MRCA News and Discussion

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 24 Mar 2010 18:31

Even if Russian Tech is "backward" over their Western counterparts, as they will be more willing to share things, we can improve upon them.

Pls see how collaboration on Brahmos and Su 30 MKI helped produce world class products. Russians are learning to be market oriented and we already are.

They seem to be best suited for collaboration, where we can build upon each others strength.

Russian Hardware + French avionics (they will part with it for a price) and electronics + Indian software = World class product with lower costs than Western counterparts and also no EUMA restrictions

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 24 Mar 2010 18:39

sawant wrote:I just have a bad sinking feeling.. if we dont go for the Gripen... the Pukis will at some point... considering its relatively cheaper and easier to use... all this tamasha gives them too a nice view at capabilities of these aircrafts, the mods the companies want to offer and the pricing strategies... I dont have a favorite yet... but Gripen is no. 2 for meh

That is the case for every planes cheaper or expensive. But just a simple question why they will pay for Gripen when they can get almost free gifts from USA and China???

Anyways, we should keep Pak out of it. As it is more China specific.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 24 Mar 2010 18:42

Gripen to me makes the most sense among the MRCA candidates, but to say that Pakistanis can afford them is pure bull. A Gripen NG will cost significantly more than the Block 52s Pak is getting and we all know they have significantly reduced the number of F 16s they wanted because of lack of cash. IIRC they are looking for second hand F 16s to acquire and do an MLU on.

The only chance Pakistanis have with getting Gripen is to get old A/B models from Sweden and then update them to near C/D standards. But Pakistanis are less wasteful than us when it comes to their Air Force. With the F 16 infrastructure already in place and a lot of used ones available for sale, it is very unlikely they will go down the Gripen route.

But make no mistake about it, Gripen NG with its next gen AESA and Meteor is as potent as most MRCA contenders, especially considering that one could buy 1.5 Gripens for every single Eurofighter.

PrithviRajChauhan · Post by **PrithviRajChauhan** » 24 Mar 2010 19:38

I don't know if this has been posted earlier.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/ ... -might.htm

http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/S ... llary.html

Although I am all for Gripen but as things stand now Mig 35 do make lot of sense.

B Hussein Obama at his best, I would say.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 20:23

Brahmananda wrote:Nihat bhai, i dont think we need source codes in order to integrate Astra on Amriki jets because i dont think they gave out source codes when they integrated missiles like Derby, Python-5, Mica, Magic-2, Iris-T, As-30L, Skyflash, Popeye-2, Delilah etc on to F-16s and missiles like Taurus KEPD, on f-18s. I think, please correct me if i am wrong, source codes would be nice to have in order to have an extended threat library on a particular aircraft. Without source codes how in the world did the Pakis get the f-16s armed with nukes? Could some BR experts shed some light on source codes please because i can't fully understand how they work. Without source codes how in the world did so many non-US weapons get integrated onto US platforms?

Brahmananda ji,

What in the world have source codes got to do with paki F-16s being armed with nukes?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 21:11

PrithviRajChauhan wrote:I don't know if this has been posted earlier.
Pak gives US 56-page wish list to counter India's might

US to address Pak's energy needs: Hillary

Although I am all for Gripen but as things stand now Mig 35 do make lot of sense.

B Hussein Obama at his best, I would say.

Considering that Paki's eco is around $170 billion, a 56 page request for $57 billion ($1+ Billion per page) is a joke waiting to happen (even if it is spread over a number of years). (BTW, @ 8% a year, India will add in two years what Pakis will grow in 5 - for what that is worth.)

However, India should NOT make a decision based on what the US is doing in the region - the US will more than likely - for ever - do what many a times will be opposed to India. For the simple reason that India is growing and needs to dehyphen herself and let Indian eco dictate terms down the road. India needs to make a concerted effort to get her house in absolute shape. Else nothing will happen.

And, only to complete the picture, WSJ :: U.S. Sees Hope in Pakistan Requests for Help:

It remains unclear what has fueled Pakistan's recent apparent shift on the Taliban. Some Western officials believe recent coalition gains in Afghanistan have prompted the Pakistanis to hedge in a new direction. Afghan officials and other Western officials say the Pakistanis may be trying to take control of nascent Taliban peace efforts by detaining the most pragmatic insurgent leaders.

The senior U.S. military official involved in recent talks with Pakistani officials , including Gen. Kayani,said the new seriousness in Pakistan's approach seems to be part of a realization that the U.S. has a limited time frame for directly assisting Islamabad. The official said Gen. Kayani in recent talks has focused on getting U.S. assistance to efforts that the Afghan and Pakistani governments can sustain as U.S. forces and investment in Afghanistan wane.

Some of Pakistan's requests are likely non-starters. India has steadfastly refused any outside mediation in its decades-long dispute with Pakistan. And U.S. officials say a civilian nuclear deal would be a tough sell given Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons proliferation.

prabir wrote:Even if Russian Tech is "backward" over their Western counterparts, as they will be more willing to share things, we can improve upon them.

Pls see how collaboration on Brahmos and Su 30 MKI helped produce world class products. Russians are learning to be market oriented and we already are.

They seem to be best suited for collaboration, where we can build upon each others strength.

Russian Hardware + French avionics (they will part with it for a price) and electronics + Indian software = World class product with lower costs than Western counterparts and also no EUMA restrictions

India can improve some techs - in some areas. India does NOT have the proper infrastructure - both in terms of brain-power and proper hardware - to do what India needs. (Please check out the current debate going on in India WRT this topic. India is woefully short of engineers for instance. Forget "trained" engineers. And do not even bring up Project Managers. Research is woefully backward in really high tech areas. Will take a humongous effort to catch. The good news is that it is doable .................... but when India invests more in PIL (or whatever that crap is) and Jai Ho and Oscars, it will never happen. It is about a 20 year cycle to "catch up". You see, leading edge techs are not in books. It is in the minds of leading edge scicom.)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Mar 2010 21:44

vcsekhar wrote:Ok austin understood. The engine that powers the 204 is not full russian and it has a lot of western components. Thanks for finding that info so quickly.

vcsekhar check the manufacturer website for detailed information on PS-90A2

PS-90A2 Engine

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 24 Mar 2010 21:47

chetak wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:Nihat bhai, i dont think we need source codes in order to integrate Astra on Amriki jets because i dont think they gave out source codes when they integrated missiles like Derby, Python-5, Mica, Magic-2, Iris-T, As-30L, Skyflash, Popeye-2, Delilah etc on to F-16s and missiles like Taurus KEPD, on f-18s. I think, please correct me if i am wrong, source codes would be nice to have in order to have an extended threat library on a particular aircraft. Without source codes how in the world did the Pakis get the f-16s armed with nukes? Could some BR experts shed some light on source codes please because i can't fully understand how they work. Without source codes how in the world did so many non-US weapons get integrated onto US platforms?
Brahmananda ji,

What in the world have source codes got to do with paki F-16s being armed with nukes?

Chetak bhai, i have no clue how air launched nukes can be integrated on to a platform with out software codes, i dont have a clue how source codes work. I dont even know how nukes were intergrated on to our Jags and migs. Only know they are gravity bombs. but how do they work? How are they programmed and what modifications are needed to be able to do that? Are they launched using CCIP/CCRP bombing modes. Is it just point and drop?

Can the mig-29/mig-27 deploy nukes , i know the Mki can but besides brahmos can missiles in our inventory like Popeye-2, air launched Club be fitted with nuke warheads?

How would we tailor our mrca( assuming the supplier has no problem with it) with a nuke role and what kind of weapons would be involved?

sorry if i have many questions, but i still have no clue on such details.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 22:03

Brahmananda wrote: Chetak bhai, i have no clue how air launched nukes can be integrated on to a platform with out software codes, i dont have a clue how source codes work. I dont even know how nukes were intergrated on to our Jags and migs. Only know they are gravity bombs. but how do they work?

Brahmananda ji,

Why don't you read up a bit before posting

Plenty of info on the net for one to learn at one's own pace.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 24 Mar 2010 22:13

chetak bhai i knowe have gravity bombs, nuke capable missiles like Popeye-2, club, moskit, p-70 ametist, brahmos, but do imported missiles have our warheads on board? what kinda nuke weapons can our mrca candidates deliver readily and what can be integrated? I know rafale can launch a nuke missile but can we buy it?

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 24 Mar 2010 22:56

Brahmananda wrote:chetak bhai i knowe have gravity bombs, nuke capable missiles like Popeye-2, club, moskit, p-70 ametist, brahmos, but do imported missiles have our warheads on board? what kinda nuke weapons can our mrca candidates deliver readily and what can be integrated? I know rafale can launch a nuke missile but can we buy it?

We can buy the Rafale, but not the nuke.

The questions that you are asking cannot be answered from what is in the public domain...either you are an insider and you know, or you are an outsider, and you can only speculate. Any response to your questions will only be somebody else's speculation...

If anybody on this forum knows that we have a 100kT weapon on the Popeye and 200kT on the BrahMos, and that we reverse-engineered the source code on the Klub to carry a fleet-killing nuke, they are sure not talking!

My speculation : a nuke bomb can be carried like any iron bomb. Due to requirements of critical mass, implosion geometry, casing requirements, it will likely be a rather large bomb - we likely do not have suitcase nuke capabilities in the subcontinent. The fuse requires a signal to initiate the implosion trigger, just like a conventional weapon fuse requires a signal to initiate the explosion...at the end of the day we are talking about the same thing, an electronic signal that says "activate NOW".

So (I speculate) you could take a 1000kg iron bomb, remove all but the part that sends the signal to the fuse to activate, and replace everything else with your nuke. The plane's systems won't know the difference - it's just another iron bomb. I strongly doubt any aircraft/missile can be hard-wired with a sensor that stops the plane/missile from taking off if it detects radiation in the warhead.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Mar 2010 23:06

Brahmananda wrote:chetak bhai i knowe have gravity bombs, nuke capable missiles like Popeye-2, club, moskit, p-70 ametist, brahmos, but do imported missiles have our warheads on board? what kinda nuke weapons can our mrca candidates deliver readily and what can be integrated? I know rafale can launch a nuke missile but can we buy it?

All our nuclear bombs for fighters are in a manner of speaking "dumb". They're unguided, retarded (I hope you know what I mean by that) and need to be toss-bombed to give the fighter adequate time to get away from the scene. That is what is known from open source info. No nuclear warheads exist for the missiles you named.

Or at least they were dumb before the introduction of laser guidance kits and all-weather LDPs into the IAF. Whether the nukes themselves were later on modified to be guided to a target like any other LGB or not, is not known, but I'd safely assume that some modifications were surely done to make them more accurate. Although, frankly, except for lower yield tactical nukes, you don't need pin-point accuracy and even a CEP of a couple of hundred meters would do fine for a higher yield nuke bomb dropped on a population center or at strategic targets.

the MRCA candidates can all deliver nuclear bombs because all of them are all-weather platforms, can fly nape of the earth till the time they pop up to drop the nuke, even at night, because they have terrain following radar modes (with simultaneous A2A and A2G interleaving modes, which is an added benefit in some of them) and are all NVG compatible. Those are the capabilities that a nuclear delivery platform requires. The added benefits are that all of them can self-escort being swing-role capable. That means smaller packages of fighters instead of a large group that can be detected from far.

No complex and major modification is required to carry such bombs since the weapons computer will calculate the correct time to drop the bomb based on the glide profile of the bomb, similar to how it does for any other dumb bomb. Pylons for the nuke are available for the Mirage-2000 and any of the MRCA fighters could be modified to carry them. Such mods can be done indigenously and the PAF did it and all the US could do was impose sanctions when they found out through their intelligence sources (another negative for the F-16 and F-18).

The only issue will be ground-clearance during take-off since the bomb is (was?) large and carried along the centerline. This is the issue that precluded the Jaguar from being the IAF's nuclear platform. The Typhoon, MiG-35, F-18 and F-16 may not have issues with that. Maybe the Gripen NG might, since its ground clearance at the center line is probably lowest among the lot, but its just a guess. Maybe none will have clearance issues.

As for the Rafale, it carries the ASMP-A, but its not available for export to anyone. For that matter, no nuclear weapon is directly exported. It’s a different matter with missiles that are nuclear "capable". But we'd need to do the warhead design, and making it compact enough is a difficult task. For that, Brahmos ALCM can be modified to carry a nuclear warhead, but we don't know if we have the technology to shrink the nuke warhead to fit the ALCM or not. Maybe its been worked on, in some top secret project.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 24 Mar 2010 23:14

Thanks ya'll!!

Nesoj · Post by **Nesoj** » 25 Mar 2010 00:17

Sweden's Gripens head for AFS Jaisalmer
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/23/stories ... 522200.htm

..................... Ministry of Defence officials familiar with the MMRCA trials told The Hindu that while they expect no hiccups during the weapons drop over Pokhran, the Leh exercise proved challenging to the other contenders vying for the MMRCA deal.

The officials confided that four of the five aircraft in the MMRCA competition faced problems starting up in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh, and the IAF had to ask the manufacturers to undertake modifications in the aircraft's fuel systems.
..............................

Any idea who was the contender of the 5, that had no starting problems ?????

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2010 00:24

The latest AW&ST shows a picture of 2 RAAF Super Hornets at NAS Lemoore, undergoing training and preparations prior to their ferry flight to Australia. The interesting part is that its got a fully-retractable nose mounted probe for air-to-air refuelling.

So, this capability exists on SH, something that had to be specifically developed for the MRCA competition by Lockheed Martin on the F-16.

The most amazing part of the article was that it mentioned that the RAAF is now looking at life extension program for the brand-new F/A-18F fleet beyond their currently planned phase-out date of 2020 ! I almost laughed out loud reading that..what a collossal waste of money to even think that they'd spend A$ 6 billion or so on 24 F/A-18Fs, use them for 10 years and then dump them when they have more than 60-70% of their service life intact and then go buy more F-35s!

I read somewhere that the US and Australia are 2 nations that top the list of nations that use their money most unwisely for defence matters. Looking at the Super Seasprite fiasco, Collins sub issues, Wedgetail procurement delays and issues, and now this, I'm quite convinced that they're amongst the most lax when it comes to weapons procurement. anyway, this is OT and no need to take it any further on this thread.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 25 Mar 2010 01:26

Kartik,

I am quite surprised that you did not realize the Air to Air refuelling capability of the Super Hornet. Because its a USN plane and not a USAF one it has IAF style refueling not the USAF style boom and receptacle.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2010 01:45

johnny_m wrote:Kartik,

I am quite surprised that you did not realize the Air to Air refuelling capability of the Super Hornet. Because its a USN plane and not a USAF one it has IAF style refueling not the USAF style boom and receptacle.

oh. so the USN Super Hornets themselves use only probe and drogue style refuelling..I didn't realise that although I'd seen a Boeing 767 tanker presentation that showed 2 Super Hornets being refuelled that way. I somehow thought that this was a capability being developed for export versions. thanks for pointing that out. Then its a testament to how clean fitting that retractable probe's attached panel is. When its in a retracted position, its covered by a narrow panel that is attached to the probe..you can hardly tell that there is a gap there when its in a closed position. I didn't even guess that USN Super Hornets had the probe there or maybe I didn't notice.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 25 Mar 2010 02:55

From a rafale pilot blog (captain) :

Saturday, 20th of March 2010.

On Thursday 18th of March, two indian officers could discover and test by themselves all the qualities of Rafale.

After a briefing in the morning, the Indian pilot -very experimented, but alone onboard a plane which was new to him- could take off, intercept and identify a fighter with the help of the optronics of Rafale, engage several air-to-air targets at beyond visual range, shoot an AASM salvo -the new GPS guided french bomb- on targets discovered and realigned during the mission, before landing... All in a single hour simulated flight...

The two officers could check the realism of the simulator Rafale, using in a real two seater flight what they had learned during less than a daytime.

They left the 1/7 fighter squadron bluffed by the ease of use of our last fighter, and with a smile on their face.

http://blog.francetv.fr/capitaine-romai ... r-rafale--

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 25 Mar 2010 03:05

Here's another translation..

This Thursday March 18, two Indian officers were able to discover and test by themselves all the qualities of the Rafale.

After a briefing morning, the Indian pilot - very experienced but only pilot on board of a new airplane for him - was able to do to take off his Flurry, intercept then identify a hunter thanks to the optronique Flurry, engage several targets air air being located beyond the visual reach, pull a salvo d'A2SM - the new bomb GPS French - on discovered objectives and recallés in mission course, before of Put itself... the all in an hour of simulated flight...

The two Indian officers were able to note the realism of the faker Flurry, while using in flight biplace this time which they had learned in less than a day.

They are set off again Escadron of Hunt 1/7 bluffed by the ease of our last airplane and to smile it at the lips...

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Mar 2010 07:01

Kartik wrote:
johnny_m wrote:Kartik,

I am quite surprised that you did not realize the Air to Air refuelling capability of the Super Hornet. Because its a USN plane and not a USAF one it has IAF style refueling not the USAF style boom and receptacle.
oh. so the USN Super Hornets themselves use only probe and drogue style refuelling..I didn't realise that although I'd seen a Boeing 767 tanker presentation that showed 2 Super Hornets being refuelled that way. I somehow thought that this was a capability being developed for export versions. thanks for pointing that out. Then its a testament to how clean fitting that retractable probe's attached panel is. When its in a retracted position, its covered by a narrow panel that is attached to the probe..you can hardly tell that there is a gap there when its in a closed position. I didn't even guess that USN Super Hornets had the probe there or maybe I didn't notice.

Kartik, all USN and USMC aircraft use Probe and Drogue refueling, not just Super Hornets. USAF helicopters also use P&D refueling for obvious reasons. I think they currently use the KC-130 as the tanker. They previously had carrier borne tankers like the KA-3 version of the Sky Warrior during the Vietnam war.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Mar 2010 09:07

High-stakes final phase for Brazil jet fighter tender

Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf and Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors called on Lula in Brasilia to make an ultimate push for Swedish aircraft to win out over French and US rivals in the tender. Brazilian officials say the contest should be decided by the end of next week.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has put his prestige fully behind the Rafale, issuing a joint statement with Lula last September saying Brazil was already in exclusive negotiations to buy the jet. But in the teeth of opposition from Brazil's air force, which is plumping for the much cheaper Gripen, Lula has had to backtrack and say the tender was still wide open.

His minister for strategic affairs, Samuel Pinheiro Guimaraes, wrote in the latest issue of a French defense journal that acquiring the Rafale would begin a "beautiful adventure." A technology-sharing deal would greatly advance Brazil scientific and trade prowess, he wrote, while the two-engine Rafale was suited to patrolling Brazil's vast territory.

The head of Saab, Aake Svensson, told the Swedish news agency TT in Brasilia that Lula's decision to base the selection on political aspects made it "very difficult to predict the outcome." He said that the Gripen had come out on top in the Brazilian air force's price and technical evaluation, but that might not be enough to secure the deal.

If Brazil does go with the Rafale, it will be the first sale of the jet outside France. French officials hope a Brazilian success could boost the Rafale's chances in other tenders, including in India and Kuwait. Unconfirmed reports have suggested Dassault significantly cut its asking price to overcome reservations in Brazil.

Kuwaiti lawmakers have been watching the negotiations keenly, and on the weekend an Islamist bloc in Kuwait's parliament warned its government against a planned purchase of Rafales, deeming the deal "suspicious."

I dont think it would have a huge impact on the Indian competition.. But you can be sure the winner will have bragging rights!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Mar 2010 10:04

Matters are now out in the open.Pak has asked for weapons to match India very clearly,no BS about fighting the Taliban and the US is complying.In such a scenario,where the US is rewarding the Pakis for their terrorism against India,if the regime of MMS is truly patriotic,the threat of a total boycott of US weapon sales to India if such sales to Pak take place should be made by the GOI.This morning's papers however show how bankrupt the Congress led govt. of MMS is with "full FDI" for foreign defence firms on the cards.This will kill the hopes of local industrial giants who wished to set up their own defence industries with foreign collaboration in JVs.They will now be reduced to "component" suppliers,unable to put together a working weapon system.

The total opening up of the Indian defence industry to foreign manufacturers will kiill indigenous PSUs too.THis news may well have an impact upon the choice of the MMRCA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2010 10:09

^^^ Philip it is in US interest to arm Pakistan and make it a worthy competitor against India , much like it is in US interest in arming India to prop up its capabilities against China , Just keep the balance right and keep every one happy

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 25 Mar 2010 10:20

Such a "tense equilbrium" is in the US best interests.

Buy stock in LMT.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2010 10:31

Carl_T wrote:Such a "tense equilbrium" is in the US best interests.

Well a tense equilbrium helps every one .US,Russia,France ,China can sell arms to its traditional buyers.

It keeps DRDO busy and gainfully employed , it keeps GOI equally busy and gainfully employed by the arms lobby and local industry alike.

So its in GOI interest to keep the equilibrium tense , the benefit from Tense Equilibrium far outweights the benefits from Peace Divident for all parties in this subcontinent

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Mar 2010 11:49

Kartik wrote:what a collossal waste of money to even think that they'd spend A$ 6 billion or so on 24 F/A-18Fs, use them for 10 years and then dump them when they have more than 60-70% of their service life intact and then go buy more F-35s!

The idea was to sell them to the USN, thereby recovering some of the money, not scrapping them.

half of them were ordered pre-wired for growler/grizzly, so there was also always some thought of keeping them longer

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Mar 2010 11:55

The officials confided that four of the five aircraft in the MMRCA competition faced problems starting up in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh, and the IAF had to ask the manufacturers to undertake modifications in the aircraft's fuel systems.

just for the record, LCA operated from there without much of a hassle, with considerable load as well.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Mar 2010 11:58

nachiket wrote:I think they currently use the KC-130 as the tanker. They previously had carrier borne tankers like the KA-3 version of the Sky Warrior during the Vietnam war.

On carriers they use buddy refueling with SHs and on land they often use contractors like Omega Air or as you mentioned, tanker variants of the C-130.

If the AF is providing support, they prefer the KC-10. If they're really, really desperate, they'll use the 'iron maiden' attachment to a KC-135 boom.

They've been known to prefer the UK VC10 to using AF assets.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 25 Mar 2010 12:48

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN242 ... arketsNews

* F-18 purchase would help plug Navy fighter shortfall

* Gates confident in revised plan for Lockheed's F-35 (Adds quotes, background, byline)

By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is weighing "interesting proposals" for a possible multiyear purchase of Boeing Co's (BA.N) F-18 fighter aircraft, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress on Wednesday, amid lawmakers' concerns about a U.S. combat aircraft shortfall.

"We are now looking at a multiyear contract with respect to the F-18s," he said.

Such a step could help offset a projected 100-jet U.S. Navy shortfall over the next decade amid delays in Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) multiservice F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

Boeing, in response, said it had offered the Navy cost savings of 10 percent under a multi-year contract.

"Boeing is committed to delivering the advanced, combat-proven Block II Super Hornet and new EA-18G Growler to the U.S. Navy through the procurement option that offers the best value for our nation and its warfighters," Paul Guse, a spokesman, said in an emailed statement.

CQ Today, a publication that covers Congress, reported last week that Boeing had offered the Navy a discount that would add up to more than $500 million for a multiyear purchase of F-18s to guarantee that its production line in St. Louis will remain open beyond 2013.

It cited unnamed congressional aides and industry sources for its information.

CQ said the Navy planned to buy 124 carrier-based versions of the F-18, divided between F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, which are standard fighters, and EA-18G Growlers, which are for electronic warfare.

Gates told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that initial Boeing pitches did not offer enough savings to justify a multiyear commitment by the Pentagon.

Since then, "the contractor has come back to us with some interesting proposals," he said, without elaborating.

Gates said he was confident that a restructuring of the F-35 program he announced in February -- including adding 13 months and $2.8 billion to the development phase and slowing the rampup to full production -- would keep the program on its revised schedule.

Gates fired the Pentagon's F-35 program manager and withheld $615 million in potential fee awards from Lockheed Martin as part of the restructuring.

"I think we got their attention," he said, apparently referring to both Lockheed and the program office, which he faulted for having provided "overly rosy" forecasts.

The Navy and the Air Force now expect to begin fully operating their radar-evading F-35 fighters in 2016. The Marine Corps plans to start operating its version in December 2012.

Under the last multiyear deal in 2006, the Navy paid Boeing about $49.9 million per F-18, which would be about $54 million per plane today, adjusting for inflation, CQ said in its March 19 report.

It is unclear what the per-plane cost would be under the latest proposed deal, it said.

Some U.S. lawmakers have said the Navy fighter shortfall could top 200 aircraft and recommended the Navy buy 150 F-18s over five years. (Reporting by Jim Wolf; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Richard Chang)

150 aircraft in 5 years, wow thats an awesome production rate.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Mar 2010 15:31

Austin,spending $10 billion unneccessarily buying MMRCAs from the US, to further "restore the balance" with Pak because the US arms it to the hilt against India,is ludicrous.If the US want to behave like duplicitous basta**s,who now call Pak "family" (Clinton's latest statements),a "family" who are assaulting India with daily terror,why should we reward them?We can buy from elsewhere,from Europe,Russia/CIS,Israel or from other independent nations like Brazil,Sweden,Singapore,etc.In any case let's not forget how Mrs.G. saw off Pak,China and the US combined in '71! The sad fact is that Dr. Singh cannot in his dotage and senility see anything beyond his nose but the two letters "US" in front of him.It is why full 100% FDI is being touted by him for foreign defence companies.This will put "finis" to our local "navaratnas" who want to enter into the defence industry with JVs and the defence PSUs.Dr.Singh is selling off India's family silver at breakneck speed before he sets off into the sunset.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2010 15:55

Philip why do you call then bast***s , they are doing in the best interest of their country

Arnt we the one who are bast***s who some how don't seem to learn the obvious and commit the same mistakes twice..no wait thrice and many more.

Its easy to blame some one for our shortsightedness ,that differentiates between great nations and ordinary nations with great aspirations ...and they they are just that aspirations.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 25 Mar 2010 16:04

Well, I just want to point to the €-$ exchange rate. Thanks to the financial crisis in the mediterranian countries the € drops like a rock.
Whait a bit more, and the Euro drops below parity. Then Typhoon and Rafale will come in under $ 50 mill a pop. How does this sound ?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 25 Mar 2010 16:58

It is why full 100% FDI is being touted by him for foreign defence companies.This will put "finis" to our local "navaratnas" who want to enter into the defence industry with JVs and the defence PSUs.

Err how????

If Boeing and lockheed come in - howwould it affect HAL??

Boeing and lockheed are not going tomake Dhruv, Su 30s, etc???

Just because 100% FDI does not mean orders go to those companies automatically??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Mar 2010 19:01

(Brahmananda, two items: first that post does not pertain to MMRCA, so it should go in another, appropriate, thread. Secondly and more important, please place articles, etc in quotes, so that we know what is your post and what is from another source. Thx.)

Phillip,

While the IAF and perhaps the MoD makes technical decision, MMS makes political ones. We may not agree with what he does, specially WRT MRCA, but they are there to stay and within his authority to do so. Having said that the GoI will get more "bold" as time goes by. It has to. In another 15 years even the national interests of the US will have to be tempered by Indian views. Pakis can only ask for more aid as Indian eco grows. And, as long as Pakis have this mentality India is safe.

mandeepgujral · Post by **mandeepgujral** » 25 Mar 2010 20:56

Surya wrote:
It is why full 100% FDI is being touted by him for foreign defence companies.This will put "finis" to our local "navaratnas" who want to enter into the defence industry with JVs and the defence PSUs.
Err how????

If Boeing and lockheed come in - howwould it affect HAL??

Boeing and lockheed are not going tomake Dhruv, Su 30s, etc???

Just because 100% FDI does not mean orders go to those companies automatically??

Hi All,

I have following 2 apprehensions against 100% FDI for foreign companies:

1. DRDO, HAL and other Indian Govt reseach organizations may find it difficult to retain their scientists and technologists as they will be offered salary packages too difficult to resist by the foreign firms which could lead to sudden attrition and can affect current indian defence projects.

2.Indian organizations (private and govt) can get a good learning and better chances to grow if they equal partners in JV with a world class defence firm. With 100% FDI enabled, foreign firms do not always need to do a tie up with Indian firms.

Please provide your inputs.

With Best Regards,
Mandeep

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 25 Mar 2010 22:03

PrithviRajChauhan wrote:I don't know if this has been posted earlier.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/ ... -might.htm

http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/S ... llary.html

Although I am all for Gripen but as things stand now Mig 35 do make lot of sense.

B Hussein Obama at his best, I would say.

What does this have to do with "B Hussein Obama"? He is doing what he believes is best for his nation. Why expect him to GUBO for India?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2010 22:37

Philip wrote:Austin,spending $10 billion unneccessarily buying MMRCAs from the US, to further "restore the balance" with Pak because the US arms it to the hilt against India,is ludicrous.If the US want to behave like duplicitous basta**s,who now call Pak "family" (Clinton's latest statements),a "family" who are assaulting India with daily terror,why should we reward them?We can buy from elsewhere,from Europe,Russia/CIS,Israel or from other independent nations like Brazil,Sweden,Singapore,etc.In any case let's not forget how Mrs.G. saw off Pak,China and the US combined in '71! The sad fact is that Dr. Singh cannot in his dotage and senility see anything beyond his nose but the two letters "US" in front of him.It is why full 100% FDI is being touted by him for foreign defence companies.This will put "finis" to our local "navaratnas" who want to enter into the defence industry with JVs and the defence PSUs.Dr.Singh is selling off India's family silver at breakneck speed before he sets off into the sunset.

I agree with Philip this time. Its high time that India's govt. developed some spine and made a statement that it will not sit by idly while the US arms Pakistan with military aid packages and at the same time tries to get India to spend billions on its arms. They should clearly state that such military aid will be viewed adversely in India and will have repercussions. And if the US' arms policy with Pakistan doesn't work for us (or them for WOTever reason), then why still forcibly try and get close ? If the US still doesn't care, then politely ask Boeing and LM to withdraw their fighters from the contest and reward nations that can see the logic of dealing with India rather than Pak or even if they deal with Pak, ask them to pay in hard cash which haemorraghes them.

What I cannot fathom is what is the reason for 100% FDI ? Foreign companies were asking for 49%, so where did the 100% FDI suddenly come into the picture ? While it may work well for the Indian armed forces, giving them local access to best technology in the world, DRDO, HAL and other Public sector enterprises will be shivering. they'll never be able to match the salaries, perks, world travel, etc. that foreign companies offer (and who are not forced to hire people based on quote systems) and may even lag in access to foreign technology that US still blocks from DRDO labs as "dual use technology". It will be extremely hard for them to be competitive then.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Mar 2010 22:45

OT but if we had the spine we would have dealt with the nation who sends terrorist deep inside and kill as many Indians as possible and then get away scot free with the garbage talk of being a frontline state fighting terror which as far as india goes is a big joke

Some how timidity and GOI go hand in hand and in the past 20 years that I have followed this topic closely things have not changed a bit only the party that forms the GOI changes.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 25 Mar 2010 22:45

mandeepgujral wrote:
Hi All,

I have following 2 apprehensions against 100% FDI for foreign companies:

1. DRDO, HAL and other Indian Govt reseach organizations may find it difficult to retain their scientists and technologists as they will be offered salary packages too difficult to resist by the foreign firms which could lead to sudden attrition and can affect current indian defence projects.

2.Indian organizations (private and govt) can get a good learning and better chances to grow if they equal partners in JV with a world class defence firm. With 100% FDI enabled, foreign firms do not always need to do a tie up with Indian firms.

Please provide your inputs.

With Best Regards,
Mandeep

These foreign companies would be based in India, so the talent remains in India working on Indian defence needs, only under a different umbrella. If this can be leveraged to the point of actually exporting out of India, all the better.

Also, if the threat of higher salaries causes DRDO et al to hike their pay to competitive levels, I'm sure this will attract even more talent to consider defence R&D as a career.

By working in a JV, the Indian partner may not be fully aware of all aspects of the technology. By Indian researchers working inside Boeing R&D, and working out of labs in India, the researchers will probably have access to deeper insights about the "why" and "how" and not just the "what". India could even do the Chinese thing - gladly send the best & brightest into the foreign labs, and re-hire back into the govt programmes when these guys have learned enough.

Even beyond the direct knowhow gained, the management of large R&D programmes and projects in the defence field, is also invaluable experience.

PrithviRajChauhan · Post by **PrithviRajChauhan** » 25 Mar 2010 23:35

Carl_T wrote:
PrithviRajChauhan wrote:I don't know if this has been posted earlier.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/ ... -might.htm

http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/S ... llary.html

Although I am all for Gripen but as things stand now Mig 35 do make lot of sense.

B Hussein Obama at his best, I would say.
What does this have to do with "B Hussein Obama"? He is doing what he believes is best for his nation. Why expect him to GUBO for India?

Then who else this has to do with ? I do not have any issue what US thinks best for itself but if its act/interest harms India's interest there my problem starts.
Now you arm India's eternal enemy to the teeth and expect India to buy your stuff simply makes me outrageously angry. And I totally agree with Philip and Austin statement, more than US its present Indian political establishment that makes me sick.