MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17686
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Jun 2010 05:42

So, ADA folks suffer sanctions, then why go in that direction in the first place? And then again later despite said sanctions, and even now. IIRC, Dassault was doing well enough.


Given it was the IAF which mandated the LCA go from its original shape of a light attack aircraft to a full fledged Mirage 2000 equivalent, albeit with the footprint of a MiG-21, one should ask them the question! Furthermore, like it or not, some suppliers from the US were the only western ones in the business, with their eastern counterparts in Russia, not particularly happy with the LCA at the time it was launched. The much hyped FBW details are below.

The SWAF might be more proactive when it comes to indigenous programs, but it could very well be said that unlike ADA/DRDO, SAAB was not promising the concerned AF the moon when its actual capability at the time was at best, mount everest.


SAAB has the backing of the world's most developed aerospace industry and furthermore, Europe to draw on. Both of whose support never withered. In contrast, ADA/DRDO's projections were firmly put in the cold storage by US sanctions. The entire purpose of the LCA furthermore, was Mt Everest, as given the sheer distance that had been put in between Indian tech and worldwide development thanks to lack of Marut follow ons.


Can't expect the requirements to stay the same if the product to be delivered is 15 years late.


Why 15, why not 20, 30 or 40? The issue is the LCA or BCA or ACA will always be x years late if requirements are added on at the last moment in an ad hoc manner! And whether the quest for the best ever, forces Indian project managers to take undue risks further adding to system complexity! If the IAF as far back as the LCA was being drawn up, had indicated it would do ok with a non FBW light fighter, a modern Gnat if you will, and then proceeded iteratively, a ready fighter would be available. But ask anyone, and the answer is that the same product would be rejected once some foreign OEM offered a glitzier counterpart, and hence the developer is always worried and ends up overpromising and overengineering!

What IAF folks were in critical decision making positions on this project early on?


The who's who of the IAF brass! The program was first launched under Shri Latif who then remarked about how "others" in his service ended up taking the original plans and asking for the moon.

IIRC, the Wollen article points out that the oversee committee was headed at all levels either by technocrats or bureaucrats, the IAF seems to have been left out of key positions. IIRC, the IAF did gripe about what it thought was too risky (impractical) project design from the very get go.The Rajkumar article too points out that the AF was not too happy about going for a fully DFBW.If the IAF had such a great say in the matter, one'd think that it would have completely directed the development phase as per its needs.


First, do remember that Wollen et al are ex-IAF. They will not go on (public) record chastising their own peers for decisions made and issues that were in the past. Rajkumar in fact goes to great lengths to avoid chastising some remarkably imprudent actions at his & the programs expense.

Second, Rajkumars own book should make it clear as to how disinterested the IAF was in the LCA, with the then CAS being even told by his subordinates that he should not in any way indicate IAF support for the LCA.

And that is the crux of the problem! The IAF is not a babe in the woods to be be "left out of key positions" - when it comes to procurement otherwise, IAF officers demand/struggle (and rightfully so!) to ensure their representation and decision making. However, in the case of the LCA and several such programs, the IAF was least bothered. It was regarded as an unnecessary frivolous program which would deny the IAF its rightful aircraft, preferably imported either from France or Russia!

And as such, there was little support for the program and it was left to languish, rather than take any command decision.


Btw, this brings me to another question - was it the IAF's new requirements that made the engine inadequate or was the aircraft suffering from a lack of power in the first place (at the Arakonnam Trials)? Where and when did the scope creep begin?


The scope creep has always been there. It includes aspects of avionics, and new elements incorporated, it includes new missile etc for which the wing had to be redesigned (again, it was not an issue of having it being done, but it being raised at the last moment). Second, the issue of engine being underpowered etc has been ridiculously overblown. As things stand, the IAF has no issues with the Jaguar aircraft which are far more underpowered than the LCA & nor does it have any shortage of air-to-air platforms, but does lack precision attack platforms and decent multirole units, for which a LCA even in current form would be suitable.

Whose mandate was this? The IAF's?


Indias and the IAF's both.

The LCA was launched with the firm understanding that ADA would do everything in its power to source/develop to the maximum extant local.

Btw, it is supposed to be an India made fighter so a LOT of the components will come locally.


That still does not explain away the issue the LCA team faces in ensuring that most systems are sourced locally. Whereas the Gripen team does not face any such qualms. In fact, they happily go around with a brochure in hand claiming how the Gripen has the best US tech etc.

However, critical components still are sourced from abroad as we all know.


Lesser, as compared to the Gripen in proportion, furthermore developed under sanctions to boot.

ere seems to be no problem here. Anyways, this is besides the point.


How is it besides the point? When one holds the Gripen up as an example to be emulated, but then one should also consider the fact that it had unstinting support of the local user who firmly involved itself with the program, and had the substantial backing of many of the worlds pre-eminent aerospace firms behind it, without even facing sanctions, and continues to benefit from the same. The Gripen, in fact, owes as much to British Aerospace as to SAAB and you can find literature which shows how the British light fighter concept as floated by then UK firms ended up in the SAAB design. Similar parallels for its avionics and many other systems, never mind the complete systems procured off the shelf from the who's who of world aerospace.


Yes the Chinese were indeed very smart, they went to a trustworthy source that offered somewhat non-uber tech and were satisfied with what they got. The approach is dramatically different than the one chosen by DRDO/ADA, which repeatedly sought to make a technological wonder in the LCA, and thereby ignored overtures from more trustworthy sources in favor of the USA.


All this shows is that you have not followed Chinese aerospace development. The Chinese persisted for decades exploring advanced aerospace concepts, including canard aircraft development. They then faced the repeated hurdles of translating design into engineering, but in the process, they set up huge infrastructure, and trained hundreds of scientific personnel. In the 80's, the Chinese signed up with the United States, much the same as India. Northrop Grumman and other majors were tapped to supply technology under the Peace Pearl programs. With the Tienanmen massacre, that collapsed, and with Russia wary, they turned to Israel, spending money lavishly on the J-10. Even so, they also looked at the Russians -in parallel - for the Sukhoi fighters, and even funded a parallel development program to learn from that!
If all this was not enough, they even developed a third aircraft, the decidedly unimpressive JH-7, using British engines, which too was acquired in limited numbers and allowed to flounder thereafter!
And then had a fourth design, the JF-17, whose technology was purchased from the Russians and is now being offered for export!


After ALL this, the Chinese are still learning, the lesson from the above is that it was their persistence which paid off! Their own AF did not fall over itself merely being satisfied with imported Flankers and kept on with the much inferior J-10 program, going so far as to procure over a 100 of those aircraft!

Secondly, it's a well known issue that the LCA went "American" because of the then PM of the time, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, who was driving a personal mission in this regards!

Not only that, but what Shri Rajkumar's otherwise excellent book does not mention, is that the so called other reliable supplier shot itself in its own foot via its response to the FBW RFP. They sent a team to India which repeatedly made misleading remarks on technology to the Indian scientific team, presumed that they could pull a fast one, and refused to even entertain questions! In contrast, the US team was absolutely forthcoming with details. Combine the above two issues, and that is where the LCA went to the US team, and not the "reliable supplier". The Germans were the most forthright, but were also firmly behind the other two in terms of ready technology.

Thus, the "smallest, lightest, brightest, smartest" slogan I s'pose. That such a strategy would cause terrible delays affecting the operational readiness of the concerned customer seems to be lost in this headlong pursuit of technology.


"Thus" itself would be wrong. The "smallest" etc directly flows from the IAF insistence that the LCA share the footprint of a MiG-21, logistically and size wise, while insisting on performance levels derived from far larger and more capable aircraft! As such, the only solution is and was, technology. Which in turn has let to a direct impact on risks and challenges, both.

Not to mention the sand castle offered to the public in the form of the Kaveri.


Whereupon, it would have been better to not even have tried and then complained many years thence about the innate Indian inability to take risks etc etc

Conversely, if India continues to have fascination for the most wunderbar technology that pops up in the next issue of pop science, I am afraid that its ambitions for "world power" status would be best replaced by "push over" status.


Well then, this is the entire issue with most ASRs and GSQRs - one should take it up with them.


Ya, the AFs have a penchant for phoren goods, but it would be hard to fight a war with pure "pies in the skies".


The pies in the skies flow directly from the services penchant for cobbling together best in the class technology with a "now or import" syndrome, driven by a lack of perspective planning and a lack of inhouse R&D capability, which did not allow them to understand what is possible versus what is claimed. The only service to break this logjam - to some extent - has been the Navy.

Anyway, the viewpoint expressed by VK Saraswat seems to incorporate what you are trying to say, at the same time the forces too have a very reasonable gripe. Esp. in the case of the LCA, where the customer was more concerned with a practical, risk free solution, delivered on time rather than a world beating, pioneering jet delivered 2 decades later.


Your last couple of lines are wrong, given the customer is the one still insisting on a world beating, pioneering aircraft, and its still a call on whether it wont do the same for future programs. If the developers provide a practical risk free solution, they face calls of being either a) import dependent (ergo incompetent, never mind the likes of the Gripen dont face this issue) and second b ) somebody comes along and offers something glitzier (even if it is a paper product) and the demands change

Product cycle development is all fine and dandy, but product developers would do well to deliver on time and take into consideration what customers want.


Its not "product cycle development" but the term Product development cycl - wiki has a decent write up, and then note what happens when ad hoc requirements and "design by committee" is inducted midway into the process. If you commit to a set of ASRs or whatever, first make them reasonable, not based on a set of brochures, and then next, ask for something reasonable.

ON this note, another question - what is with the engine choice for example? The need for a newer engine was established 2 years ago, still the dithering continues.


There are competing push and pull issues in a decision that involves so much financial outlay. For the record, the engine choice is well underway for the MK2 variant, wherein both manufacturers will have to demonstrate their capabilities and both have asked for design information that affects them, and have also committed to demo their engines in both fixed and test bed configs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17686
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Jun 2010 05:54

Here is one more example of 'changing requirements"

Now, however, IAF sources have indicated to Business Standard that calculating costs over three decades is proving more difficult than they had bargained for, and that the up-front value of the bid might end up as a determining factor. For the vendors, this possibility poses a dilemma in their bidding strategy. Bidding high would mean pricing themselves out of the competition, since life cycle costing would no longer be a valid argument. Bidding too low, on the other hand, could result in winning a contract that becomes a financial liability rather than a triumph.

From the Business Std article previously....just goes to show the issues and inconsistent standards in Indian procurement

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Paul » 10 Jun 2010 08:00

Appearances can be deceptive, can also be a ploy to reduce prices upfront.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2010 08:44

The dynamics have changed - specially in the past few years. Now that the "MoD" has realized that ToT does not help things will turn for the better. Does not mean that there will not be teething problems, among others.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23295
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2010 09:16

Will this drop in Euro imact the price of Mig-35 ?

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby khukri » 10 Jun 2010 11:47

Austin wrote:Will this drop in Euro imact the price of Mig-35 ?

Russia is not part of the European monetary union - wouldn't even enter into the consideration.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Jun 2010 12:23

Austin wrote:Will this drop in Euro imact the price of Mig-35 ?


Not the Euro in particular. The Russian Rouble has lost about 20% of its value since 2007. So, UAC could end up lowering their bid. On the other hand a lot of recent Russian exports have involved some post-agreement cost 'correction', so they may choose not alter the bid significantly. All in all, if overshooting the deadline was a deliberate decision by the MoD - kudos.

On a different note, if one were to go by media-bytes it would seem the Russian campaign has run out of steam.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 10 Jun 2010 12:45

Marten wrote:This must the happiest time for the Euro contenders (or at least those with minimal "imported" components). With the Euro at its lowest in 4 years, the prices offered will hopefully be very competitive as opposed to the Shornys. Migoyan must have done a little vazhiwad at Guruvayurappan's feet. They'll be the most competitive in price terms.

Rafael and Tiffy fans can battle it out now since the Grippen's incap acquisition costs must be higher in contrast with the former.

The swedish currency, SEK, have gone down as well.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10626
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Jun 2010 13:45

By that logic, the cost of Gorshkov upgrade should have come down since the rouble has depriciated and the French should not be chargin us more for the scorpene submarines

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Jun 2010 15:44

Aditya_V wrote:By that logic, the cost of Gorshkov upgrade should have come down since the rouble has depriciated and the French should not be chargin us more for the scorpene submarines


The Gorshkov has gone up because the Russians were scamming us first time round and since Indian Rupees have already been invested, they can do whatever they damn well please. The Scorpene price shot up because of DCN/Navantia and MoD/IN, only one was splurging on lawyers.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sanku » 10 Jun 2010 16:01

Viv S wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:By that logic, the cost of Gorshkov upgrade should have come down since the rouble has depriciated and the French should not be chargin us more for the scorpene submarines


The Gorshkov has gone up because the Russians were scamming us first time round and since Indian Rupees have already been invested, they can do whatever they damn well please. The Scorpene price shot up because of DCN/Navantia and MoD/IN, only one was splurging on lawyers.


Yes Viv we know, when it Russia it ALLLLL Russian scam, in case of the west, we were fools to be outmaneuvered.

:rotfl:

I have seen such statement before.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23295
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2010 16:18

Probably they take into account the military inflation ( ~ 15 ) across the period of time when it is planned to be delivers.

It would be difficult to come across cost for MMRCA deal since there are many hidden cost , I think it would involve the following

1 ) Cost of the aircraft ( 18 outright purchase )
2 ) TOT Cost ,Depending on the TOT we have demanded and provided by manuf that would add up to the cost
3 ) Cost involved in Lic Manufacturing the 100 plus aircraft in India ( setting up the necessary infra to develop it , plus I suppose the royalty involved )
4 ) Logistics , Training and Weapon Cost
5 ) Cost involved in integrating 3rd party weapons , avionics if the IAF demands the same.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2010 21:02

In a few more years the halo behind these M/MRCAs will stop glowing. With the realization that "ToT" has no real (or immediate) impact on the ability of India (or any country) to become self reliant is perhaps the BIGGEST asset. Next is offsets - not sure how much they will contribute, but hopefully they will employ a few that would otherwise be less or unemployed.

It is great, iMHO, that neither ToT or offsets are going to provide the expected returns. As seen in the Akash acquisition controlled competition will help to build the knowledge base needed to build a robust military industry within India. Just hope they do not go to the other end of the spectrum.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 11 Jun 2010 03:21

Super Hornet successfully completes trials in Qatar. QEAF is looking to replace its Mirage-2000-5s which might be timed to coincide with the UAE purchase of hte Rafale and sale of its Mirage-2000-9 fleet. That way Dassault could possibly have a large number of relatively new (although some are older) and capable Mirage-2000-5/-9s on hand to sell to a third party (maybe Iraq, maybe some other country). if the IAF wants to quickly induct some fighters to address fighter shortages, and if the price is right, these may be a good option (although I know that its not going to happen, I can be optimistic that my favourite fighter will enter IAF in larger numbers)

Keep in mind that this is a Boeing release, so the news is obviously biased in their favour.

Successful Super Hornet trials exceed Qatar’s expectations


The Qatar Emiri Air Force spent two weeks with Boeing and U.S. Navy personnel in St. Louis learning Super Hornet maintenance and flight operations. [Boeing photo]

The recently completed flight and maintenance evaluations of the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet multirole fighter by the Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) not only met its requirements, it exceeded their expectations.

"The combined maintenance and flight trials exceeded our expectations in both sustainability and aircraft performance," said Brig. Gen. Ahmed Al-Malki, head of the QEAF’s selection committee.

"Not only did we conclude flight trials early, we are also looking forward to continuing to the next phase of FMS procurement to meet the QEAF’s needs," said Mike Rietz, director of F/A-18 International Programs.

As part of its ongoing force modernization, the QEAF has a requirement for new fighter jets to replace existing Mirage 2000s. In 2009, the Qataris received two C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft. The QEAF used the aircraft for relief missions to disaster-stricken areas like earthquake-ravaged Haiti earlier this year.

The QEAF spent two weeks with Boeing and U.S. Navy personnel in St. Louis, first learning Super Hornet maintenance and flight operations, and then spent the following week at Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., conducting a variety of test flights, including air-to-air, air-to-surface, maritime, and night vision goggle familiarization. The evaluations covered the totality of owning, operating, and flying Super Hornets on a day-to-day basis.

"Of all the fighter aircraft available on the world market, the Qatari delegation chose to evaluate the Super Hornet first, and as result, we have set the bar high for our competitors," said Rietz. "We feel very confident about our ability to earn the Qataris’ trust to provide them with a world-class multirole fighter."

The QEAF could make a decision on fighter procurement by the end of this year.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2209
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 11 Jun 2010 04:17

EADS to shift some Eurofighter development projects to India


"We will transfer some of our development projects, which we have in Europe for Eurofighter
or other military aircraft to India, where we have set up a military research and development (R&D)
centre in Bangalore," EADS chief executive (defence & security) Stefan Zoller told IANS here.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2010 05:08

^^^^^

Asserting that the consortium's R&D activities were independent of its bid for the 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF), .............................


And, he is expecting more than 126 aircrafts?

"If we win the IAF order, the development of newer versions of Typhoon for India and global market


Still not worth it. Not yet.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 11 Jun 2010 05:57

^^^ I agree. Despite the price cut would still be the most expensive craft in the race. Also, with price cuts looming, no guarantee on radar upgrade either..

Some interesting points coming out of Ajay Shukla's article were that
-the Swedish Krona has fallen as wee, but interestingly, SAAB has decided not to change its bid.. It was a great opportunity for SAAB to go lower with their bid and strengthen their chances..
-EADS chiefs candid acknowledgement that their chances before the price cuts were only 10% and now seems to have put that number rather optimistically to 50%
-IAF shortlist by September - all the fuss would matter only if it makes the shortlist..
Last edited by shukla on 11 Jun 2010 08:58, edited 1 time in total.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 11 Jun 2010 08:52

More from EADS..

Political pressure will determine MMRCA outcome: Eurofighter CEO news

''The situation is very clear. In order to sell fighter aircraft, apart from the capability [of the aircraft], one of the most important things is the political support and relationship with the [customer] nation...These are strategic issues.''

In this regard, Casolini pointed out, the Eurofighter was pitted against the USA. ''When we talk about competitors, Americans are the biggest, because we believe American political support is strong [in India]. Everybody knows that.''


Interesting comments from a rival..

Complaining of queered pitch, Casolini however conceded that India provided more of a level playing field than other nations like Japan, who were very clear about ''relationships'' when it came to placing defence orders.

Casolini pointed out that another factor in play was India's offset policy, which requires bidders to make industrial and technology transfers. ''India is different, because it will choose from various bidders. Even though the key issue is political ties, factors such as industrial offer and technology transfer are important,'' he said.

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dorai » 11 Jun 2010 09:08

Mrinal wrote:
The Gripen, in fact, owes as much to British Aerospace as to SAAB and you can find literature which shows how the British light fighter concept as floated by then UK firms ended up in the SAAB design.



A complete lie.

British Aerospace has not been part of any design activities on Gripen. The only work they did was limited to sub-contractor composite work on the prototype jets while SAAB was still setting up their larger composite construction hall. Saab had previsously used composites on the Saab 105 (rudder) but needed larger pieces and thus contracted British Aerospace in the mean time. The much later BAE partnership was limited to marketing efforts. Other British companies has also been tasked with sub contractor roles such as Cobham for the refueling probe and APPH for the landing gear.

The major partners on Gripen design was SAAB, Ericsson, Volvo and FFV. European/US subcontractors provided in large interexchangable components to the Swedish aircraft design and US based Calspan helped with flight control system evaluation.

Gripen is the continuation on a number of Swedish fighter programs, notably focused on a VIGGEN replacement, lighter but same load. A lighter Viggen with active canards but otherwise not far from the core design philosophy with a tail-less cranked delta wing a/c with canards that had proven to be a successful design for Swedish requirements.

They test flew Viggen with electronic flight control system (Viggen aircraft named "ESS JAS") already 1983 and first flights with the new Ericsson PS/05 radar was flown on Viggen in 1987 as risk-reduction to support the Gripen development.
Last edited by dorai on 11 Jun 2010 13:18, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 11 Jun 2010 09:31

Sanku wrote:Yes Viv we know, when it Russia it ALLLLL Russian scam, in case of the west, we were fools to be outmaneuvered.

:rotfl:

I have seen such statement before.


If you're alleging I hate everything Russian, you're dead wrong. The MKI purchase for example was the best decision made by the IAF in decades(IMO). I hope the IA goes in for more S-300/400 systems.

With regard to the Gorshkov, its one thing to use loopholes or deficiencies in the contract to the company's advantage and completely different thing to use a signed agreement as toilet paper.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7617
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 11 Jun 2010 13:34

Viv S wrote:
<SNIP>

I hope the IA goes in for more S-300/400 systems.

<SNIP>



We do not have this system.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 11 Jun 2010 13:44

Something interesting from the Eurofighter house in Aroor's blog; citation:

==Survivability can be achieved by means other than stealthiness. ==


- I can only repeat: it's just what I always say, when speaking about MiG-35 :)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23295
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Jun 2010 14:32

Igorr wrote:
==Survivability can be achieved by means other than stealthiness. ==


- I can only repeat: it's just what I always say, when speaking about MiG-35 :)


Can you repeat that once again , what is there in Mig-35 to achieve survivability without having stealthiness ?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 11 Jun 2010 14:43

rohitvats wrote:
Viv S wrote:
<SNIP>

I hope the IA goes in for more S-300/400 systems.

<SNIP>



We do not have this system.


Well some sources say we do.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/ai ... 300pmu.htm

They were at least two other places I read the same claim, I'll see if I can dig up the links.

In any case, it would be a good buy. The S-400 deployed in forward areas would deter PAF aircraft from taking off altogether. :D

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7617
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 11 Jun 2010 14:56

^^^These are all false claims. There is no know purchase or deployment of S-300X in IA Service.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Jun 2010 15:08

Viv S in general you should learn not to trust these blogs et al at face value, we have learnt much to our pain how seemingly correct information can be presented, when in fact its completely incorrect.

Another example is a article from Strategypages that is being rubbished in another thread

viewtopic.php?p=886063#p886063

You will also note that this rag in general appears to be peddling US as the best of best types of stuff, and also carried the "purported quotes" on C 17.

So the moral; "look before you trust" especially for these types of pubs, especially when it goes against the basic grain of independent confirmation of parts from other official sources.

kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kapilrdave » 11 Jun 2010 15:24

In his scenario Vivek_ahuja once mentioned that IAF do have a handful of S-300s.

Khurana was merely tracking the F-16s because somebody had to. His real focus was on listening to the chatter coming in from the four SU-30MKIs that had just “tickled” the Chinese S-300 defensive belt around the Aksai Chin with their Brahmos cruise missiles. He knew the lethality of the S-300 from the IAF’s evaluation of its own handful of S-300 batteries in service.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4287&start=200

Though not authentic I personally consider Vivek_ahuja as an informed guy.
But that doesn't mean that I say any of you is uninformed. Just putting a reference here IF it's valid.
Last edited by kapilrdave on 11 Jun 2010 15:27, edited 1 time in total.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 11 Jun 2010 15:26

Igorr wrote:Something interesting from the Eurofighter house in Aroor's blog; citation:

==Survivability can be achieved by means other than stealthiness. ==


- I can only repeat: it's just what I always say, when speaking about MiG-35 :)

what he says about EF is practically correct . EF is and always will be the best choice for mrca in all the terms. Since the euro is undervalued ,now is the time to strike the deal. Lets see what the great money minds at the center think about it.

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby narayana » 11 Jun 2010 15:33

rohitvats wrote:^^^These are all false claims. There is no know purchase or deployment of S-300X in IA Service.


Sorry for OT,but i have seen pic of S300 being transported somewhere in maharashtra.
S-300?

vcsekhar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby vcsekhar » 11 Jun 2010 15:42

kapilrdave wrote:In his scenario Vivek_ahuja once mentioned that IAF do have a handful of S-300s.

Khurana was merely tracking the F-16s because somebody had to. His real focus was on listening to the chatter coming in from the four SU-30MKIs that had just “tickled” the Chinese S-300 defensive belt around the Aksai Chin with their Brahmos cruise missiles. He knew the lethality of the S-300 from the IAF’s evaluation of its own handful of S-300 batteries in service.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4287&start=200

Though not authentic I personally consider Vivek_ahuja as an informed guy.
But that doesn't mean that I say any of you is uninformed. Just putting a reference here IF it's valid.


Hang on for a sec, was that vivek ahuja quote not from his book? if yes it would mean from his imagination and not from fact.

kapilrdave
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 13:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kapilrdave » 11 Jun 2010 15:55

This quote is from his scenario as I linked. I'm note sure about his book.
Since it's a scenario you can argue that but he has made it most realistic and I don't think he would use his imagination only to prove lethality of S-300s.

Given the realism in that scenario it's highly unlikely.

Only Vivek can confirm this.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Jun 2010 16:28

There is rumor that a few flights of S 300 exist in and around Delhi and maybe other metros, even if true, its not really a aquisition of any scale, a tiny bit of knee jerk reaction, for all possible purposes irrelevant in the context of acquisitions and military relationship with Russia.

On Govt source has ever confirmed it -- no photographs no open source confirmation nothing.

Further the missile in picture have been posted and debated forever. They are Styx missiles of Naval coastal battery protecting Bombay.

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sathyaC » 11 Jun 2010 17:15

EADS to shift some Eurofighter development projects to India
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 031803.cms
BERLIN: European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company NV (EADS) would transfer some of the development projects of its advanced fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon or other military aircraft to India soon, a top company official said on Thursday.

"We will transfer some of our development projects, which we have in Europe for Eurofighter or other military aircraft to India, where we have set up a military research and development (R&D) centre in Bangalore," EADS chief executive (defence & security) Stefan Zoller told IANS here.

The Netherlands-based European aerospace corporation was created in 2000 by merging Aerospatiale Matra of France, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany (excluding the MTU engine business) and Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) of Spain.

Asserting that the consortium's R&D activities were independent of its bid for the 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF), Zoller said leveraging the high-skilled Indian talent and the potential of the emerging Indian aerospace industry would lead to developing new technologies and creation of jobs.

"If we win the IAF order, the development of newer versions of Typhoon for India and global market will result in creation of about 20,000 direct jobs, as the bid involves the winner re-investing 50 percent of the deal in India's defence manufacturing industry," Zoller said at the 100th Berlin international air show.

Besides Eurofighter, the US-based Lockheed Martin F-16s and Boeing's F/A-18IN Super Hornet, French D'Assault's Rafale, Swiss SAAB's Gripen and Russian MiG-35 are the other five contenders for the IAF order, estimated to be $10-12 billion.

The IAF plans to acquire 18 of these in ready-to-fly condition, with the remaining 118 being manufactured by the Indian defence behemoth Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) under technology transfer and licensed production, to replace its ageing Russian MiG-21 fleet and enhance its strike capability.

"We will transfer 60 percent of the Eurofighter technology to India if Typhoon wins the bid. Our long-term strategy is to partner with the Indian aerospace industry for our global market, as we consider the Indian talent and resources as an ideal source for knowhow and to develop newer technologies," Zoller said.

The consortium is keen on building a centre of competence and a centre of excellence in Bangalore through its Indian subsidiary to design and develop next-generation products and solutions to its European and global markets.

"We also want to establish a division of our defence and security wing in India independent of the IAF order for Typhoon not to duplicate what we are doing in Europe but replicate its business model to leverage the potential of the Indian aerospace industry through joint ventures and offset projects," Zoller added.

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Venu » 11 Jun 2010 17:27

^^ This is already posted in the previous page

Anyway, no offense meant.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2010 17:35

The Styx is long obsolete,though there may be a handful of old missiles,still within their sell-by-date,tweaked by our boffins to remain relevant and ready for the enemy.With the advent of Brahmos though,it would not surprise me if these older missiles have started making way for vehicle mounted Brahmos instead,which have a far greater range of upto and perhaps even more than 300km.With a variety of sensors ground and air,like aeroststs,AEW and MRP aircraft,plus our naval warships on patrol,enemy naval surface task forces can be detected some distance away.In the case of enemy subs it will be far more difficult to detect and Pak possesses subs with missiles too.

However,in the MMRCA context,Brahmos may be too large for the aircraft,which may have to carry instead perhaps Nirbhay air-launched cruise missiles or air-launched versions of Uran/western anti-ship missiles.

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sathyaC » 11 Jun 2010 17:36

Venu wrote:^^ This is already posted in the previous page

Anyway, no offense meant.

sorry did not see it

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 12 Jun 2010 00:00

Now something that may not cast the Typhoon in the best light. Its not a very new article, but nevertheless raises some pertinent points. For instance, check out the dates on the Eurocopter Tiger.

Der Speigel article
08/04/2009 06:47 PM
European Defense Procurement Worries
German Army Angry over EADS Delays and Technical Glitches
By SPIEGEL Staff

Frustration is mounting in the German armed forces about defense contractor EADS, whose products are beset by delays and technical problems. The A400M military aircraft is the latest in a long line of examples.

Angela Merkel was in a resolute mood. German defense contractors liked to talk about "patriotism," the Chancellor declared irritably when Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung and top military officials came to her complaining about delays in the supply of combat jets, helicopters and other equipment. "So we can't have the army spending years waiting for its equipment."

"It's time more pressure was put on industry," she declared, in an unmistakable instruction to Jung to get tough with defense suppliers.


DDP
The A400M during a presentation in Seville in 2008.
But Merkel doesn't seem to be sticking to her own line. More than a year after that meeting in her office in Berlin, all it took was a telephone call and a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the Chancellor to cave. The two leaders were discussing the military transport aircraft A400M built by the Airbus parent company EADS, a Franco-German defense giant that enjoys a quasi-monopoly in Europe's aerospace industry. The A400M has been subject to so many delays and glitches that Europe's defense ministers threatened in March to cancel their deal to buy 180 planes at a price of €110 million ($158 million) each.

But Angela Merkel undermined her own people. She and Sarkozy shelved the cancellation threat in June before the company had even acceded to demands from European ministers that it provide "transparency" on technical problems, costs and on the reorganisation of its management.

So the ministers had no option but to postpone the deadline for negotiations until the end of the year. No defense official in Berlin or Paris still believes that the countries will end up cancelling the contract and forcing EADS to pay back €6 billion.

The monopolist now has a firm grip on its customers. "We need a transport aircraft," Merkel said in Paris. The Transall aircraft that are due to be replaced by the A400M are 40 years old and rickety. The German army has ordered 60 of the new aircraft for more than €8 billion including equipment.

History of Shortcomings

When it comes to EADS, the German army always fights a losing battle. No supplier is as frowned on among German military top brass as EADS. Many of the products the company offers arrive later, perform less well and turn out more expensive than expected. Be it "Eurofighters," combat helicopters, transport helicopters, electronic equipment for frigates or infantry equipment -- EADS almost always gets a chunk of government defense contracts but it's rare that its products work the way they should.

Nevertheless, German budget committees under conservative and Social Democrat-ruled governments have kept on approving fresh cash. Defense managers and government officials tend to warn that that cancelling an order would jeopardize Germany's reputation as a reliable business partner. Or the lobbyists make dire warnings about the loss of thousands of jobs.

The chairman of parliament's budget committee, Otto Fricke of the opposition pro-business Free Democrats, wants parliament to be involved in any further decisions regarding the A400M. "We don't want to be degraded to a rubber-stamping club like with previous defense contracts," he said. EADS, he warned Jung, "mustn't have carte blanche."

That realization comes pretty late given that when the FDP was still in government, it also tended to approve questionable projects. Loyalty to the coalition took precedence over business sense, for example in the case of the controversial "Eurofighter" jet. In the 1980s, Franz Josef Strauss, then leader of the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union party, and Defense Minister Manfred Wörner both promoted the project. The plan was to order at least 200 "Jäger 90" jets, and they were to be ready for use from 1997. One fighter was to cost around 83 million German marks including spare parts.

Surging Price, Technical Problems

By 1992 the price had jumped to 134 million marks. Defense Minister Volker Rühe demanded a "reversal" but all he got was a change in the name to "Eurofighter." Technical problems piled up. The computer software didn't work properly, or there were problems with the tail fin or the wings.

The German air force didn't get the first jets until July 2006. It now has 38 Eurofighters. But 14 of them have been sent back for repairs. Some of them still suffer instrument failure during flights. Of the six single-seat aircraft at the Neuburg air base only four are fit for service on average. That's just enough to provide day and night cover for Germany's airspace.

The defense ministry recently admitted to budget committee members that the approved sum of €14.7 billion would only be enough to pay for 143 Eurofighters. Parliament would have to approve an additional €3 billion if the air force was to get the planned 180 aircraft, ministry officials announced meekly.


The situation isn't much better when it comes to helicopters. The EADS subsidiary Eurocopter prides itself on being the global market leader for civilian helicopters. But it neglects its regular customer, the German army, which at one time aided the company's ascent by acquiring hundreds of its helicopters.

Back in 1983 Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Francois Mitterrand had agreed to develop the "Tiger" combat helicopter. It was supposed to be ready for service in 1992. Military officials demanded many alterations and the partners at time also lacked money. But the project was mostly dogged by technical problems. The defense ministry kept on agreeing to postponements in the delivery dates.

Chafed Cables, Inaccurate Guns

The German army ordered 80 "Tigers." The prototypes delighted crowds at air shows from 1991 onwards. But the German army hasn't received a single Tiger helicopter that is capable of reliably hitting targets with its rockets and cannon. The 10 "Tigers" it currently has are only suitable to provide basic instruction for pilots. More have been built but they haven't been accepted -- mechanics recently complained about chafed cables.

The NH90 transport helicopter is also regarded as a flop by the military. The plans to develop the aircraft go back to 1992. The Bundeswehr had ordered 80 of the helicopters for a total of €1.7 billion. However, the first sample aircraft only arrived at the end of 2006. Admittedly, the army is now in possession of eight of them. However, they are only 26 percent fit for service. That means that on average only two of the helicopters are ready to start at any given time.

And the helicopters cannot be deployed in the way the military had originally planned. The NH90 is supposed to accommodate 16 fully-armed soldiers. It's not yet clear if this can be achieved. Recently a somewhat heavy passenger was told that the maximum weight per seat was 100 kilograms. However, even a slim soldier with a combat pack would easily make that weight -- after all, a bullet-proof vest alone weighs around 15 kilograms.


"Never again" the top brass swear, will EADS be allowed to get away with something like this. That was why the rules were so strict when it came to the contract for the A400M. The company would have to accept wide-ranging rights of cancellation and compensation if the aircraft was not delivered on time or with any deficiencies.

It is exactly these clauses which EADS CEO Louis Gallois ("We are not starving for contracts") and the German Airbus boss Thomas Enders want to see revised. In order to keep the losses to a minimum, customers should pay more, even though it is still not clear when exactly the A400M will take to the skies.

The relevant ministries have so far rejected these demands. Jung's state secretary Christian Schmidt, a member of the CSU, is already regretting that another offer was rejected in the 1990s. "Maybe we should have bought the Antonov after all," he said.

At the time Russia and Ukraine had offered to build its An-70 military transporters in cooperation with the Western Europeans. The four-engine aircraft would have met all the German air force's requirements and, at a bargain price of €50 million, was far cheaper than the military Airbus, the defense procurement department in the Defense Ministry said back in 1999.

However, the government at the time -- a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens -- opted for the A400M, although it was still only on the drawing board, for the sake of its friendship with France and Airbus. The rebuffed Russians and Ukrainians repeated their offer several times but they never made any headway.

And yet their model not only had the advantage of being far cheaper than the military Airbus. It had one other important plus: The An-70 had already been flying -- since 1994.

Reporting by Andrea Brandt, Markus Deggerich, Simone Kaiser, Guido Kleinhubbert


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 12 Jun 2010 00:09

Eurofighter offers consortium members 124 Tranche 3B Typhoons for 10 billion Euros, that is around $12.114 billion. Keep in mind that EADS cannot offer any export customer prices lower than that it offers to the consortium partners. So that gives us an estimate price of around $97.6 million per Typhoon Tranche 3B (AESA or not, we don't know as yet).

So we can safely assume that 126 brand new Tranche 3B Typhoons will at the very least cost $12.31 billion for just the aircraft alone. Add some costs to recover money spent on R&D and you'll end up with slightly higher costs. None of this will include weapons, ToT, etc.

article link

June 9/10: At the ILA Air Show in Berlin, Germany, Reuters relays word from a Eurofighter GmbH spokesman that it has submitted a Trache 3B offer to the partner nations for 124 more Eurofighters, finishing the planned Tranche 3. Defense industry sources at the Berlin Air Show said the offer was around EUR 10 billion.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16697
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jun 2010 00:16

kapilrdave wrote:In his scenario Vivek_ahuja once mentioned that IAF do have a handful of S-300s.

Khurana was merely tracking the F-16s because somebody had to. His real focus was on listening to the chatter coming in from the four SU-30MKIs that had just “tickled” the Chinese S-300 defensive belt around the Aksai Chin with their Brahmos cruise missiles. He knew the lethality of the S-300 from the IAF’s evaluation of its own handful of S-300 batteries in service.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4287&start=200

Though not authentic I personally consider Vivek_ahuja as an informed guy.
But that doesn't mean that I say any of you is uninformed. Just putting a reference here IF it's valid.

whether we have a small number of s-300 in service or not is a very contentious issue, all we know is that the S-300 was evaluated by us as was the A-50 AWACS(original russian one, not the phalcon) and both were rejected. some western sources took this as 'proof' that we have the s-300 in service. as of now IMHO I don;t think we do.

narayana wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^These are all false claims. There is no know purchase or deployment of S-300X in IA Service.


Sorry for OT,but i have seen pic of S300 being transported somewhere in maharashtra.
S-300?

IDRW and its copy paste journalism ! :roll: it's a styx coastal missile battery command post.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16697
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jun 2010 00:20

dorai wrote:........................

account deactivated for using free email. you can apply to the mods with a non-free email ID to reactivate your account.
Rahul.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests