MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Nov 2010 14:05

What if the teens are announced during Obama's trip. They make a deal like SU-30 MKI, ie, low cost. Just to sustain production and employment.

Su-30 MKi was for Boris yelstins elections.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2010 14:16

I doubt it. there would be a storm of protest from all quarters if a sellout were to be made on F-16 esp - at the time pakis are happily receiving fresh samples in kamra. and the F-18 can pack in all the tricks but cannot get away from its airframe design - like arjuna trapped inside a water buffalo's body-it is hostage to the limits of the ungainly body. high thrust engines only make up for some of the shortfall....the EF can and will get better engines too.

its the EF's deal to lose on the captor-e and tot issue imho.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 06 Nov 2010 16:29

Singha wrote:its the EF's deal to lose on the captor-e and tot issue imho.

And the price.

Though the typhoon is the best in the competition but if we choose it over others than in most probability the deal won't expand to 200 which is important from reaching the sanctioned strength point of view. It seems like the Gripen and SH are the best bet especially the Gripen which is cheap, advance and uses the GE-414 engine.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 06 Nov 2010 16:42

Marten wrote:How will EF get to L1?

If it is the only aircraft to meet the IAF requirements and pass the FET's !

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 06 Nov 2010 17:12

Despirate time for the Rafale.. To be or not to be?

Sarkozy going full throttle!

France wants jet fighter talks with Brazil on G20 sidelines

"The only one who has asked for a bilateral is the president of France (Nicolas Sarkozy) to talk about this issue and bilateral cooperation," one official in the Brazilian president's office said on condition of anonymity. "The issue of the planes is central," the official said, adding the meeting would likely take place on the second day of the summit, Friday November 12.

Both Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his successor as of next year, president-elect Dilma Rousseff, will be attending the G20 summit. Lula has been putting off for months his decision to announce the winner of the fighter jet tender, but said this week that now Rousseff had been elected to take over from him, an announcement would be made soon.

Brazil near selection of fighter jets
UPI

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that one of his priorities in the coming weeks will be to decide on a multibillion-dollar fighter jet tender with his successor, Dilma Rousseff. The deal is just the first of a rash of tenders Rousseff is expected to oversee in her term as Brazil plans to spend billions on imported weapons in the next years to increase its military might. "We are going to talk over the issue of the fighters -- me, Rousseff and [Defense Minister Nelson] Jobim," Lula told reporters at a news conference with Rousseff in Brasilia.

It has long been suggested that France's Rafale fighter stands as the preferred pick of the Latin American country. What makes the French bid attractive, experts say, is France's sweetener of transferring technology related to the supersonic Rafale so that Brazil, bent on becoming the lead military power in South America, could assemble most of the jets itself and sell them regionally.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 06 Nov 2010 18:28

There is no 5th generation EFT/Rafael being proposed. Most of the Europeans, if they can afford it, are going for F-35 as their choice of a 5th generation aircraft. Isn't it telling that UK, Germany and other European countries instead of developing a 5th generation EFT went for F-35? Off course EFT was primarily designed as an air-superiority fighter. This applies to Grippen and Mig-35 also. The MIG bureaus design for 5th generation fighter was rejected by Russia, which instead favoured the sukhios design.

So the question ought to be put to the IAF/MoD/GoI why is it that, why are we going for a 4th generation aircraft, when competing 5th generation fighter would be on anvil by the time MRCA winner joins the IAF fleet? And why is India not talking to others like sweden/Euro consortium/Japan/Korea for development of 5th generation fighter? We should be aiming for inducting more and more 5th generation fighters into IAF Fleet. Not spending 10 Billion USD and counting on fighters which all are dead end.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 06 Nov 2010 19:28

Singha wrote:I doubt it. there would be a storm of protest from all quarters if a sellout were to be made on F-16 esp - at the time pakis are happily receiving fresh samples in kamra. and the F-18 can pack in all the tricks but cannot get away from its airframe design - like arjuna trapped inside a water buffalo's body-it is hostage to the limits of the ungainly body. high thrust engines only make up for some of the shortfall....the EF can and will get better engines too.

its the EF's deal to lose on the captor-e and tot issue imho.

Good observation singhaji, agree with you. Under the circumstances EF and than Rafael is the better choice but this jingo wants a indian fighter even if initially it is slightly inferior to the phoren maal

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 06 Nov 2010 20:39

Has O-bambaba already started the push for the teens with the Interoperability Clause ? Sounds like something fishy being cooked in Air Force 1?

On any given day, I would love to go in for Mig – 35, considering the fact that even if we are subsidizing the Russian research with $10 Billion, some of that research will flow back to India in form of FGFA etc as it has been happening in the last 40-50 years.

On the other hand if we go in for the teens, we can rest assured that some 20 % of the $10 Billion will funnel away to Paikhanastan in form of aids.

Time to ponder as to which would be a better choice.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 07 Nov 2010 01:07

Karan,
You repeating 'jingo talking points' and claiming 'this was not given' and that was 'denied' are moot points for this discussion. All of them are parts of the same system which has delivered and failed to deliver collectively. You have to make do with what you have available or you choose to do only what you can accomplish with what you have. Also you might wanna convert those Rs 382 corer (or Rs 500corer for Arjun, actually Arjun was completed within Rs 3K corer which is lower than what Rs 500corer was when it was budgeted) in today’s rupee to see what you get. You might also wanna check which country in our stage of development (HDI and economic) at that time gave Rs 320 corer to its MIC for a jet engine development? You also need to normalize accounting methods and taxes of American MNCs and DRDO accounting methods to compare the developmental budgets to make your comparison meaningful. Don't just claim things without thinking things through. India is/was not America, neither are we working on same developmental sequence supported by large sales revenue nor is it our top priority. Top priority is operational preparedness and secondary long term requirement is to achieve that with domestic efforts. You also need to figure out how and who prepares project budget and how they are allocated/approved before complaining or laying blame at any doorstep.
In short the whole thing is a mess but people are working within their limitations and against competing priorities. Observers and critics should be fair and careful in assigning blames and awards. Whining and cursing govt/neta/babu and systems without understanding even how it works is not going to help DRDO, GoI or the cause of India.
Presenting low initial budgets and claiming a lot more capabilities than you have is an old age practice that DRDO has also exploited to gain more poorly funded projects than it should have. These projects were started too early and without proper prep work. Largely Babus and Netas were willingly ready to fund these projects that were projected as low hanging fruits; Brass was the only section that remained skeptical. 2 decades later claiming that we didn't have testing facilities that’s why we can't complete or hit design parameters or timelines as promised is simply dishonest. Were they promised or did they even budget or ask for these facilities? Did they assume or thought India can fund everything that they would need for all their projects?
For the same budget if DRDO has focused on half the projects it is working on it'll have several x more resources and may be a lot more success. Technos and babus in their jest and natural human tendency to increase your own turf/empire spread themselves too thin. A poor country like India where more than half the people were malnourished, illiterate and were living under crushing poverty showed extreme courage, foresight and wisdom in funding and developing institutes like ISRO, DRDO and BARK. Some has delivered better than others and some had really difficult task and some chose harder path foolishly.

Anyhow bottom line is that current situation is not satisfactory for anyone and it needs improvement but believing that money is the only or even most important issue is incorrect in my opinion. Expecting that Indians in 70s would have acted like Amecricans with any of the American experience or previlages is flately dumb. Throwing more money will generate more underfunded projects not better funded or better planned projects. APJ Kalam managed a large purge in mid 90s by culling almost half of DRDO projects at that time. But they were mostly smaller and low budget projects.

What DRDO needs is a very strict project sanctioning and background prep requirement for new projects and a large cull of number of projects, labs and workforce. New projects must be adjecent to an existing vertical niche which is continuously expanding in all directions as practiced by all successful high-tech institutes and companies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Nov 2010 05:00

I still don't understand why Euros lost to GE for Tejas Mk2 engines, if they were that serious about India. BTW, the resubmit of quotation was tad late and was cheaper than GE altogether too late.

It would be a double shame if they lose again.

From an IAF PoV, it is not which is better, but, which is a good fit. L1 meant both were a good fit, the issue was which was cheaper.

In the case of the MMRCA there is bound to be an added dimension: politics. And with:

Senator McCain wrote: concept of operations for both the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

EU cannot match that. Besides even at a military level it is to India's advantage to deal with the countries that circle Chicom than EU. (Many have not yet recognized that Indian "Look East" policy has just been expanded. And rightly so.)

That said, EU will get her due share in other ways.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Nov 2010 05:35

For what it is worth:

Obama Eases Rules on Select Technology Exports

............ is also taking Indian defense research and space agencies off the United States’ “entities list,” clearing the way for greater cooperation. Executives here welcomed the moves.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Nov 2010 06:12

UK closes in on $11bn fighter deal
The Telegraph, UK

The European-made Typhoon fighter is winning the fight for the $11.5bn (£7.1bn) contract to supply 126 fighters to the Indian Air Force in a deal worth $5 billion and 2,000 new jobs to Britain.

If the Typhoon clinches the deal, India would become the consortium's third-largest customer and an unofficial "fifth partner" in the project. Thousands of new jobs would also be created in India, including a new EADS avionics plant. "The Indians would be one of the biggest users of Typhoon, which would give them a vote at the table," one official said last week.

Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain are waging a joint diplomatic campaign to support the Typhoon bid, with the leaders of all four countries expected to raise the issue in meetings with India's prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, at next week's G20 meeting in Seoul. David Cameron is expected to lobby Dr Singh in a bilateral meeting at the summit.

A senior Indian official has told The Sunday Telegraph that its air force's technical findings have been forwarded to the defence ministry, where a final decision is expected to be made in the next few months. "There are a number of cost and strategic considerations which still have to be looked at, but in purely technical terms, Eurofighter is ahead," the official said.

The disclosure is a significant boost for the Typhoon consortium, but it must now address Indian concerns that the Eurofighter is more expensive than its competitors in upfront costs. British, German, Spanish and Italian officials are confident however that it will be cheaper than its competitors over the lifetime of its deployment.

"Set aside initial development costs and Typhoon's through-life costs compare very well," said Sir Stephen. The Typhoon's unique advantage, he said, is an integrated platform for its weapons, radar and intelligence- gathering systems. "It has this flexibility and adaptability at any one time," he said. Sir Stephen previously headed Britain's Typhoon development programme at the Ministry of Defence.

Indian officials have long said that Eurofighter had a good chance of winning the contract. Arif Shahid Khan, India's ambassador to Italy, said in January that the Eurofighter was "leading the race" in the trials, which were then under way.

The revelation that EF topped trials, is as massive as it is unsurprising.. (if true though, or is it just a ploy in the media campaign for EF? who knows...)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Nov 2010 07:06

Karan,
You repeating 'jingo talking points' and claiming 'this was not given' and that was 'denied' are moot points for this discussion. All of them are parts of the same system which has delivered and failed to deliver collectively. You have to make do with what you have available or you choose to do only what you can accomplish with what you have.

Katare, kindly stick to the facts, namely the details that are evident with cases like the Kaveri, with the 3 year delays pointed to the lack of infrastructure. Pointless claims around "jingo talking points" and selectively picking and choosing the basis for this discussion, by declaring valid points moot, wont work. So are sanctions deliberately applied midway through a program moot, are attempts to browbeat suppliers to back off midway through a program moot. Your attempt to selectively deny those points which make a huge hole in your claims, is not good enough.

Also you might wanna convert those Rs 382 corer (or Rs 500corer for Arjun, actually Arjun was completed within Rs 3K corer which is lower than what Rs 500corer was when it was budgeted) in today’s rupee to see what you get. You might also wanna check which country in our stage of development (HDI and economic) at that time gave Rs 320 corer to its MIC for a jet engine development?

No matter how you slice and dice it, the point remains these projects were and are underfunded. The Arjun program for instance, is at a fraction of the cost (even if program cost is multipled several times) to that of the Abrams tank, which is a comparable system, but one developed by a country by many times India's industrial potential. The cost in manpower does not detract from the huge investment that goes into infrastructure and subsystem development as well.

Also, there is the fact that the Arjun program has been repeatedly hurt by the lack of funding during a critical phase in its development, which delayed project even further.

Second, you claim, that "which country in our stage of development" at the time gave 320 crore, the actual claim should be "budgeted 320 crore" and even there, you'd be wrong as China has routinely budgeted far more than India on such programs. Even if you dismiss it as as being militarized state, authoritarian or whatever..

Again, as I already pointed out the reason for underbudgeting could be many, including lack of money, the point is it harms programs.

You also need to normalize accounting methods and taxes of American MNCs and DRDO accounting methods to compare the developmental budgets to make your comparison meaningful. Don't just claim things without thinking things through. India is/was not America, neither are we working on same developmental sequence supported by large sales revenue nor is it our top priority. Top priority is operational preparedness and secondary long term requirement is to achieve that with domestic efforts. You also need to figure out how and who prepares project budget and how they are allocated/approved before complaining or laying blame at any doorstep.

Instead of making comments about "Dont claim things without thinking them through", you might want to examine your own talk and claims, which so far just rely on rhetoric and not facts. Everyone knows India is not America, and nor is DRDO a commercial entity, and nor is it working on the same model. Don't knock down strawmen

The point being made, is that Indian programs are very ambitious as armed forces need the best/specify the best of equipment either because of operational needs or belief, and these programs rarely have the necessary funds to finish in ambitious time schedules, which are further worsened by the fact that India is already lacking in terms of technology, and faces sanctions as well. And GOI continues to underbudget/underprovide for many such programs.

And as to how budgeting was done: The usual answer to any such program launched in earlier years was simple, as you seem to be unaware of the process - "x is available, use x, when we have y, we will give it to you", easier said than done, however.

In the meanwhile, the GOI ended up squandering money in umpteen other efforts for both political and other reasons and rampant bureaucracy/lack of coordination ensured budgeting is not available on time, and that too for valid needs.

Control and power meant DPSUs were shackled to select babus, who would then decide what was ok and what was not, without having the competence at the time, to properly evaluate efforts. Again harming overall efforts and causing impact on multiple programs. Examples are legion

Nor are your claims that "Top priority is operational preparedness and secondary long term requirement is to achieve that with domestic efforts." of any validity, given the absolute mess that has gone on with multiple programs that impact operational preparedness.

Examples are legion, starting with artillery saga, to AJT saga, to procurement of submarines!!

It is evident to anyone, apart from those who want to absolve GOI of its responsibility, that crores have been wasted in all sorts of activities that have resulted in no result, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

In short the whole thing is a mess but people are working within their limitations and against competing priorities. Observers and critics should be fair and careful in assigning blames and awards. Whining and cursing govt/neta/babu and systems without understanding even how it works is not going to help DRDO, GoI or the cause of India.

Presenting low initial budgets and claiming a lot more capabilities than you have is an old age practice that DRDO has also exploited to gain more poorly funded projects than it should have. These projects were started too early and without proper prep work.

Largely Babus and Netas were willingly ready to fund these projects that were projected as low hanging fruits; Brass was the only section that remained skeptical. 2 decades later claiming that we didn't have testing facilities that’s why we can't complete or hit design parameters or timelines as promised is simply dishonest. Were they promised or did they even budget or ask for these facilities? Did they assume or thought India can fund everything that they would need for all their projects?

Now you are getting near the answer, but end up meandering somewhere around the middle, underplaying what has happened in the past, while portraying Babus and Netas in the process, as naif and babes in the wood. And of course, you try to rubbish the GTRE directors claims by saying he is dishonest as his comments abut funding run contrary to your claims. What talk of "Observers and critics should be fair and careful in assigning blames and awards." when you dont appear to have the slightest tendency to follow your own advice, which you dish out so generously! In the previous post you were busy rubbishing all those who got awards, now you rubbish this guy, and you talk of "fair and careful". Bizarre!!

Some of the statements you have made here are rubbish, especially the claim that Brass was the only section that was skeptical, and netas and babus thought they were funding low hanging fruits! Instead, what has happened in the past has been much more involved, with many stakeholders, who were fairly intelligent, including babus and Brass aware of funding requirements being substantial, and everyone working under the assumption that things would be sorted out.

The long term plans however fell apart due to GOI negligence, which did not set up the required institutional structure to support such programs. Despite your desire to somehow protect the GOI from criticism, its a fact that they can & should have done more. Even today, there is ad hocism galore, as is evident from Raman Puri's remarks!

Brass and netas and babus were very well aware of funding requirements and many projects have been launched under the understanding that funds would be made available "as required", with "as required" never being defined, as GOI always found it hard to find the funds, as ad-hocism ruled the day in allocation of funding!!

Requests for AJTs languish! Political reasons scupper ARTY purchase whereas an in-house project is cancelled by Brass who think why pursue two horses! At Kargil, aircraft go to battle without sufficient protection, as proposals for protective equipment are not sanctioned.

It is this lack of accountability, total lack of coordination and the lack of leadership set by GOI which is a historic problem!! Whether it be funding or defence, the status quo is muddle along

Look at the part in bold below.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 101030.htm

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame.

They say the Defense Research and Development Organisation has not delivered. I don't think critics of the DRDO have analysed what is not delivered. There is no synergy in the ministry of defence. There is no synergy between the decision-making structures of the government. Army headquarter is one silo, the naval and air force headquarters are separate silos. The ministry of defence works on its own. There is a very loose coordination attempted at the individual level without a formal structure. There is a firewall between the production and the research side of the weapons making systems. There is hardly any mission statement from the armed forces. That doesn't come because you don't have a national security strategy and its stated goals.

This is the failure as shown by GOI. So now what, will you call Admiral Raman Puri dishonest as well.

As far back as 1980's, senior scientific personnel from now CSIR, ISRO etc had called for setting up aerospace committees/commission that would actively manage, vet aerospace projects and coordinate funding and long term development. Did GOI do this? No. Power would have gone from the hands of babus/GOI. Till today, there is no such overarching commission. The IAF recently - again - called for it.

Even today, defence forces complain their opinions are not sufficiently taken into account in terms of GOI decision making, thanks to age old fears of civilian-military relationship. Whose fault is this, but GOIs.

I am sorry, but your ad hominem attacks about how stupid we all are, how intelligent you are, and how we should be so careful and what not, do not inspire any sort of confidence in your comments about the sagacity of the GOI's decision making in the past.

For the same budget if DRDO has focused on half the projects it is working on it'll have several x more resources and may be a lot more success. Technos and babus in their jest and natural human tendency to increase your own turf/empire spread themselves too thin. A poor country like India where more than half the people were malnourished, illiterate and were living under crushing poverty showed extreme courage, foresight and wisdom in funding and developing institutes like ISRO, DRDO and BARK. Some has delivered better than others and some had really difficult task and some chose harder path foolishly.

Oh, now the poverty argument is trotted out. Somehow all that poverty did not stop India from spending on foreign white elephants of dubious operational value. Again, here examples are many. For the sake of keeping appearances, lets keep them aside.

If DRDO/DAE/ISRO focus on only half the projects, then they will get double the criticism for not having delivered anything of value to India and continue to be cursed.

While you talk of empire building the flip side of the story, is that many such programs were launched as national programs with the actual involvement of political leaders who set off the programs, but never committed the funding to see the programs through. And given GOI's lack of institutionalized decision making, involving these worthies is the only way.

When APJ Kalam went to GOI to present program for developing missiles, he went with proposal for two missiles but came back with orders for five!! Were funds increased proportionately, no they were not. Such is the case with many such programs.

Anyhow bottom line is that current situation is not satisfactory for anyone and it needs improvement but believing that money is the only or even most important issue is incorrect in my opinion. Expecting that Indians in 70s would have acted like Amecricans with any of the American experience or previlages is flately dumb. Throwing more money will generate more underfunded projects not better funded or better planned projects. APJ Kalam managed a large purge in mid 90s by culling almost half of DRDO projects at that time. But they were mostly smaller and low budget projects.

It is interesting to see how you set up strawman arguments, knock them down and then claim these arguments are "Flatly dumb". First lay off the childish insults. Who here claimed that India should have or would act like Americans in the 1970s!!

What has been said is different, that Govt of India is full of ad hocism, continues to vacillate in terms of defining what its security perception and long term requirements are, does not integrate services closely or have them coordinate their requirements in turn, and nor does it have a coherent policy for long term development of S&T resources, and continues to waste precious taxpayer money on white elephants of dubious operational significance, whereas vital programs go underfunded.

Culling programs is not the answer. It only inflates the import bill and will lead to even more long term dependence.

What DRDO needs is a very strict project sanctioning and background prep requirement for new projects and a large cull of number of projects, labs and workforce. New projects must be adjecent to an existing vertical niche which is continuously expanding in all directions as practiced by all successful high-tech institutes and companies.

Management jargon and "new speak" does not translate into anything real, without money. Color me unimpressed. And of course, large cull of projects, labs and workforce will be in India's interests eh, as import bills go up. Very nice.

Lastly, if you cant bother to reply without all the funny comments and insults, don't bother replying. Unlike you apparently, I actually live in India & see the pros and cons of GOI successes and failures every other day, including poverty, and I don't need patriotic sermons on how great it is, based on half baked history lessons and dubious strawmen. Thanks!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 07 Nov 2010 07:31

We are agree that it will be political decesion.

Swede gives us nothing so no Grippen. I don't think f16/18 are favorate in Indian circles after Obama and his anti Indian governament. US now lost all the good will in India in last two years. MMS may want to dance with US but I don't think even he will be in a position to pull this one. On the basis tech specification performence Typhoon and Raf have a clear edge and comparitively free from sanctions. So one of the two will finalised. Mig 35 may be a surprise choice. But politically I don't see happening. Not after the difficulty we ran into with Russian defence deals.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Nov 2010 08:31

This was the meaning behind the gratuitous promise, made during the presidency of George W. Bush, of helping India emerge as a world power. But India is not in need of that “help”. Its rulers have their own global ambitions and they are not interested in becoming a client state or even a military ally or partner. Those are the two kinds of relationships the United States is used to having with countries around the world. That is why early signs that India will play the power game differently have been greeted in Washington with bewilderment, consternation and even anger.

Well written.

Given the fickleness of the U.S. political system and the almost whimsical way in which technology and supply restrictions are imposed and lifted, India will place itself at risk by getting too dependent on American supplies for major weapon systems.

After fantasizing in 2009 about a joint condominium with Beijing, Washington today appears slowly to be moving to the other extreme. In a few years time, it will be ready to move right back.

It is essential that India have excellent relations with the United States. But these relations have to be free-standing, built with all the confidence that a rising, democratic power can muster, our eyes looking forward rather than sideways at the constant swings of an American pendulum.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

Though the article is from the commie central, it has some valid points.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Nov 2010 09:12

livefist - chutzpah and arrogance from LM!

Michael R. Griswold, director of advanced development programmes at Lockheed-Martin was in Delhi recently and met the press for an update on the company's offerings in the Indian MMRCA competition. He spoke at a time when there's been a measure of discussion on the web about the notion that India would do better to buy the F-35 instead of 126 fourth generation fighters. The suggestion was followed by the Defence Secretary outright debunking the possibility of India acquiring a fifth generation fighter other than the PAK_FA/FGFA. Well Mr Griswold said he wasn't equipped to talk about the F-35 for India, but couldn't resist a barb. Nobody can in the airplane business anymore. "The fifth generation JV with Russia? Yeah, well all I can say is best of luck with that," Griswold said.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 07 Nov 2010 09:25

Singha wrote:livefist - chutzpah and arrogance from LM!

"The fifth generation JV with Russia? Yeah, well all I can say is best of luck with that," Griswold said.

Lol. How dare does someone call into question the FGFA or Indo-Russian joint ventures.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Nov 2010 09:32

Well these guys even with likes of Braun got their pants brown in the space race they might as well give that F-35 to bakis the fat a$$ flying truck might be well suited for flood relief ops.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Nov 2010 09:36

well, we all can say best of luck for the f-16s/18s from the khans as well.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 07 Nov 2010 09:41

The European-made Typhoon fighter is winning the fight for the $11.5bn (£7.1bn) contract to supply 126 fighters to the Indian Air Force in a deal worth $5 billion and 2,000 new jobs to Britain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea rite! Like the LCA engine deal they were supposed to be winning? No one would complain if they won but there is many a slip between the cup and the lip specially when king khan is involved

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Nov 2010 09:53

At least one school of thought is similar to mine.

ANALYSIS: Factors That Should Determine The MMRCA, By Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES

P.S. I know many of you do not see Livefist through the best of lenses. So read the post for what it is worth in your judgement.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 07 Nov 2010 10:50

it was an article in vayu i think, livefist only printed a copy.

Although , reading all those articles though one gets the feeling that gripen is much more than a dark horse and on top of that it has a very good shot at being L 1

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Nov 2010 11:45

One would be forgiven for thinking that after all the discussion, the choice would be combo of Gripen plus F18/Typhoon ! official position of IAF might give way to some considerations !

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Nov 2010 11:48

Singha wrote:livefist - chutzpah and arrogance from LM!

Michael R. Griswold, director of advanced development programmes at Lockheed-Martin was in Delhi recently and met the press for an update on the company's offerings in the Indian MMRCA competition. He spoke at a time when there's been a measure of discussion on the web about the notion that India would do better to buy the F-35 instead of 126 fourth generation fighters. The suggestion was followed by the Defence Secretary outright debunking the possibility of India acquiring a fifth generation fighter other than the PAK_FA/FGFA. Well Mr Griswold said he wasn't equipped to talk about the F-35 for India, but couldn't resist a barb. Nobody can in the airplane business anymore. "The fifth generation JV with Russia? Yeah, well all I can say is best of luck with that," Griswold said.

Probably Mr Griswold thinks no one else in this world can rival LMs technological expertise .. Pride goes before a fall they say !

glene · Post by **glene** » 07 Nov 2010 11:56

UK closes in on $11bn fighter deal

http://idrw.org/?p=1212

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 07 Nov 2010 12:01

The Teens are nothing but Trojans; they won’t simply fire when the need will arise, as the key will be in Unkil’s hand with the “Interoperability Clause”.

This logic knocks off the Teens.

The term “MRCA” has been coined in 2002-2003, so it has been going around for 7-8 years. With these many years gone, may be we can wait for another 3-4 yrs and by that time LCA MK - II will be up and flying.

Why do we need to go in for Grippen – NG, which optimistically cannot arrive before 2014 ?

Why do we give the Sea-weeds $10 Billions to subsidize their research for Grippen – NG ? May be we should give $ 10 Billion to HAL instead get 2 X 126 = 252, LCA – NG by 2016 ?

This logic knocks off the Grippen.

What remains are the Rafale , Typhoon and Mig – 35.

Here is what needs to be considered among the above 3 are “performance” factor, “political” factor and “L1” factor.

Talking in favour of the Mig – 35, firstly its going to be the “L1” for sure. On the other hand, we can always have something better than the Mig – 35, a Mig – 35 MKI with the avionics from the France, Israel and India.

I find it difficult to understand when someone gives the logic of keeping all the eggs in the same basket. Some 40 % of Mig – 35 MKI ( if selected), will not be made by the Russians but by the French, Israelis and Indians. Remaining 60 % like Air frames, Fuselage and Engine will be manufactured in India under licence.

At the end of the day, money spend on Mig – 35, will come back to India in form of Technology (FGFA).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Nov 2010 12:18

indranilroy wrote:At least one school of thought is similar to mine.

ANALYSIS: Factors That Should Determine The MMRCA, By Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES

P.S. I know many of you do not see Livefist through the best of lenses. So read the post for what it is worth in your judgement.

That is an excellent article - while I don't agree with the recco of the same, the case is presented in a very lucid and logical manner.

However, IMO, the logic and arguments is linear and does not take into account the changing scenarios - for example - what will PLAAF look like by say, 2020? Does this transition of PLAAF warrant that 20%-30% of IAF also needs to be of a class heavier than the one represented by Gripen NG?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Nov 2010 12:27

rohitvats wrote:However, IMO, the logic and arguments is linear and does not take into account the changing scenarios - for example - what will PLAAF look like by say, 2020? Does this transition of PLAAF warrant that 20%-30% of IAF also needs to be of a class heavier than the one represented by Gripen NG?

Thats probably because no matter what shape and size PLAAF and PAF takes ( one can analyse those changing situation and add more heavy fighter if it is required to do so ) we would still need a significant amount of back bone fighter that will be effective , cheaper to procure , cheaper to operate and maintain over its life cycle.

The Gripen-NG is quite out there to meet those very needs of effective and affordable fighter with significant amount of advanced technologies and this may provide significant impetus to Tejas Mk2.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Nov 2010 12:41

rohitvats wrote: However, IMO, the logic and arguments is linear and does not take into account the changing scenarios - for example - what will PLAAF look like by say, 2020? Does this transition of PLAAF warrant that 20%-30% of IAF also needs to be of a class heavier than the one represented by Gripen NG?

Gripen's looks are deceiving (just like Tejas). Even though it is a light aircraft, it seems to forget that when it comes to payload. Its payload of 7.2 tonnes is comparable to 7.5 tonne of much larger Typhoon. Agreed, its radar will never be as powerful as that of larger radars but it more than makes it up with its sortie rate. If it can carry out more operations per day as compared to other medium fighters, then it is a huge advantage IMO.

The only disadvantage I see is the GE-Volvo engine. However, considering that we have went for GE 414 for our own Tejas, it does not seem to be that much of an issue anymore.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Nov 2010 13:31

Michael Griswold should remember how the USAF were "pasted" by Cold War IAF MIG-21 Bisons ,whose earliest design dates from the '60s vintage.He should also remember how the SU-30MKI also got the better of the USAF's much vaunted aircraft.These have been two great success stories for Indo-Russian collaboration and he is insulting India as we have a lot of input that will be embedded in the 5th-gen fighter.Griswold's "grapes are sour" syndrome is understandable as even in the MMRCA contest,technically,the EF is streets ahead of the F-18 SH,and when the 5th-gen fighter enters service,it will be a quantum leap for the IAF,giving it an aircraft that could even take on the Raptor,apartf rom the lesser capable JSF.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 07 Nov 2010 16:06

X-Post

Pariahs No More? ISRO, DRDO to be Off Entities List

While the formal announcement is expected only on Monday, the US has decided to take ISRO and Four of its Subsidiaries and DRDO and its Subsidiaries off its Entities List.

A Significant Removal from the Entities List is expected to be Bharat Dynamics Ltd with its Four Subsidiaries,

Hinting at Future Indo-US Cooperation on Missile Defence, because BDL is Part of India's Missile Technology Activities.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 07 Nov 2010 17:27

Europe's Typhoon jet leading India deal race: Reports

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Nov 2010 17:43

Yeah.. with EUMA and CISMOA, manio-mamose will sign up for the F16s. Seems like many in the decision making north block are taking the red pill from agent Balack.

Real users may choose EF2k, while the south block may chose highly socialistic Sweeten Gripen, the last laugh (loaf)ers would be from the north.

Who said the pen is not mightier than the MMRCA mijjile.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Nov 2010 18:27

All mixes are fine if it is decided from the north.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Nov 2010 19:05

History repeats itself..

Reports asaid that the EJ200 was leading the race for the LCA but...

Now reports claim EF is leading the pack but...

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Nov 2010 19:11

shukla wrote:History repeats itself..

Reports asaid that the EJ200 was leading the race for the LCA but...

Now reports claim EF is leading the pack but...

Well, as we now know, the reports of EJ-200 leading the race were no co incidence. They were planted and the person behind them has been deported.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Nov 2010 19:19

Gaur wrote:
shukla wrote:History repeats itself..

Reports asaid that the EJ200 was leading the race for the LCA but...

Now reports claim EF is leading the pack but...
Well, as we now know, the reports of EJ-200 leading the race were no co incidence. They were planted and the person behind them has been deported.

Begs the question, who was the "Indian official" talking to the Telegraph, giving them classified info about EF leading the pack after trails.. Wonder more deporting is in order.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 07 Nov 2010 23:18

Gaur wrote:
shukla wrote:History repeats itself..

Reports asaid that the EJ200 was leading the race for the LCA but...

Now reports claim EF is leading the pack but...
Well, as we now know, the reports of EJ-200 leading the race were no co incidence. They were planted and the person behind them has been deported.

Well in a way the reports about EJ-200 being the lowest bidder were correct (though incomplete) as EJ did bid in the stated 650 Mil range initially while GE bid was around 850. IIRC, the articles did mention that the deciding committee had sought some clarifications about the bids (hence the subsequent increase in EJ Bid when all aspects were considered).

So IMO, the information was good but the way it was processed and hyped was not

.

Further it should not be much of a surprise that the Eurofighter emerged as the strongest technically. But things could be different when money matters are included. Though, I hope it emerges as the winner of MMRCA too.

raj-ji · Post by **raj-ji** » 08 Nov 2010 00:12

indranilroy wrote:At least one school of thought is similar to mine.

ANALYSIS: Factors That Should Determine The MMRCA, By Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES

P.S. I know many of you do not see Livefist through the best of lenses. So read the post for what it is worth in your judgement.

Excellent article, from an informed and respected source.

I found this part of his article telling:

"The LCA's glitches, which inevitably exist in all complex new designs (for example, the F-35), would no doubt keep getting resolved as we go along. Of course it would be useful if the vendor selected for the M-MRCA also gives assistance in incorporating the necessary improvements in the LCA to improve upon it."

So the similarities between the LCA and the Gripen are not a weakness, they are a strength. Add to that now a common engine. Some people have realised that expanding budgets alone do not guarantee results.

There are several good candidates in the MRCA competition, but for those who have writen essays in this discussion about the Gripen being a joke, take it up with Air Cmde (Retd) JASJIT SINGH, Director, CENTRE FOR AIR POWER STUDIES.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Nov 2010 00:20

what is the mtow of gripen?