India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[Cain Marko]

Trying to contend with a J20 (assuming it works as well as advertised), will not be easy for any of the MRCA contenders. The best bet here will be the Pakfa although the EF and Super 30 could be of some value here as well. Instead of making the MRCA EF2K, I'd prefer it if the RAfale was chosen and a large amount of the Su-30 upg. was devoted to maximizing its a2a abilities. At least a part of the fleet should be thus optimized just as a part of it will be optimized for specialized strike missions via Brahmos delivery roles.

The IAF MKI fleet is massive and dedicating a few sqds to Air superiority as a primary mission might not be a bad idea: Equip these birds with the best IRST, radar, engine package available even if it means a slightly different supply chain. What i'd really like to see here:

1) L-band radar in wing edges (and possibly vert. stabilizers) for ultra long detection - AWACS type duties.
2) Full spectrum, internal EW suite - allowing for passive detection/tracking (I think the latest on the Su-35 allows for aerial tracking of targets passively).
3) TV/IIR channel IRST
4) RCS reduction: use of composites, RAM, and Conformal carriage of weapons, at least 6 AAMs - not necessarily in internal bays
5) VLRAAMs - 200km
6) High powered engines than current AL-31FPs and 3D TVC, allowing for higher ceiling
7) Super powerful radar - either the Bars II or a full AESA allowing for detection of 1-3msq targets @ 450km. Fully capable of guiding 200-300km AAMs.
Powerful datalink.
9) Greater amount of fuel capacity either by increasing internal fuel to Su-35 standard OR by adding plumbing for EFTs, or adding a "humpback" CFT ala MiG-29SMT or even getting rid of WSO and substituting fuel ala MiG-29K

What am I missing? I think a bird of this nature has the best chance of detecting VLO type threats. The EF too will be good, but the pure raw power available through a flanker platform makes it the best non VLO platform vs. stealth targets imo. If not anything else, at least it should have the fuel reserves required for exiting hot zones with alacrity on full ABs.

And of course, such an a/c would be useful as a mini-AWACs platform in enemy skies - rather not see lumbering phalcons hanging about in such zones. A few dedicated birds will go a long ways in imposing the necessary NFZ over TSP for eg.

[Yagnasri]

I think we are missing a point while mentioning J20. No one seen it fly other than ChiPanda Advertisment vedios. What ever we know about is from peoples daily type news items. What is the Engine that is going to power this massive plane? How much thrust is need and how efficient is that engine? Does J20 is airodynamic to take on even a highly mature 4th Gen fighter like SU30 MKI? We have a great knowledge about MKI and we are fairly well informed about EF and Raf. What is the information we have about J20? Almost none in comparision. We are just taking what ever Chipanda says and things that we are going to be attacked by huge no's of big bad dragons from north. China pushed a old USSR made Carrier with a Suqd of fighters and evey one here shivers as if is the going some and attack Chennai.

But the way what is the record of Chipanda made aircrafts so for? I mean " made" from design onwards not Mig19 clones with imported Engines. While underestimating is a very bad thing over estimation is also very bad thing.

[Cain Marko]

^ True enough - we don't know much about J20 (hence, the "assuming it works" part in my last post), however, it is rather obvious what the Chinese are trying to do, and I am under no illusion that they'll get it right sooner or later, perhaps later than sooner, but their intent is clear. And so is the fact that most press sources feel that it is a credible achievement.

So, none of the above posts are indicative of any overestimation; "guesstimation" perhaps but certainly no overestimation or dhoti shivering, to use Herr Doc's oft quoted term.

We are working on the assumption and a rather fair one, that in the future J20 type threats will be more common, and the IAF will have to deal with them. While there may be a myriad number of ways to deal with such threats, as of now the conversation restricts itself in terms of the ability of fighter a/c of the non VLO type to deal with 5gen fighters. And quite specifically, how it might be answered via the MRCA and other IAF assets.

[SaiK]

well, the intent of enemy fighter is enough for drafting our requirements. they don't have to show their capabilities, that we can assume till it is validated during a real war.

[Cain Marko]

By the way, I don't see why the MKI can't get the article 117 engine which was tested on the old Su-35 (closest counterpart of the MKI). If it can fit the Su-35 (the old test bed not the current single seater), I don't see why it won't on an MKI. At least the A2A oriented birds could do with this massive jump in thrust. And a good weight reduction exercise, which was anyways meant to be carried out over the last 10 years, might well mean that we are looking at TWRs equal or greater than the EF-2000.

[Kartik]

By the way, I don't see why the MKI can't get the article 117 engine which was tested on the old Su-35 (closest counterpart of the MKI). If it can fit the Su-35 (the old test bed not the current single seater), I don't see why it won't on an MKI. At least the A2A oriented birds could do with this massive jump in thrust. And a good weight reduction exercise, which was anyways meant to be carried out over the last 10 years, might well mean that we are looking at TWRs equal or greater than the EF-2000.

So if we'd be re-engining the Super-30s with the 117S replacing the Al-31Fs, what happens to the infrastructure set up to build those AL-31Fs? Its after all only now that Koraput is making the AL-31F on its own from raw materials, so what on earth would we have gained from its ToT if the entire fleet would be replaced with the 117S?

[Singha]

afaik the su35 engine is not a plug n play with su30 engine bay...the higher mass flow requirement might also need intake redesign and fuel system changes to use it fully...so its not going to happen. (wiki: It features a fan 3% larger in diameter (932 millimetres (36.7 in) versus 905 millimetres (35.6 in)), advanced high- and low-pressure turbines, an all-new digital control system and thrust is 142kN peak vs 123kN peak)

but a EDE/EPE version of the AL31FP could be used...some ideas might already exist in darker corners of the Saturn labs.
it could be paid for by India, with a undertaking by Saturn not to re-export it and used in the MLU of our first MKIs starting around 2020....

[SaiK]

The khans are focusing on VAATE engines for the future:
Specific improvements
to be achieved through VAATE include:
• 200% increase in engine thrust-to-weight ratio (a key jet engine design parameter)
• 25% reduction in engine fuel consumption (and thus fuel cost)
• 60% reduction in engine development, procurement, and life cycle maintenance cost

http://www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/VAATE.pdf

[Cain Marko]

So if we'd be re-engining the Super-30s with the 117S replacing the Al-31Fs, what happens to the infrastructure set up to build those AL-31Fs? Its after all only now that Koraput is making the AL-31F on its own from raw materials, so what on earth would we have gained from its ToT if the entire fleet would be replaced with the 117S?

Let me clarify: only a part of the fleet would be reengined; only those that would be primarily tasked with air superiority roles. Yes, it would be wasteful to some extent perhaps, however, if it is similar to Pakfa engines, commonality can be built and it won't be entirely wasteful. Moreover, learning to build the engine from locally sourced raw materials should have advantages in R&D apart from the purely commercial. These at least, will not be lost.

afaik the su35 engine is not a plug n play with su30 engine bay...the higher mass flow requirement might also need intake redesign and fuel system changes to use it fully...so its not going to happen. (wiki: It features a fan 3% larger in diameter (932 millimetres (36.7 in) versus 905 millimetres (35.6 in)), advanced high- and low-pressure turbines, an all-new digital control system and thrust is 142kN peak vs 123kN peak)

but a EDE/EPE version of the AL31FP could be used...some ideas might already exist in darker corners of the Saturn labs.
it could be paid for by India, with a undertaking by Saturn not to re-export it and used in the MLU of our first MKIs starting around 2020....

Singha garu: Options exist. AFAIK, the article Saturn 117 (15 tons for prototype Pakfa) that I mentioned is not the 117s (14.5 tons) that is for the Su-35BM. The Pakfa is smaller than the Su-35, and I assume so is its engine, which was tested therefore on the older Su-35 (remember that one?) - the precursor to the MKI, only a little more fuel, single seater, and similar triplane config.

And there are other alternatives besides. For e.g. Salyut makes the plug n play version with more thrust such as the AL-31 FM series all the way upto 14.5-15K tons thrust. In a worst case scenario, even an FM1 (13.5 tons) vs. the FP (12.5 tons), which has already been tried on Su-27 derivatives without much difficulty could be an option.

Btw, FWIW, Saturn advertises the 117S (SU-35BM engine) as retrofitable to older flanker variants without too much jhanjat:

Geometry and mounts of the 117S engine are similar to its predecessors, i.e. AL-31F and AL-31FP engines. This gives an opportunity to use the 117S engine, with slightly retrofitted engine nacelle and equipment, for the re-engining of earlier built Sukhoi-27/30 fighters, operational by Russian and foreign Air Forces.

IIRC, it was the Salyut based FM series that was initially rejected by the VVS for requiring problematic structural changes to the flanker. Btw, anyone know what happened to the Al-31FU engine that was on the Su-37 (Terminator)?

CM.

[nachiket]

Btw, anyone know what happened to the Al-31FU engine that was on the Su-37 (Terminator)?

CM.

It was the AL-37FU IIRC.

[RKumar]

I was talking to someone regarding Eurofighter, he worked on the software of it. He was saying the code is a mess, quite difficult to maintain. He was wondering what will India do even if they get the code.

[Will]

I was talking to someone regarding Eurofighter, he worked on the software of it. He was saying the code is a mess, quite difficult to maintain. He was wondering what will India do even if they get the code.

Rework it using our desi expertise They would then be dependent on desh for our cutting edge software

[Jaybhatt]

Please see what I had suggested in my post on Page 82 on the 30th November 2011.

At least one other friend has posted on the same lines.

The Swiss Parliament must ratify the decision of the country's Federal Council (roughly equivalent to our Union Cabinet).

It is far from certain that the Parliament will rubber stamp the Federal Council's choice. There is already a groundswell of opposition ; the former Chief of Staff of the Swiss Air Force has openly criticised the decision. From leaked reports, it is also clear that the current chief of their Air Force had also recommended the Rafale categorically. Already, one senior Parliamentarian, a former pilot, has said that he will oppose the Gripen choice.

Therefore, dear friends and comrades, please do not come to a conclusion either way on the Swiss decision. It is early days as yet.

[vasu_ray]

At the end of the day, the IAF is going to upgrade its 270 Sukhois to the Super 30 and further standards, purchase some 189 MMRCAs, have 120-180 Tejas and upgrade its Jaguars, MiG-29s and Mirages all of which have been signed off on. Plus it intends for 200 more FGFA class platforms. I think it can hold its own against the PAF and PLAAF even in a two front scenario.

To succeed in the sort of TAR scenario you have mentioned, the need of the hour are more and more PGMs (one pass, one sortie success) and long range ASMs to strike against heavily defended C3I nodes and missile networks. We know DRDO has finally kicked off with the Sudarshan, but over the coming decade we really need to build up huge stocks of LGBs to ASMs. In the recent Libyan campaign, each AF expended several hundreds of top of the line PGMs (off the top of my head, France some 200+ AASMs, several hundred LGBs, UK some 700 LGBs and so forth). Against the PLA and PLAAF we really need PGMs in massive quantities. The Astra also needs to become a success, fast. Again, use rates of BVR missiles in a heavy air campaign will be high.

We also need ASTOR type platforms and hyperspectral imaging for accurate targeting.

These to my mind, are the key issues. Not just the fighter platforms. Whichever we get, I am sure the IAF will employ it optimally.

Thanks Karan, appreciate your insights and the nice explanation

Is there any open info on how the Gripen compares with the F-16 blk 50 in terms of maneuverability and with Blk 60 in terms of avionics?

[shukla]

'Combat aircraft contest not over'
Ajay Shukla - Business Standard

India’s has decided differently, short-listing the Typhoon and Rafale over the Gripen NG in New Delhi’s ongoing selection of 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). But, visiting Linkoping, Business Standard sees little despondency. With India’s defence ministry (MoD) uncomfortable with how it might have to double its $10.5 billion allocation for those heavy fighters, Gripen is not ruling itself out of the MMRCA competition.
“It’s not over till it’s over,” says Eddy de la Motte, Head of Gripen Export. “We have been and are still confident that Gripen is the perfect match for the IAF as well as for the Indian defence and aviation industry.”

Eddy de la Motte also points out that Gripen has provided details of its Sea Gripen fighter (which is still being developed) in response to an Indian Navy’s enquiry.

Executives in Linkoping all insist that the Gripen NG — the New Generation version of the current Gripen-D fighter —would provide India with the fighter it needs for a far cheaper procurement and operating cost. They say it would be one-third the cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, calculated on a “through-life” basis.

We tour the Linkoping facility, which was set up in 1930, when Sweden was unable to buy fighters because of the embargoes that preceded World War II. Over the next eight decades, a fierce focus on aerospace R&D — 20 per cent of revenues to back into research — has driven the development of world-beating aircraft at Linkoping. These include the Saab-21A in 1945 (the world’s first aircraft with an ejection seat); the Saab 29 Tunnan (the first aircraft with swept wings); and the Viggen, which the Indian Air Force had selected in the 1970s as a ground strike aircraft. But an angry Washington, seething from India’s nuclear experiment in Pokhran, vetoed the supply of its American-origin engines to India. The IAF bought the Jaguar instead.

Today, Linkoping is dedicated to the Gripen. Over 200 Gripens currently fly with five air forces — Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, Czech Republic and Hungary — and Switzerland will be the sixth. Gripen is also a leading contender (along with the Rafale) in the Brazilian Air Force’s purchase of medium fighters.

But India demanded a more capable aircraft than the current Gripen-D; and Saab offered its futuristic Gripen NG fighter, of which only a single prototype exists.

Housed in a secluded hangar, the Gripen NG is discernably bigger than the Gripen-D. The earlier Gripen fighters were light, agile fighters, which could land and take off from 800-metre stretches of regular highway. A carefully inbuilt ability to be refuelled and rearmed within just 10 minutes of landing allowed a small number of Gripen-Ds to fly as many sorties as a significantly larger number of heavier-maintenance fighters. But, along with low maintenance, India wanted a heavier fighter, with more weaponry and a longer range and endurance. Enter the Gripen NG.

“The NG is essentially a Mark III Gripen fighter. The Gripen A/B, a 12-tonne light fighter, was the Mark I. This went up to 14-tonnes in the Gripen C/D, which can be considered the Mark II. Our latest development, the Gripen NG, will be a 16.5 tonne medium fighter,” explains de la Motte.

That extra weight includes an additional tonne of fuel. Along with two 450-gallon fuel pods on the wings, this allows the Gripen NG to fly a staggering 4,100 kilometres. On internal fuel alone, it flies 2,500 kilometres. That exceeds the range of much bigger aircraft like the Typhoon.

Moving the undercarriage to the wings for enlarging the fuel tanks also created space for two additional hard points (on which weapons are mounted). The Gripen NG now has ten stations, extraordinary for a 16-tonne fighter. Flying into combat, it would typically carry two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles on its wingtips, which can shoot down enemy aircraft 25 kilometres away; two Meteor beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, deadly accurate at ranges in excess of 100 kilometres; two fuel pods with 900 gallons of fuel; three GBU-12 precision-guided bombs for ground targets; and a reconnaissance pod.

To power all this weight, the Gripen-D’s General Electric F-404 engine is being replaced with the advanced F-414 engine, an upgrade that is common to India’s Tejas fighter. With thrust increased from 18,000 pounds to 22,000 pounds, the Gripen NG already super-cruises, or flies supersonic in economy mode.

But the NG’s real strength is the cockpit, which is built to delight a fighter pilot. Using Saab’s acknowledged data link capability, information is drawn from multiple sensors inside and outside the aircraft, including satellites. A terabyte-capacity computer screens out superfluous information, providing the pilot only the best input of each category. This allows him to concentrate on battle, rather than handling information.

And finally, the pilot has satellite communications, permitting him to communicate across the globe. In a sensitive situation — such as an attack that could start, or escalate a war, or even on a nuclear strike mission — the pilot might need to take permission before launching weapons. This could be done over the satellite radio.

“During the Indian trials, when the Gripen successfully took off from Leh, the pilot called Linkoping on the satellite radio to say all is well,” said one of the Gripen NG pilots.

[saptarishi]

'Combat aircraft contest not over'
Ajay Shukla - Business Standard

India’s has decided differently, short-listing the Typhoon and Rafale over the Gripen NG in New Delhi’s ongoing selection of 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). But, visiting Linkoping, Business Standard sees little despondency. With India’s defence ministry (MoD) uncomfortable with how it might have to double its $10.5 billion allocation for those heavy fighters, Gripen is not ruling itself out of the MMRCA competition.
“It’s not over till it’s over,” says Eddy de la Motte, Head of Gripen Export. “We have been and are still confident that Gripen is the perfect match for the IAF as well as for the Indian defence and aviation industry.”

Eddy de la Motte also points out that Gripen has provided details of its Sea Gripen fighter (which is still being developed) in response to an Indian Navy’s enquiry.

Executives in Linkoping all insist that the Gripen NG — the New Generation version of the current Gripen-D fighter —would provide India with the fighter it needs for a far cheaper procurement and operating cost. They say it would be one-third the cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, calculated on a “through-life” basis.

We tour the Linkoping facility, which was set up in 1930, when Sweden was unable to buy fighters because of the embargoes that preceded World War II. Over the next eight decades, a fierce focus on aerospace R&D — 20 per cent of revenues to back into research — has driven the development of world-beating aircraft at Linkoping. These include the Saab-21A in 1945 (the world’s first aircraft with an ejection seat); the Saab 29 Tunnan (the first aircraft with swept wings); and the Viggen, which the Indian Air Force had selected in the 1970s as a ground strike aircraft. But an angry Washington, seething from India’s nuclear experiment in Pokhran, vetoed the supply of its American-origin engines to India. The IAF bought the Jaguar instead.

Today, Linkoping is dedicated to the Gripen. Over 200 Gripens currently fly with five air forces — Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, Czech Republic and Hungary — and Switzerland will be the sixth. Gripen is also a leading contender (along with the Rafale) in the Brazilian Air Force’s purchase of medium fighters.

But India demanded a more capable aircraft than the current Gripen-D; and Saab offered its futuristic Gripen NG fighter, of which only a single prototype exists.

Housed in a secluded hangar, the Gripen NG is discernably bigger than the Gripen-D. The earlier Gripen fighters were light, agile fighters, which could land and take off from 800-metre stretches of regular highway. A carefully inbuilt ability to be refuelled and rearmed within just 10 minutes of landing allowed a small number of Gripen-Ds to fly as many sorties as a significantly larger number of heavier-maintenance fighters. But, along with low maintenance, India wanted a heavier fighter, with more weaponry and a longer range and endurance. Enter the Gripen NG.

“The NG is essentially a Mark III Gripen fighter. The Gripen A/B, a 12-tonne light fighter, was the Mark I. This went up to 14-tonnes in the Gripen C/D, which can be considered the Mark II. Our latest development, the Gripen NG, will be a 16.5 tonne medium fighter,” explains de la Motte.

That extra weight includes an additional tonne of fuel. Along with two 450-gallon fuel pods on the wings, this allows the Gripen NG to fly a staggering 4,100 kilometres. On internal fuel alone, it flies 2,500 kilometres. That exceeds the range of much bigger aircraft like the Typhoon.

Moving the undercarriage to the wings for enlarging the fuel tanks also created space for two additional hard points (on which weapons are mounted). The Gripen NG now has ten stations, extraordinary for a 16-tonne fighter. Flying into combat, it would typically carry two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles on its wingtips, which can shoot down enemy aircraft 25 kilometres away; two Meteor beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, deadly accurate at ranges in excess of 100 kilometres; two fuel pods with 900 gallons of fuel; three GBU-12 precision-guided bombs for ground targets; and a reconnaissance pod.

To power all this weight, the Gripen-D’s General Electric F-404 engine is being replaced with the advanced F-414 engine, an upgrade that is common to India’s Tejas fighter. With thrust increased from 18,000 pounds to 22,000 pounds, the Gripen NG already super-cruises, or flies supersonic in economy mode.

But the NG’s real strength is the cockpit, which is built to delight a fighter pilot. Using Saab’s acknowledged data link capability, information is drawn from multiple sensors inside and outside the aircraft, including satellites. A terabyte-capacity computer screens out superfluous information, providing the pilot only the best input of each category. This allows him to concentrate on battle, rather than handling information.

And finally, the pilot has satellite communications, permitting him to communicate across the globe. In a sensitive situation — such as an attack that could start, or escalate a war, or even on a nuclear strike mission — the pilot might need to take permission before launching weapons. This could be done over the satellite radio.

“During the Indian trials, when the Gripen successfully took off from Leh, the pilot called Linkoping on the satellite radio to say all is well,” said one of the Gripen NG pilots.

col shukla at it again,first he tried to convince everyone that f-35 is a better option now he is wooing with gripen.it is good to have your own opinionin a democracy.but this is too much.he is so much against this mmrca.i do not get it,why cant he see that going for rafale or eurofighter is the best option if india wants to fight a two front war. mmrca is the best companion for mki and fgfa . a rafale or typhoon with storm shadow/taurus and meteor can be a big game changer..its about time col shukla abandons his anti mmrca stance and thinks practically.his articles cannot change IAF'S mind when american and russian political pressure couldn't. iaf is hellbent on gettin two best jets at this point of time....i agree that col shukla writes good articles but this is too much

[SaiK]

“It’s not over till it’s over,”

how about:

“It’s not DONE till it’s DONE,” ?

[raj-ji]

I think we are missing a point while mentioning J20. No one seen it fly other than ChiPanda Advertisment vedios. What ever we know about is from peoples daily type news items. What is the Engine that is going to power this massive plane? How much thrust is need and how efficient is that engine? Does J20 is airodynamic to take on even a highly mature 4th Gen fighter like SU30 MKI? We have a great knowledge about MKI and we are fairly well informed about EF and Raf. What is the information we have about J20? Almost none in comparision. We are just taking what ever Chipanda says and things that we are going to be attacked by huge no's of big bad dragons from north. China pushed a old USSR made Carrier with a Suqd of fighters and evey one here shivers as if is the going some and attack Chennai.

But the way what is the record of Chipanda made aircrafts so for? I mean " made" from design onwards not Mig19 clones with imported Engines. While underestimating is a very bad thing over estimation is also very bad thing.

Great point. The grass always seems greener, but it's good to check this for a fact than assume it.

F22, F35 and FGFA all having technical issues recently makes one think of the steep learning curve involved with this generation aircraft, and how the Pandas are coping with it when the Americans and Russians have their hand's full.

We may be looking forward but IMO air-to-air, if the caliber of the pilots are the same, none of the MRCA candidates can get the better of the SU30MKI.

[SaiK]

Instead of abstract dhoti-shivering, why not bring the concrete information of J20 and present the right data? Nobody needs to over or underestimate. Perhaps in another thread unless it is threatening the MRCA.

[Jaybhatt]

Ajay Shukla's Antics - it is sad and interesting at the same time to see (and read) Ajay Shukla's disingenuousness.

Thank you, Saptarishi, for pointing this out candidly. Ajay Shula (AS) is performing a ridiculous solo act now.

For the last few months,AS was peddling the Lockheed - Martin manifesto. Now, he has latched on to the Gripen bandwagon. He would have the IAF cancel its entire MMRCA programme (with all its tests / evaluations etc.) in order to accommodate an aircraft that exists only on paper. As he himself admits, in an aside, there is only one prototype of the Gripen NG.

Are these people serious, at all ? They thrive in the capital's incestuous cocktail circuit, but national security in their psyche ? A big question mark.

[suryag]

I guess you folks are taking his preference for a particular system over another in a negative manner. Everyone has a right to arrive at an opinion and stick with it, that doesnt mean he has been sold out. He holds some strong views so what? Ours is a free country and it is left to you to take it or leave it.

[saptarishi]

I guess you folks are taking his preference for a particular system over another in a negative manner. Everyone has a right to arrive at an opinion and stick with it, that doesnt mean he has been sold out. He holds some strong views so what? Ours is a free country and it is left to you to take it or leave it.

he is a patriot no doubt.the question of being sold out doesn't come.the question is why is he shouting now when the winner is about to be declared.it is too late folks.iaf and GOI have already made up their minds. suggesting that the iaf cancels mmrca now and goes for f-35 or cheaper gripen is ridiculous. it is a democracy .everyone's opinion is respected but writing such articles now at this point of time i think is inappropiate . his censorious tone when dealing with mmrca stuff is hurting. does he want us to believe that the rigorous process of mmrca selection as undertaken by iaf is ludicrous.
if we carefully observe hi posts,his opinions say it all. the problems in f-35 programme be it escalation of costs, cancellation of second engine, technical complications in the helmet mounted display {prompting lockheed to seek bae display}and many more such problems leading to inordinate delays ,makes it impossible for the f-35 to enter service by 2015. and gripen we all know can be lca killer.

[Christopher Sidor]

With rupee expected to touch Rs 55 to a dollar, what happens to this deal's financials?

[rajanb]

^^^
Chris:

One, There would be forecasts on Forex spend and the Govt. would be taking out forward contracts. Two, if it is from our $ reserves it doesnt really hit us because the average cost per the $ reserve would be lowere the Rs. 55/=. And thirdly the total spend would be spread over a decade or two.

Maybe some finance guru can throw some more light.

[Philip]

Col. "Saunders" Shukla yet again! You know he is providing us with much entertainment and mirth for us in especially in the fast-approaching festive season. His "junk-food" recommendations for the MMRCA are delightful.I've just been chewing on AWST's latest issue with the Pentagon's official alarm at the number of "hotspots" appearing in the review of the JSF,which will add much time and cost to the programme,the abandoning of an alternative engine,which some poss. buyers wanted,and the date also official given earlier,that the aircraft will enter service for the USAF only in 2019 !

His main aim,this latter day Col.Quixote,is tilting at the two European "windmills".He somehow has an aversion for them both,feelings of past unrequited love perhaps? Never you mind,the good Col. now wants to crashland the LCA by advocating that we buy the Gripen.I can understand that need better.....if one was a quisling perhaps! For one,there has been no offical statement that we are dumping the LCA at all,though its conception has taken far more time than a usual delivery and perhaps a "Caesarean" is required (for the project managers!).Secondly,the need is certainly for a twin-engined aircraft,from almost every senior IAF expert spoken too,to meet both PAF and PLAAF challenges in the future.Better peformance and survivability and packed with the best of the (European) west, tech-wise.

The only factor that might stall the two Eurobirds is the cost factor,as some sources say that the difference is very small cost-wise,indicating a cartel approach by Europe! This might then play the ball back into the beancounting half,wher any amount of mischiefmakers might ask for a review of the entire needs of the IAF.We've had the decades long acquisition of artillery for the IA,plus the wold record in deciding upon the Hawk as the late AJT,so why not "go with the flow" for the MMRCA? While the two love-birds,Merkel and Sarko sit together and determine the future of the Euro this week,they could do well to also decide upon a quick understanding about pricing for the MMRCA and the sharing of orders from the Indian defence market,that is if they do not want the advice of Col.Saunders Quixote and his ilk to triumph!

[rajanb]

^^^ Phillip

As the day gets closer, there will be many influences at work. Right now you will find DDMs getting into the fray. Later, even some of our elected representatives. Which they have a right to, but unfortunately with all the scamgates going on, it would only be human to question their bonafides.

I only hope AK sticks to the path, which he has done so far. And he gets the support.

[SaiK]

All one has to do is become well known.. and then the whole desh can be swayed, especially in defence it is much simpler after one has established themselves.

This is the reason, we have to give credits to reasons and data, rather individuals at helm. A process and policy oriented framework is the least loop hole setup.

[manum]

The way Rupee is declining...I am sure cost are going to go manifold...We might rather go for LCA mk2, if not gripen...if this situation of financial slide continues I think its better to be pragmatic...

We need indigenous solutions to keep things arrested and not feel overindulgent...
reference http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 993042.cms

added later :-In this context...why not Arjun than T90...everywhere we can keep our money, its better...

someone please remove my fear if possible

[SaiK]

or, we need not go for 126, rather get whatever for the budgeted $12b. If A gives x crafts, and B offers y crafts, and if y > x, choose y.

this would allow us to invest in other areas, especially FGFA and AMCA.

--

PS:
^^the fear > trust.

[manum]

Ya its better to keep it within the budget of $12b...however Rupee declines...We can increase orders when we'll be in better situation to deal with it...

[Christopher Sidor]

I am not sure that we have hedged against rupee failing for this deal. If the rupee declines to Rs 55 or more against the dollar, we might see a decline in number of aircraft being ordered.

[manum]

This deal is of 614,360,250,000.00 INR for 126 unit $95m/rafale @1.00 USD=51.3250 INR today...excluding armament...

Issue is not exactly rupee only depreciating...its also about money drying up or evaporating as non-existent...

But hopefully all my fears are rookie fears only...I wonder where China stands on it...

[Cain Marko]

Buy 60 Rafales plus UAE and Qatari Mirage 2000s! or MiG-35s. I am afraid that if the Gripen is bought, the LCA will get the boot.

[manum]

Buy 60 Rafales plus UAE and Qatari Mirage 2000s! or MiG-35s. I am afraid that if the Gripen is bought, the LCA will get the boot.

That would be worst than buying Rafale or typhoon overpriced...LCA and Arjun are the foundation, There will be no building without them...hope its already in FAQ thread of Indian leaders...

[rajanb]

I am not going to comment on whether we should buy 60 0r even 2000 MMRCA's. I would like the distinguished posters above whether they agree to my statements as thusly described:

a) The only two a/c which made it to the shortlist are not American. They are EUROcanards. True/False
b) That the $12.6B was frozen at the time of the RFP? True/False
c) That we are not going to pay the full amount upfront because 126 a/c will take time to be delivered? True/False

I am not trying to be sarcastic to fellow BRFites. Far from it. But I do get dismayed when fellow BRFites, who have posted meaningfully before are, in my POV, suffering from a worse case of DDMitis than DDMs suffer.

[manum]

a) true, b) true, c) true...

See its just a phase in my mind, if not market...where I've got these doubts, they might resonate to few and unsubstantial to few...all I am saying, If, god forbid, We are not so robust to be overindulgent...its ok to shorten the dress...That is it...

P.S...sarcasm is good like vinegar...

[Victor]

Most likely Dassault and Eurofighter have quoted in Euros as would be normal but have also translated that quote to USD and GBP because of American and British content in the planes. As I understand it, both buyer and seller would have hedged their respective currencies as best as they can but it is practically impossible to remove all currency risk. This is because of two things: 1) GoI is trying to establish a per-piece cost over the entire life of the aircraft, not just the delivery period of 5-10 years, to determine the lowest bid and 2) the cost of rolling forward contracts is theoretically limitless. If they matched our budget when making their bids, that cost would have gone up significantly by the time we opened them no matter how you slice it. There is a price to be paid for sitting on our @rses. However this can bite both ways because though we pay "x" Euros, the vendor will have to send back "x" Euro worth of offsets. This could be a wash depending on how you look at it--fewer planes but more offsets.

In this light, Shukla's plug for the Gripen is not as outrageous or dangerous as some are making it out to be. One way to look at it is: let's say we can get 126 Rafales, 120 Typhoons or 380 Gripens for the same amount of money--which would you choose? I would choose Gripens because 3 of them would kill a single Rafale or Typhoon any day.

And the fear of a Gripen choice killing the LCA has no basis IMO. We are not making the LCA to compete with Gripen but to learn how to make our own jet fighter. Why would we give up that effort if we chose the Gripen? If we could make the LCA as good or better than the Gripen, then no matter what, we have won. We can make 500 more for ourselves, offer them at the Paris Air Show at 2/3 the cost of the Gripen and set up a production line in Vietnam. That's enough incentive to never give up on LCA.

Finally, IIRC we dumped the Eurocopter deal because it became too costly, so it really ain't over till the fat lady sings.

[chaanakya]

Isn't Grippen failed Technicals? I thought only these two qualified.

[Cain Marko]

What needs also to be remembered is that if the INR devalues against the $; it is likely that it will devalue similarly vs. the Euro as well. The price tag on the Rafale/EF could balloon to a point where it might become rather indigestable to the MOF or even the general public. Already we here noises for JSF and Gripen. If it suddenly was presented as a Rs. 100-150K crore deal, a jump from the original Rs. 50000 cr deal, there'll be a clamor.

Folks are probly going to yell gotala, and once the "G" word comes up sissy politicians may just jump ship. No, it definitely ain't over. Plus, bean counters in MOF may simply decide to squash the deal.

WRT Gripen, while the bird seems "cheap" enough; the danger to the LCA persists imvho.

If we could make the LCA as good or better than the Gripen, then no matter what, we have won.

But will we? Is the IAF going to be keen on supporting a program for a fighter that is still fledgling when they are going to get a sooper-dooper Ecanard? My feeling is that the LCA will become step child, and thereafter be orphaned - no takers. All that needs to happen is a suitable replacement has to be found (Gripen), and a few more delays for LCA pop up (v.likely). Hell, they may even take those F414s meant for the LCA and stick them into the Gripen. Then there is the IN RFP, which SAAB is responding to via Sea Gripen.

I could be wrong of course, but history does not lend confidence when it comes to ghar ki murghi and INdian armed forces.

[Victor]

By that reasoning, a twin-engined, thrust-vectoring AESA Typhoon should cause HAL to close down the Su30-mki production line. No, it is not an IAF choice to continue to develop LCA, it is and INDIAN choice and no lungi shivering should change that.

Another option is to not set up an assembly line but simply buy 300 Gripens off the shelf and direct the offsets to our choice of tech areas. This will save even more and the money can be spent on LCA.

And BTW, none of the MMRCA contestants "failed technicals". IAF chief is on record as having said "they are all good aircraft". The 2 finalists were chosen according to a set of variables in force earlier this year which may have been overtaken in importance by recent events.