MRCA News and Discussion

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 04 Feb 2010 20:46

All statements have said only a single vendor will be selected for the order of 126 fighter jets identified for the MRCA

Technically, if after evaluation IAF grants the order to Vendor 1 for 126, and says that it needs additional fighters for which another order of 70-80 is given to vendor 2. This conforms to the statements of order of 126 being given to a single vendor.

Regarding the tooling and manufacturing of the jets; the host nation (including HAL) never get 100% of the manufacturing. To double production capacity requires that the manufacturing line cost can be amortized over a much larger number of aircraft than the 126 being ordered. Each of the contenders currently has one line that is already producing these jets, and should they get an order, they would be using those very lines to fulfill the order. No additional lines will be created because they would be prohibitively expensive.

Given this scenario, it makes sense to procure the two orders from two vendors rather than 1 larger order from 1 vendor. Besides cost, it also diversifies procurement and reduces the risk. Furthermore, the 70-80 number is critical enough to justify maintaining some additional logistics, and possibility of absorption of other technology.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 04 Feb 2010 20:58

NRao wrote: The host nation could pitch in with a dedicated line, specially if it were the MiG-35, F-16 or the Gripen?

The dedicated line is generally transferred and is not A to Z. The critical bottleneck would shift elsewhere, unless and until there exists a string of orders beyond ours that would justify for the manufacturer to invest in a second complete line.

F-16: The current line in Texas is going to draw to a close soon. They have offered to transfer that entire line to India should they get the order. Additionally, they have also proposed shifting some maintenance business besides that for USAF, to India.

Mig-35: There is no production line.

Gripen: Again no production line for the NG

SH: Insufficient orders to justify opening a second line. Too few operators worldwide.

EJ, Rafale: Faltering order book to justify a new production line.

Note that it is not economically feasible to justify a production line for 126 jets. Part of the assembly would be fine, but the 100% production line would not be justifiable. Only way to ramp up induction is to use two sources. Also, along with this induction there is a need to rapidly train pilots, entire crews, and setup the logistics etc; not to mention entire squadrons. To undertake this, there needs to be a mechanism to make all of this happen end to end not just some aspect(s) of the production. Only feasible scenario is to engage two vendors. Besides -- engaging two vendors also minimizes the risk during execution of the contract. For example: should vendor 1 become unreliable in price, delivery, etc. then vendor 2 who already has an order of about 80 can be utilized to fill in without leaving us completely exposed. Think Bofors sort of trouble; or INS Vikramaditya sort of trouble or the renegotiation of pricing for the MKI.

Whoever we buy the 126 from is going to have significant leverage if there is no parallel vendor present at the same time for the additional 70 to 80.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 04 Feb 2010 21:11

Another flip to the MRCA is,
Supreme court recently passed a rule,"The awarding of the contract in a tendering process need not necessarily go to the low cost vendor.The awardee can consider the best despite of the cost variations".
This this was done recently after the Airbus refuelers were rejected on a cost basis and the tatas modernisation of air bases struck in limbo.

My understanding is that,MOD is not gonna give a Sh!t about the price of the birdee if the anticipated concessions(political and technical) were found impressive.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Feb 2010 21:16

Avid wrote:All statements have said only a single vendor will be selected for the order of 126 fighter jets identified for the MRCA

Technically, if after evaluation IAF grants the order to Vendor 1 for 126, and says that it needs additional fighters for which another order of 70-80 is given to vendor 2. This conforms to the statements of order of 126 being given to a single vendor.

Correct, because that is the only order that the IAF is considering. The MRCA order was always 126 aircraft confirmed + 60 options which may or may not be ordered after the first 126 are complete. And it is this complete order that the ACM has stated will be awarded to a single vendor back when the media was speculating about a split deal. If another 70-80 are contracted from another vendor that would be a new order which the IAF has never spoken about. It is useless to speculate about such things. Especially now that the PAK-FA has flown and it appears that our version would be ready to be inducted by around the 2020 timeframe it has become even more unlikely that even the 60 options being talked about will be ordered. If the IAF spends more money buying 70-80 extra aircraft the numbers of either the PAK-FA or the LCA would be reduced (more likely the PAK-FA).

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 04 Feb 2010 22:07

nachiket wrote:
Avid wrote: There have been several statements from concerned individuals in the IAF stating that the MRCA winner will be a single vendor.

I still have a DIRTY FEELING that the MMRCA contest will be increased to 200 AND it will be split between two vendors. One of them would be USA.

If that is the case I suggest that we buy about 4 -5 sqdns of F 16 as outright purchase to induct them as fast as possible, say by 2015 - 2018. Some of my red-minded friends will say that it wil be easier to induct 4 -5 sqdns of MiG 29 rather than F 16. But do not forget that US can supply these 80 - 100 a/c faster than what Russian can supply. These F 16 should not be too much MKIised, for quicker delivery.

Simultaneously we get ~126 state-of-fart a/c which may be extended over a longer time period. For this Typhoon or Rafale should be chosen.

I would also prefer Grippen instead of F 16, if Sweden can give the aircrat quickly. The only advantage of buying F 16 is the cost and political advantage, IF ANY.

K

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Feb 2010 22:07

Avid,

I understand.

However, there is no reason LM would close their line IF India ordered another 60 air crafts from them (in addition to the 126). So too for Gripen.

The Mig has its own problems (as you mentioned) they have no line, but that does not hurt anything.

F-18, Rafale and EF have an issue because they are still in the process of fulfilling their own orders. But can they add capacity? I do not know for sure.

Of all these I am only worried about the MiG, they do not seem to have much for the 35 and in the recent past have been notorious in delays. Who knows.

The F-16 is the best situated - they would gladly keep their lines open.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Feb 2010 22:19

If the idea is to pile up planes or squadrons, then why not the LCA?

I somehow do not like the idea of multiple vendors/sources for the MRCA. Not worth it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2010 23:14

The MRCA deal was a political tool. That does not mean IAF doesnt need the a/c. They do, but the decision will have political angles also.

I think Kersiji is right. There will be split order might not be obvious but will be.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Feb 2010 23:30

MMS has alluded to the potential of associating MMRCA with political gains.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Feb 2010 23:33

60 Growlers if MRCA has to happen and if USA is involved. That is nothing anyone else can supply. That would be a game changing addition.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 04 Feb 2010 23:37

sumshyam wrote: If we are really ? going to order around 200 birds...we must order it from atleast two different sources [at-most three -- each getting order for 70 birds]...This would increase the rate of induction....and perhaps...would keep everyone happy with the gain of their shares..!

why not split it 6 ways, give each fighter a share of 34 each and that would bring up a figure of 204 (4 bonus, we can negotiate hard for those 4 to be given free). that way everyone gets something, and we can boast of having nearly every fighter in the world in IAF service. plus we can then say "don't sell to Pakistan" although with just 34 fighters of each type it may not work..

ok, enough sarcasm but really, please stop this whole "order from 2 or even 3 different sources" line of thought because its been made clear by retd. ACM Major that it will be a single source deal. Even if it wasn't made clear that it will be a single source deal, its quite obvious that the zoo that is the IAF orbat needs trimming in number of types and this has been discussed earlier as well. If you order from 2-3 OEMs for the same role, you show how stupid you are because you multiply the logistics headache, the maintenance headache, the training headache, all for pretty much nothing except to keep one or two other countries happy (which can be done via other deals as well considering how much we import). HAL will need to train its people for 2-3 different types of fighters, you'll need 2-3 different assembly lines with 2-3 different sets of jigs/tools/fixtures/manufacturing processes/drawings/suppliers, etc. and I can bet that you won't get fighters out of HAL any faster by making it more difficult for them.

Besides, the rate of induction doesn't just depend on how fast fighters can be built. It also depends on how fast the IAF can train its pilots to fly these. It was the one factor that decided how fast the IAF would be able to induct the Su-30MKI and the compressed schedule still doesn't allow for more than 15-20 MKIs per year. Add multiple types and you basically double the workload and kill off any economies of scale that can reduce unit acquisition, maintenance and training costs. You'll also need multiple types of Simulators/Operational Conversion Units/Schools for technicians and flight engineers/Separate ground infrastructure etc. all of which costs money and is not free. With each major type in IAF service there is one mega-base where most units are raised (like Gwalior with Mirage and Pune with MKI) and then they move to new airbases as newer units come along. With 2-3 types, this work as well as cost of infrastructure will get doubled.

Simplest decision is to stick to one vendor, get max ToT so that the fighter can be supported in India with some OEM support for the rest of its life and get rights to upgrade it on our own. Whichever OEM is most amiable to such an arrangement, giving best cost-benefit ratio as well as good capability and serves the strategic interest of allowing independence, should be chosen. The larger the numbers that we want, the more independence most OEMs will give because it makes such good business sense to get this order.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Feb 2010 23:47

I am not in agreement that the orders be split between nations., and most importantly getting to buying it outright with no ToT, is just a waste of big time, money and effort gone into thus far with MRCA procurement process. The objectives of MRCA must be met and one of them being tech transfer, be it engine or aesa radar. There must not be just an option to purchase but build it as well.

Mig assembly lines are tech transfer targets for the future replacement or they get enhanced for Sukhoi, pakfa and next generation of mig fighters. LCA/MCA and MRCA production lines may have many commonalities, is my assumption.

If it is out right purchase, why waste time in establishing documents for tech transfer..and if it is to bump up numbers, why wait.. take those old mirages fro quatar, or those f-solas from israel, or directly buy used super hornets from nations who are replacing them with JSF/raptors.

The objectives are not clearly mentioned for out right purchase.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 05 Feb 2010 02:01

Kartik wrote:directly buy used super hornets from nations who are replacing them with JSF/raptors.

I maybe uninformed here, but there aren't any nations replacing the SH with JSFs (forget Raptors).

Cybaru wrote:60 Growlers if MRCA has to happen and if USA is involved. That is nothing anyone else can supply. That would be a game changing addition.

This is an interesting scenario. So the idea would be to form attack outfits with a growler + 4-6 regular SHs to take out targets deep inside enemy territory? Does anybody have information on how they are being used in the USN?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Feb 2010 02:45

Devesh Rawal wrote:I maybe uninformed here, but there aren't any nations replacing the SH with JSFs (forget Raptors).

boss, first check whom you're quoting. I didn't make any such statement about buying second-hand Super Hornets and you've put my name as the one who made it. Not right.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Feb 2010 03:45

Devesh Rawal wrote:This is an interesting scenario. So the idea would be to form attack outfits with a growler + 4-6 regular SHs to take out targets deep inside enemy territory? Does anybody have information on how they are being used in the USN?

You could send in 2 growlers and some SH, but why SH ? You just need a few expensive ones and lots of cheapie ones in air.

Better still form a task group with the following
8-10 jags/mig-27/LCA with dumb bombs,
add 2 MKI for A-A support ( too take care of any paffes feeling curious)
add 2 Growlers for Jamming and Anti-Radiation work (To shut down all sorts of Radar and missile batteries) at location, during ingress and egress.
All under the watchful eyes of AWACS.

Send package where-ever u want without impunity. You can run a lo-hi mix very effectively and ensure a 100% mission rate.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 Feb 2010 05:15

This thread has long been deviated with no OBJECTIVE MRCA news/discussions... TIME TO PUT IT BACK ON TRACK!
Feature: Eurojet could transfer single crystal blade technology to India

04 Feb 2009 8ak: Eurojet management today confirmed that if required they are willing to transfer single crystal turbine blade technology. This is currently not under the scope of the LCA engine RFP and a separate commercial agreement would have to be signed.

Under the licensed-production of the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKI it is believed that Russia transferred some of this technology to India. However Mr Harmut Tenter, Managing Director of Eurojet claims that their technology is a generation ahead. This is a complex process in which the entire blade is a single giant crystal which is grown instead of being cut. As a result the blades can withstand up to 200 degree higher temperatures whilst also improving the efficiency, longevity and performance of the engine. More on the engine technology here.

On the offsets issue, Mr Tenter pointed out to the good working relationship of European companies with HAL, for example on the gearbox for the ALH Dhruv helicopter which is amongst the most advanced in the world. According to him Eurojet will be glad to partner with any company that the MoD nominates including HAL. In addition Eurojet is open to partnerships with the Indian private sector. Meanwhile in the U.K. Rolls Royce has won a US$1.4 billion contract to maintain the Eurojet engines in their Eurofighter Typhoons. In this light, 8ak asked Mr Tenter if there could be a role for the Indian private sector in engine maintenance; he replied that this is entirely possible but for the IAF and Government of India to decide.

While low initial orders would mean that the numbers may not justify setting up a complete production facility in India, Mr Tenter says that this is something they could consider in the future even for areas unrelated to the current engine order. Eurojet, like EADS, has repeatedly claimed that they are looking at long term partnerships and Mr Tenter points to the success of Airbus as an example of a successful, trans-national European consortium. Perhaps this was a hint that India needs to follow a co-development/global supply chain model rather than pursuring 100% indigenous one (for eg look at the state of our Saras regional aircraft).

On Feb 2 after the LCA test and demonstration, defence minister, Mr A.K. Anthony declared an additional 8,000 crores (~US$1.8b) for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas programme. It is believed that a significant portion of this is for the engine technology. While Sncema has offered to help resolve the problems with the Kaveri engine, the need of the IAF is immediate and it is felt that even our research agencies cannot now justify the delay that would arise from waiting for the Kaveri-Snecma engine to be developed. This means that only GE's F414 and Eurojet are in the competition for the LCA engine. GE has a lot of advantages but it would require re-designing the Tejas whereas Eurojet claims that no re-design would be required with their engine. Shiv Aroor has pointed out that no proof may exist to back this claim.

Some analysts feel that India would be more susceptible to sanctions from Eurojet, since it is a consortium of companies from 4 countries, than from the U.S. In response, Mr Tenter said European companies do not impose end-user controls on India and have proven to be reliable partners even during crises. As an example he pointed to the Kargil war, during which work on the Dhruv continued uninterrupted. This was even before Germany, the lead nation in the Eurojet consortium, signed a defence co-operation agreement with India in 2006, improving defence collaboration further. Mr Tenter added that should India choose Eurojet, it would enter a minimum 40 year relationship akin to a marriage and that Eurojet and their partner countries would take their commitment very seriously.

Reading a 2 year old article on the Kaveri - GE - Eurojet dilema, it seems that even though the issue was just as urgent 2 years ago, no action was taken. 8ak believes that whether GE or Eurojet wins, the issue must be resolved quickly and the long delayed Tejas must be brought to commercial production and the export of which will give India great international repute and the local industries the boost it needs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Feb 2010 05:36

So, this is another news report that points GE/EJ bid is in addition to GTRE-Snecma deal. Why not take either GE or EJ technology help to proceed with Kaveri-II help that matches 414/Ej200 specs. The problem would be later that IAF rejecting the Kaveri-Snecma deal that perhaps would generate about 90kN, and IAF would say, why we need this when we have our 414/EJ200s doing 105kN.

GTRE.. better change your project managment.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Feb 2010 07:10

Cybaru wrote:
Devesh Rawal wrote:This is an interesting scenario. So the idea would be to form attack outfits with a growler + 4-6 regular SHs to take out targets deep inside enemy territory? Does anybody have information on how they are being used in the USN?
You could send in 2 growlers and some SH, but why SH ? You just need a few expensive ones and lots of cheapie ones in air.

Better still form a task group with the following
8-10 jags/mig-27/LCA with dumb bombs,
add 2 MKI for A-A support ( too take care of any paffes feeling curious)
add 2 Growlers for Jamming and Anti-Radiation work (To shut down all sorts of Radar and missile batteries) at location, during ingress and egress.
All under the watchful eyes of AWACS.

Send package where-ever u want without impunity. You can run a lo-hi mix very effectively and ensure a 100% mission rate.

Only as a FYI:

Bill Sweetman :: India Boost For T-50

Specifically, ( (ret) Air Cmdr. Jasjit) Singh noted, "decisive military victory is a thing of the past between nuclear armed states - such as India and its neighbors, China and Pakistan. "Land war is limited to localized forces, below the nuclear threshold." Air power, he said, is the only instrument that can supply "the calibrated application of coercive force for political effect."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Feb 2010 15:32

There seems to be some extremely positive thinking and ambitions,that if the Super Horny is selected,the Growler will follow.With the US so careful to deny even its closest allies like the UK and Japan,the real cutting edge tech.,it will NEVER give India that force factor that will be decisive against its lover-boy Pak.Look at the way in which it is giving Pak 7 upgraded P-3 Orions to fight the Taliban navy?!

However,regarding the fate of the MMRCA contest,there is one clue that could indicate where the tilt lies and influence the final decision.It is in the LCA MK-2 engine decision.Here the EJ with TVC is pitted against GE's latest offering.A GE win would see the chances of the Super Horny soar.An EJ win would conversely see the SH's chances dim,though an EJ win would not neccessarily mean that the Typhoon is ahead of the pack,but it would give it significant leverage if we can afford the aircraft.The announcement that 20 more LCAs and the PAK-FA arrival has changed the scenario a lot.The ancient warbirds appear less attractive while the newer ones look prettier.It is also intriguing why the decision on the LCA engine is taking so long,when the MK-2 variant is critical to the IAF's future force,having committed to it now and that MK-2 has to appear on time.Is the GOI waiting for the completion of MMRCA evaluation,so that a bit of "juggling" can be done either way to bend the decision to favour a political decision?

In another report,there was a tibit that even the Typhoon crowd was looking at the SELEX AESA radar (on the Gripen) as their option.The Gripen crowd tout their radar as being better than that on the Rafale and if this correct (Typhoon interest),it makes the Swedes with their clear offer of full TOT,source codes,etc.,a v. strong contender.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Feb 2010 19:14

The US (or any other nation) will give India anything provided India can come close to acquiring it from another source (Indian or other). Now that India has the funds and her goepolitical environment actually suite everyone, IF India plays her cards right India can get pretty much what India wants - granted the very top notch stuff India will not get - to be expected.

But, this thinking that India has to rely on other nationS to get top notch stuff needs to go. That by itself is a major flaw and a hurdle for India. India is her own problem in many ways.

Just BTW, the UK does not have what India has today. Japan does not have what India has today. So, please stop thinking in terms of last century - it was valid in the last century, but IF Indians can stop thinking like that it will actually help accelerate some aspects of Indian lives.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Feb 2010 20:40

SewerHornet has no value. Only the growler has value for India. If thats not available, lets not even consider it. Even a smaller fleet of 30 with no TOT or anything makes sense.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 05 Feb 2010 20:42

Boeing offered India in case Super Hornet wins a Growler "light".
AFAIK how much downgraded this version would be was not published.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Feb 2010 20:49

Lite is not worth the time or money.

"Boeing plans to market an EA-18G "Growler Lite" tailored for an "electronic awareness" role rather than attack."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -lite.html

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 05 Feb 2010 21:29

Well, if you think about it that way, it is a great a/c for the US

India collects SIGINT and hand's it over to the US, to allow Boeing, NG, or Raytheon to update the Super Hornet's thread libary, since no one get's the necessary sourcecodes to do it themselves. (The British as America's closest ally are offered some kind of API key to feed this stuff into the JSF)
Very clever indeed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Feb 2010 21:39

Doesn't AN/ALQ99 system being outdated to later generation of LPI radars? For example against chinese S-400 systems these ECMs may be useless.

Why is that we should even accept the lite version, when the regular hornet itself is losing its sting?

Why not consider: EuroDASS, or some EADS-DRDO system that could be sanction proof.

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

However, India remains the biggest prize in the Asian market, and its fighter evaluation process is moving into the third phase with a long list of contestants.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the two U.S. contenders with the F/A-18E/F and the F-16IN, respectively. The Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen NG and MiG-35 also are in contention.

U.S. bidders are optimistic that Washington's improving military relationship with New Delhi will help. India already is buying Boeing P-8I maritime patrol aircraft and is finalizing a foreign military sales deal for 10 C-17s. Nevertheless, if India wants to spread around its largesse in procuring defense equipment, these purchases could actually prove to be a counterweight to further U.S. acquisitions.

In addition, attack and transport helicopter projects are up for grabs, but the Indian air force's tanker program seems to be in disarray. Having ostensibly selected an Airbus A330-based approach, the competition is now being reopened.

The sometime fickle nature of Indian procurement may prove a challenge for U.S. companies that are unfamiliar with the often opaque nature of the process.

Farther down the road, the nation is looking to buy additional carrier-launched aircraft, although only requests for information have been released. Boeing, Eurofighter, Dassault, Lockheed Martin, MiG and Saab could emerge as contenders, should the procurement move ahead.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 012910.xml

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Feb 2010 22:32

Cybaru wrote:Lite is not worth the time or money.

"Boeing plans to market an EA-18G "Growler Lite" tailored for an "electronic awareness" role rather than attack."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -lite.html

Well ................ it seems have come out of client/customer recs!!!!

I would still hope India takes a look at it.

Them sensors ..................................

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2010 05:22

From Jan, 2010 issue of DTI (Aviationweek.com/dti - the Feb issue is one the web), there is an interview Yuri Guskov, Deputy General Director and Chief Designer spoke about the Phazotron's AESA technology. (I could not find a link - yet.)

But, the interview seems to provide indicators that MiG lacks the confidence and is really not ready for the MRCA.

One has to read the entire interview and come to an conclusion, but let me post some snippets:

................. In developing the AESA radar, we had to settle on some technical solutions. For example, we decided that the power of each modue should be 5 watts. Some say more power is needed, but that requires a powerful energy and cooling system, which means engine trust and cooling suffer. AESA designers understand that 5-6 watts of power is enough to make an optimal radar without redesigning the aircraft.

Have you tested the Zhik-AE on MiG-35 prototypes?

(Ans): {The tests in India - in Sept-Oct}. This didn't include Zhuk-AE testing.

.............

Zhuk-AE will be installed on MiG-35 prototypes for the third stage of the competition trails, which starts in January. Before then, our radar will be tested here on a MiG-35 demonstrator

Our radar tracks 30 ................eight displayed. {displays} friend or foe, direction, altitude, range. This makes it difficult to display too many targets. ........... As far as range, the Indian requirement is 130 km. (80 mi.)

There you have one data point from the RFP.

............ the Zhuk-AE prototype's array is just 500 mm. (20 in.) in diameter. I told MiG that when it comes to serial production, I'll move the radar back in teh fuselage to increase diameter to about 700 mm. ................. The range will grow 40% - to 160-170 km. I will demonstrate the projected range of teh final version to the Indian customer by calculations.

The Zhuk-AE with the larger antenna will be developed regardless of whether the MiG-35 wins the competition. It is expected to be ready by the end of 2010. .................................

He claims that they will be able to "soon be able to determine the national identity of an aircraft by its echo".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2010 13:27

Here's a note from the S'Pore air show,about Northrop getting the green light for export of their AESAradar,but the phrase "country specific" indicates that not everyone will get it,in fact the report says "couple" indicating that just S'Pore and SoKo will get it.Those who think that the US will open its entire warehouse of cuting edge tech to India should think again,especially in the light of the US always preferring Pak to India militarily speaking.What it is trying to do to India is to castrate our independent military capability and shoehorn India into becoming another pathetic rent-boy like Pak,even compromising our stand on crossbordre terror and Kashmir to Pak's advantage.Current events speak for themselves.

Northrop Grumman Receives Export License For SABR AESA Radar

Feb 3, 2010
Singapore Air Show
On Tuesday Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems (NGES) announced that they have received a form DSP-5 from the US Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC) for the Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) program. The DSP-5 is the export license necessary to begin technical discussions with potential foreign customers.

“SABR is an Active Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) radar designed as a retrofit option for nations that wish to sustain the operational effectiveness of their F-16s beyond originally planned parameters,” said Dave Silvia, NGES manager of business development, F-16 programs.

The export licenses are country specific, but the company did not name the nations they have now been cleared to enter into detailed technical discussions with.

“We have a couple of licenses to pursue this technical dialogue with customers in a couple of regions,” he said.

He declined to elaborate if the word “couple” should be interpreted more narrowly to mean just “two.” Singapore and South Korea have been thought to be the two most likely prospects.

Worldwide, NGES see a potential market of 1500-2000 F-16s that could be SABR customers. The unknown factor is when and how many aircraft the USAF and Air National Guard might also be prepared to upgrade with an AESA retrofit by either NGES or their competitors at Raytheon.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2010 14:59

Those who think that the US will open its entire warehouse of cuting edge tech to India should think again,

RFP? Assuming WE are talking of the MRCA.

ALL vendors have stated that they will meet RFP?

Besides THIS clearance is for "as a retrofit option". India does not fly any F-16s ...... so, no issues there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2010 15:27

pakistan will get it

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Feb 2010 15:40

Singha wrote:pakistan will get it

Well put Sinhaji. We are only helping Pak if we select F 16

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2010 17:01

Well, our strategy should not just assume pakis will get it, and so lets get it too [lame]. Our strategy should be get one that makes pakis' (future) radar inferior by capabilities and range.

now, which one? [let's assume pakis will get apg-80/81 {sorry}]

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 06 Feb 2010 17:07

If the Brazilian news reports regarding the pricing of the packages being offered are to be believed, How the HELL are we going to afford 126 jets for 10.2billion incl sales, support, maintainence, etc... And all those harping about multiple-vendor contracts should check this out.......

It said the total Rafale deal was worth 10.2 billion dollars, comprising 6.2 billion dollars for the fighters themselves -- down from a previous 8.2 billion -- and four billion for maintenance over the next three decades.

The discount still made the Rafale more expensive than its rivals, it said, putting the Boeing package at 7.6 billion dollars (including 5.7 billion dollars for the F/A-18s themselves) and the Saab offer at 6.0 billion (with the Gripen planes accounting for 4.5 billion dollars).

I think we can safely say Bye Bye Rafale... NG & Mig look hot with the price tag..

I hope we end up negotiating a good package given the sheer volume of our deal, no matter what vendor the IAF end up selecting..

Here's the full report..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... qqVEx7OCEg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2010 17:33

Rafale faces extinction after pak-fa. 2012 is Rafale's dead end for any major sale.

EADS fights for survival and may revive only on pricing strategy & perhaps clever offsets including those research centers at Bangalore[taking IIT & IISc talents] for research in aerospace noise reduction.

But the primary aspect would be what IAF wants.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 06 Feb 2010 18:36

In the same breath.. Lulla gives Rafale hope, says TOT the principle factor in the jet deal, not withstanding price.. Rafale pledges full TOT.. With the bucks it's forking out for Paris, I am sure brazil settle for nothing less.....

In an interview with the local Jornal do Comercio, Lula insisted that the decision will take into account the technology transfer to be offered by the bidding competitors.

"One of the main exigencies is the company's commitment to promote the unrestricted transfer of all technology," said Lula.

He stressed the decision on the jets shall consider the need for national defense policy as "an axis of development and technological autonomy."

Looks like temprory gloom before eventual doom for Rafale..

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/9077 ... 89514.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Feb 2010 22:01

Brazilian deal is a diff animal.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Feb 2010 00:39

TOT or transfer of technology is a largely bogus term since the recepient country is only ever able to absorb screw driver technology and little else.

Nobody is going to give Indian scientists and engineers a 15 year lesson on how to do R&D and come up with a product like the F-22. Nor is the R&D infrastructure going to be transferred. This kind of stuff only comes by doing and retaining the folks who managed to do it.

I'm sure a lot of the planes being pitched to India will be low balled on the purchase price but then high balled on the maintanance cost. In the more extreme scenario, you got the Russians who after getting the money start to delay and eventually default on contract demanding more money.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Feb 2010 00:55

Singha wrote:pakistan will get it

I don't think that they will get either the RACR or SABR. they just went in for a Falcon Star upgrade and their older F-16A/Bs will get the APG-68(V)9 as will their brand new F-16 Block 52s. They've already started receiving a few of their older F-16s after upgrades. If they had delayed their upgrades they would be prime candidates for either of these retrofit AESAs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Feb 2010 04:43

Neshant wrote:TOT or transfer of technology is a largely bogus term since the recepient country is only ever able to absorb screw driver technology and little else.

WRT the MRCA the ToT is guided by teh RFP - drivers included.

However, at least the US vendors, have stated that some of the techs they are willing to part with India is not able to absorb. Did we absorb everything RU tossed for the MKI? Dunno, but that should be an indicator.

Nobody is going to give Indian scientists and engineers a 15 year lesson on how to do R&D and come up with a product like the F-22. Nor is the R&D infrastructure going to be transferred. This kind of stuff only comes by doing and retaining the folks who managed to do it.

Open cupboard ............. now F-22. Where does all this come from for the MRCA? RFP? All vendors have stated - so far - that will meet the RFP.

I'm sure a lot of the planes being pitched to India will be low balled on the purchase price but then high balled on the maintanance cost. In the more extreme scenario, you got the Russians who after getting the money start to delay and eventually default on contract demanding more money.

Life cycle cost?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Feb 2010 19:12

Boeing lobbying hard for F/A-18's...

When India announced its intention to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth at least $10 billion to begin with, Missouri’s Republican senator Kit Bond headed off to New Delhi in no time. The prime reason: Boeing manufactures the F-18 Super Hornet jets in St Louis, Missouri, where bagging the 126-plane India order could mean continued employment for 25,000 people, not to speak of profits for Boeing.

Bond met with the Prime Minister, the defence minister, the national security advisor and the external affairs minister, among others, openly lobbying for the F-18 Super Hornet. “Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, the F-15 and F/A-18 are the finest tactical fighters for our nation’s and our allies’ defence,” he said at one point.

“The US is looking to India as more than just a marketplace for our defence products, but as a technology, aerospace and strategic partner for our future endeavours.” That deal is still up in the air (the Russians, Swedes, French and British are also in the race) as New Delhi puts the bidders through user trials etc, but don’t expect the Americans to sit back

I have this sneaky feeling that the Sh's might just swoop the deal.... I'm not complaining