we get the engine and AESA radar technology, each worth ~$1bn. If the $70m target is met, then I think we have a winner here. Ofcourse, there may be other surprises in terms of some goodies EF may throw in to get a better price!

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Feb 2010 01:41

Twin engine variants of what? Also this 100/year production does not make sense till there are orders to justify such a setup.

LCA. That's the point. IAF/GOI should be investing in the LCA instead of MRCA. Put the money here, demand the best - clearly define the specs, and then let HAL get the goodies anywhich way they can - joint production/imports whatever.

Point is, IAF priorities should be met asap - best way to grow our own capability is to invest in it and expand as needed. If every developed country can do it, so should we be - why think different from US, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden or China, if they can invest on their own aircraft and develop them, why should we not ?

If it takes commitment to meet the numbers then I say order it. Show the guts by investing on indegenious products customized to IAF. How else can we meet our 45 - 50 Sqn dream to face a China ? The same investment of US $ 11 Bn in LCA could turn India's fortunes in defence production.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Feb 2010 09:09

I am here only for a few days and I sense this tendency of people on the forum to show how others have no original thought. That all they do is read other articles, rephrase and post on the forum. Am I the only one that feels this is rude??

Bahi jan, this very thread has been there for about 10 years.

Granted you had original thoughts - no two ways about it. BUT, there are others who have had those very same thoughts AND posted them way ahead of you!! You have to realize that there are people here that have been here for about 15 years!! In fact some of the best have left - bored because of repetition among other things.

It is best (for everyone) that one reads through older thread (of what is available) and then post (or post and face a rude crowd?). IMHO, the guys who favor the MiG and EF are crude, but not rude.

Welcome.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 22 Feb 2010 09:53

jai wrote:LCA. That's the point. IAF/GOI should be investing in the LCA instead of MRCA. Put the money here, demand the best - clearly define the specs, and then let HAL get the goodies anywhich way they can - joint production/imports whatever.
<snip>
If it takes commitment to meet the numbers then I say order it. Show the guts by investing on indegenious products customized to IAF. How else can we meet our 45 - 50 Sqn dream to face a China ? The same investment of US $ 11 Bn in LCA could turn India's fortunes in defence production.

The LCA is an LCA for the reason that it is a small light fighter. Trying to make a twin engine version of the same is not something any of these countries you mention have done. Elso we would have seen a twin engined F-16, MiG 21 etc by now. A medium fighter is not made just by expanding a smaller one. See what happened to the Mirage 4000. IAF priorities are being met by the MRCA. While it is a long drawn process, neither the MCA nor the FGFA will be ready in sufficient numbers soon enough for filling up the gap left by the retirement of the MiGs. If the IAF sees the requirement for large numbers of LCA they can surely order them. But that decision is for them to make. There is not much point in others showing guts if the end customer does not want your product.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Feb 2010 11:55

Ave Atkinson (President & CEO, SAAB) say its not all doom and gloom even if it fails to win Indian & Brazilian tenders..

Q. IS THERE A DANGER THAT SAAB WILL BE KNOCKED OUT OF THE FIGHTER MARKET - BOTH THE AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT IN THE AIRCRAFT - IF IT DOESN'T WIN CONTRACTS FOR ITS GRIPEN FROM BRAZIL AND INDIA?

A. No, not knocked out. The Swedish Air Force and government made it very clear last year that they see the Gripen as a core component of the long-term future of the Swedish defense forces. The defense minister has said that the defense forces are looking to use it for the next 30 years. The defense forces also need continuous upgrades. There are also customers in South Africa, the Czech Republic and Thailand who are looking to upgrade their fighters. We already have a customer base, whether we win the Brazil contract or not.

I hope he is right, for Gripen's sake..

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=INT

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Feb 2010 13:41

The LCA is an LCA for the reason that it is a small light fighter. Trying to make a twin engine version of the same is not something any of these countries you mention have done. Elso we would have seen a twin engined F-16, MiG 21 etc by now. A medium fighter is not made just by expanding a smaller one. See what happened to the Mirage 4000. IAF priorities are being met by the MRCA. While it is a long drawn process, neither the MCA nor the FGFA will be ready in sufficient numbers soon enough for filling up the gap left by the retirement of the MiGs. If the IAF sees the requirement for large numbers of LCA they can surely order them. But that decision is for them to make. There is not much point in others showing guts if the end customer does not want your product.

Fair enough, perhaps I should have said LCA + MCA.

Point being, what ever IAF needs should be created inhouse and in big numbers using the same kind of investments as imports. If it wants a twin engined plane (Considering 4 out of the 6 contenders currently are twin engined), the same shd be created in house, and in large numbers quickly - deliver before or same time as MRCA (100 + planes by 2015 or better if possible).

IMHO MOD needs to expedite domestic prodution. 15/16 planes/year is not going to help.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2010 14:03

As I said earlier,if we can select and buy just an engine for the LCA,with a radar from elsewhere (most prob. Israel),why on earth can't we just cast a net around for an AESA radar and assorted tech? There is no need to buy an aircraft at hideous expense that started out its life 3 decades ago like the SH or F-16 simply to acquire the radar or the engine.As the comments made about the LCA,putting concerted attention into that programme,making it work,with both Indian and foreign input and TOT both for radars and engines,The MMRCA deal can then be a separate issue,focussed upon what the IAF needs NOT confusing the deal with ambitious dreams of leapfrogging India into becoming a 21st century aerospace giant through just one deal! We could then evaluate and choose the best tech for each individual key component instead of having to make do with tech from just one country .

The methodology for achieving that objective is to break up all the key components that go into making up contemporary futuristic aircraft,UAVs,etc.,and establish dedicated R&D labs for the same,metallurgy,composites,EW,etc.,which are all part of an intricate "mesh" of exotic research including stealth.EStablishing JVs with foreign partners for these labs will give us the sound foundation upon which our own designs can later emerge.Our main failure is to have developed a sound enginering base for the design and production of aero-engines of all types.We learnt nothing form our HF-24 experience and our obsession with the GTRE in delivering Kaveri despite all its shortcomings being well known for years,was an exercise in self-delusion.That a variety of aero-engines is sorely needed is evident from the fact that many air forces these days,including the US, are re-discovering the virtues of even small inexpensive turbo-props for COIN ops,as these aircraft now equipped with ejector seats,glass cockpits,etc., can carry out ops in Af-Pak and other hotspots at a fraction of the cost of larger more expensive je fighters which also require massive support and infrastructure facilities too.Our urgent RFP for basic trainers,which will also have some combat capability for COIN is a long overdue act.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Feb 2010 14:54

Marten wrote:
RKumar wrote:These comments are from the this link and I dont think it is from BRF member. Boeing Curries Favor in India
Take my word for it. Let's check the link again to see if we see any references to RKumar there now. Best way of double-checking, right?

Please check my origional post,
- where I had copied the person who wrote the comment SamJack59 and it is still the same. So there is no NOW

. Do not attacks others personally kindly READ very carefully.
- That website is not mantained/hacked by me, where I can modify whatever I like.

As I have said what I wanted to say and don't want get into personal arguments..... chao

rkumar wrote:On February 19, 2010, at 10:05 PM, SamJack59 wrote

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Feb 2010 15:20

The methodology for achieving that objective is to break up all the key components that go into making up contemporary futuristic aircraft,UAVs,etc.,and establish dedicated R&D labs for the same,metallurgy,composites,EW,etc.,which are all part of an intricate "mesh" of exotic research including stealth.EStablishing JVs with foreign partners for these labs will give us the sound foundation upon which our own designs can later emerge

Philip, I agree completely. We need to define our own needs and create products that best meet these needs. Short term, DRDO budgets need to be increased and GOI should award research funds to Indian Universities and Industry for research in identified areas.

Medium term - In my view, GOI should announce a modified DPP - which can come in force from 2012/13 : to say that it will only place defence purchase orders (apart from the FMS route) with Indian companies, with 60 % local production, and gradually also privatize HAL, NAL, GTRE etc - let the TATA's/Godrej/who ever run them. This way, pretty soon, you will have Boing, EADS, SAAB, Dassault etc partnering with the likes of L & T, TATA's , Mahindra's etc etc to get the Indian defence business.

Given the cost effeciencies and manpower available in India, most companies will shift research and production to India to improve their profit margins, and we would be on our way to developing our own defence industrial infrastructure. This way our money spent on defence would create Indian jobs and Industrial capability.

Ultimate dream is to have all these lovely machines being made in India and exported from here with lower cost/higher numbers and high tech available to IAF/IA /IN etc.

Flight of fancy right now, but one's got to have a dream nonetheless.

nitinm · Post by **nitinm** » 22 Feb 2010 18:57

This is exactly what the Indian Govt wants to do now!

But, this requires very large mechanism for monitoring! R&D is very hard to monitor! Small lags in achieving milestones can delay very large projects and cause massive cost overruns! We don't have expertise in managing research projects in India yet! (I can tell you this because this the area of my expertise

)

Even before that, there has to be a very clear technological roadmap and sub-system level definition on design parameters. This is going to take a lot of time because our threat perceptions are changing every day. There is going to be ambiguity for some time before we get some structure in our defense requirement! This is the prime reasons why its so hard to get to more fundamental research! More fundamental research asks for more clarity in end goal!

Besides, although we very conveniently talk about the HUGE manpower we have, we have very low availability of research personnel and that too very low quality! This is a fact people can't accept in India. Besides, Indians tend to have a very short term view of research.

Most countries that possess technological superiority have decades of experience in their fields. Research is not a substitute to short term hardware requirements. We shouldn't get to the nerves of researchers but at the same time we should monitor the progress very closely!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Feb 2010 20:44

Update - Official word from IAF chief, Pradeed Naik.

Speaking about the progress on the global tender the IAF has floated for 126 combat jets in a deal valued at $10 billion, Naik said two aircraft - the Lockheed Martin F-16 IN Super Viper and the Dassault Rafale - had completed all three rounds of trials.

The Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Saab Gripen, the MiG-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon have completed two rounds of trials each.

"The trials should finish by April-end and it will then take us a couple of months to draw up a shortlist," he said. Still, the price negotiations could take about 18 months before the final order is placed.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 11704.aspx

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 22 Feb 2010 21:09

jai wrote: IMHO MOD needs to expedite domestic prodution. 15/16 planes/year is not going to help.

You can't create capacity for producing 50 or 100 aircraft a year when the total order is only 40 aircraft. Its not economically feasible. Let the LCA MkII make its first flight. And then if the IAF orders it in numbers the production can be expedited.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Feb 2010 21:45

Even IF we could, we would not want to get huge capacities. Techs keep changing and it is a better strategy to upgrade a few at a time while in production, I would imagine.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 22 Feb 2010 21:46

Brazil's F-X2 contest prompts further dispute

Including maintenance costs, these total $10.2 billion for the Rafale, $7.7 billion for the Super Hornet and $6 billion for the Gripen NG, it claims.

This for 36 fighters including maintenance costs.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Feb 2010 21:57

If the AESA radar is of prime importance why not buy it separately and install it into MKIs that we buy? Aren't MKIs cheaper than Typhoons and better planes?

nitinm · Post by **nitinm** » 22 Feb 2010 22:06

nachiket wrote:
jai wrote: IMHO MOD needs to expedite domestic prodution. 15/16 planes/year is not going to help.
You can't create capacity for producing 50 or 100 aircraft a year when the total order is only 40 aircraft. Its not economically feasible. Let the LCA MkII make its first flight. And then if the IAF orders it in numbers the production can be expedited.

Also, it is amazing what kind of money it takes to get these facilities in place for producing such large numbers! The supply chain is extremely complex and calls for HUGE investments in machines, training, etc. To build 50 units/year, each costing 100 crores, my educated guess is the capital investment would be in the range of 15,000-25,000 crores! Right from composite manufacturing & machining to sintering of engine components. The equipment itself has lead-time of 3-5 years. Most of the people working on critical assemblies need over 5 years of experience. So, these things cannot practically be expedited.

Besides, when you are done in ~4 years, what do you do with these facilities? I mean, US has an industrial base which can use these facilities for other purposes. What about India? We don't have commercial aviation sector!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Feb 2010 03:44

shukla wrote:Update - Official word from IAF chief, Pradeed Naik.

Speaking about the progress on the global tender the IAF has floated for 126 combat jets in a deal valued at $10 billion, Naik said two aircraft - the Lockheed Martin F-16 IN Super Viper and the Dassault Rafale - had completed all three rounds of trials.

The Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Saab Gripen, the MiG-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon have completed two rounds of trials each.

"The trials should finish by April-end and it will then take us a couple of months to draw up a shortlist," he said. Still, the price negotiations could take about 18 months before the final order is placed.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 11704.aspx

What are the three rounds? Flight evals and tech review in India plus weapons trials outside?

When did the Gripen complete its flight trials? Don't tell me the NG actually flew in Bangalore and aam BR junta missed it?

CM

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Feb 2010 03:48

Cain Marko wrote: When did the Gripen complete its flight trials? Don't tell me the NG actually flew in Bangalore and aam BR junta missed it?

CM

Yes surprising. And the rafale completed weapons trials? I don't remember a word about IAF pilots going to France in the press.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Feb 2010 03:49

KrishG wrote:Brazil's F-X2 contest prompts further dispute

Including maintenance costs, these total $10.2 billion for the Rafale, $7.7 billion for the Super Hornet and $6 billion for the Gripen NG, it claims.
This for 36 fighters including maintenance costs.

$ 10 billion for 36 a/c ....collapses

After ahem (having been duly refreshed, all I can say is that Dassault better come up with some kind of fiscal wizardry to bag this one. Even if they sold a mixed bag of Rafales and UAE Mirage 2000-5/9s, it wouldn't make it below the $ 11 billion deal. Boeing/Saab too better come up with something more reasonable or the old trusty (or is it not so trusty) fulcrum will take it all.

CM

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Feb 2010 03:51

Cain Marko wrote:
What are the three rounds? Flight evals and tech review in India plus weapons trials outside?

When did the Gripen complete its flight trials? Don't tell me the NG actually flew in Bangalore and aam BR junta missed it?

CM

I have not read that any Gripen D have started its flight trials in India. And I find it quite improbable that the only NG Demo aircraft in the world would be sent to India to do trials.