MRCA News and Discussion

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 16 May 2009 18:41

The order is confirmed 126 or will that also likely change .... ??

Also if we see the parameters that have already been fixed ....
: total worth for 126 planes is 10.2 billion US
: All planes must be multirole and have aesa
: deal includes weapons, maintenance and training
: 50% offset(whatever this means) etc

And all of them responded to above rfp. So .... I think the eurocanards can't just quote their own price. Or am I missing something here. Insiders plz enlighten us

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 16 May 2009 20:24

total worth for 126 planes is 10.2 billion US

I don't think the price for the 126 planes has ever been fixed...I remember reading a while back that the figure of 10 billion is just a guesstimate by some journo and then it went on to be quoted in a lot of places....Please correct me if I am wrong...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 May 2009 02:01

WRT EF, do we REALLY know if India has been offered a partnership or a complete line for ToT?

IF it is a partnership (some %age of ToT) given the present uncertainty among the partners, does India really want to consider this AC - good as it may be?

Curious.

Also, on the political front, has MMS come out ahead - or has Sonia lost some luster? Whatever, I tend to agree with an earlier poster who suggested that re-throning of MMS would mean a US inclination.

On equal-equal front, I do not think what Putin did, WRT the Nerpa, should be relevant to the MMRCA. RU is getting a boat load of other stuff - why we Indians think like this is beyond me, but that is a different matter.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 May 2009 10:38

No doubt Raoji. The MRCA is in the U.S. Bag. The rest are also rans and that's despite Shankar's never say die attitude.

The F-18E/F (hopefully and not the fat viper) got it's foot in the door after the nuke deal, now it's in and the door's shut (and not even Gandalf's spell can open it).

Here is a bit of crystal ball gazing:
The indian pie will thusly be divided amongst the fat, lecherous and greedy nations of the earth:

MRCA ~ $ 10+ billion - USA
Krivaks, Amurs, Pakfa, MRMPA naval fulcrums - Russia ($ 15 billion)
M2k upgrade, P-17A (Lafayette class) - France ($ 6 billion)
EJ-200 engines for LCA (E.U.) ($ 1.5 billion)
Jag engine upgrade - Rolls Royce (UK). ( $ 500 mill)
Arty 155 guns, radars, missile jvs - Israel ($ 4 billion)

Anything my far sighted crystal ball missed?

Thus satiated and their lust spent, the beasts of the earth lie, their bellies engorged with the fabled riches of the indies. Alas for the peasant hindoo!

CM.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 17 May 2009 11:29

No doubt Raoji. The MRCA is in the U.S. Bag. The rest are also rans and that's despite Shankar's never say die attitude. The F-18E/F (hopefully and not the fat viper) got it's foot in the door after the nuke deal, now it's in and the door's shut (and not even Gandalf's spell can open it).

US will get a lot of business for sure for the nuke deal much more than 10 billion or so but not from the aircraft deal but from selling nuclear reactors in the order of 100 billion or so that is the price of US presidential support

NERPA support is surely for the Mig 35 by the time NERPA is delivered and our own atv starts sea trial Mig 35 most likely will be selected .According to Pravda russians were quite sure till some time back .

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 17 May 2009 11:56

With MMS in power F-16 and F-18 are clear front runners for MRCA. If I have to choose between the two I will rather go for cheaper F-16. The only concern I have is that it will give America more diplomatic leverage in India (not the other way around). This added to the fact that I don't know a single Obama policy which more favorable to India than Bush's era policies. I see a major focus on Kashmir and FMCT in coming months.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 17 May 2009 12:08

I'm not exactly sure about the F-16 being Cheaper than the Super hornet , the SH is around $55-60 million per unit and F-16 is also around the same price , if it came down to between these two the SH is certainly a clear winner with it's radar , fighting and recon capabilities coupled with the Fact that F-16 is going to be phased out from 2015 in favor of F-35 and Pukes have plenty of practicve on them.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 May 2009 11:07

A lot depends upon the Obama govt.It is not as friendly as Bush was.MMS has also come in for some inner party criticism about his over-enthu for the US and with Rahul G emerging as a powerful presence in the new regime,Indian demands on TOT and no end-user constraints like inspections will have to be overcome.If Tharoor has anything to do with the MEA,the US's scuppering of his UNSec.Gen. ambitions might be a factor.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2009 16:51

I understand the concern of an overly motherly US, but what in Obama's nuclear stand (FMCT, NPT, etc) (eg: abhiti's post) is India concerned about? One would think it (nuclear issues) shoehorns into Indian concerns rather well. (Specific answers to this should be given in the Indian nuclear thread.)

On other FP topics, India is as much to blame. India has a responsibility to become stronger in all aspects to resist such thinking. And, if we are going to be scared of the US, watch China come along. She has already started revving her engines WRT the Asian Bank case.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 May 2009 17:13

rshyam wrote:Now another report about Rafale...

French bid to re-enter race for combat aircraft
The committee report making such a recommendation was based on the response of the French company Dassault, which makes Rafale. The sources said the questions largely related to equipment and other add-ons that the user wanted to have, but not provided by the manufacturer.

The sources said that since the recommendation of the evaluation committee was made, the French manufacturer has provided necessary information that the Indian Air Force had sought.

Interesting... seems to prove the French laziness about this deal. I guess those reports were a right good wake up shock to get them off their friggin musharrafs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2009 20:24

french were consistent in their approach (lazy or agile)

- denial of mirage 2k (of course, people believe that we got an offer, and our babooze rejected it or slept with it.. this i dont agree).
- projections of rafale by giving us outright purchase to about 40 rafales only.. how the heck of a world they can charter our requirements?
- lazy attitude towards bangalore air show representations.
- and interestingly, they failed to provide the necessary details in the RFPs.

So, the question is why would not they fail again? It could be price finally.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2009 13:53

The OZ forces plan to retire all their F-18Fs by 2020 (AWST),in favour of the JSF.What point is there in therefore buying an aircraft in its last avatar which other air forces are going to discard in a decade hence? Serious thought should be given to the future obsolescence factor of the various types competing,as we should not be sold a turkey at Christmas prices!

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 20 May 2009 15:43

[quote="Philip"]The OZ forces plan to retire all their F-18Fs by 2020 (AWST),in favour of the JSF.What point is there in therefore buying an aircraft in its last avatar which other air forces are going to discard in a decade hence? quote]

super hornets are overhyped,just like the kolkata knightriders team

1.super hornets are slow..max speed is 1.8 mach and it drops to 1.6 mach in loaded configuration..it will be outmaneauvred by j-10 due to enter service in TSP air force

2.boeing claims its stealthy,,but what use if it loses its stealth after after loading with weapons

3.as far as aesa is concerned ,,now aesa is available from other vendors,,and india will get downgraded version of apg-79,,,similar to apg-80 with reduced range and tracking capability,,,better to get f-16in,,atleast f-16 and its versions will be there in many airforces till 2040,

super bug is a waste of money

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2009 17:01

Not that I am suggesting that we get a US product, but I have to be glad this Land of Oz thinking was not there when IAF brought in the MKI.

BTW, just googled and found F-16 is slower than J-10 too.

Did someone say that India will be offered a watered down ASEA for the F-18? My recollection is that Boeing is willing to put any AESA that India wants on their AC. Actually Boeing has approached LM to see if they can work together IF the F-18 wins.

Looks like Indians are the ones placing more road blocks (mostly with speculations) on the MRCA. Like I said, glad this thinking did not prevail with the MKI.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 May 2009 17:57

NRao wrote: My recollection is that Boeing is willing to put any AESA that India wants on their AC..

Boeing will not get approval from ITAR and other US State Department export control nazis

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 20 May 2009 18:00

The OZ forces plan to retire all their F-18Fs by 2020 (AWST),in favour of the JSF.What point is there in therefore buying an aircraft in its last avatar which other air forces are going to discard in a decade hence? Serious thought should be given to the future obsolescence factor of the various types competing,as we should not be sold a turkey at Christmas prices!

Perhaps there is little scope for Upgrade in SH but whats it with all the JSF fuss , we're not getting JSF and with PAKFA and MCA in the pipeline what is the need to spend so much (with compromises to Unkil) on another stealth fighter.

Our demands are based on our threat perception from TSP and China , we're not going to fight Russia with our jets. The SH is better than anything TSP has or will have in the future and to China, Amrecian Technology is still far superior.

1.super hornets are slow..max speed is 1.8 mach and it drops to 1.6 mach in loaded configuration..it will be outmaneuvered by j-10 due to enter service in TSP air force

In this day and age Top Speed is not of the highest importance , fighter cannot out run modern day BVRAAM's in any case , although it does have certain advantages I agree.

Also how did you come to the conclusion about SH being out manouvered by J-10 , please do elaborate.

2.boeing claims its stealthy,,but what use if it loses its stealth after after loading with weapons

SH is not and never will be a stealthy aircrft , just because a company claims that it has incorporated stealth features dosen't mean that it has been converted into a F-22 , even IAF would equip stealth Features in Tejas , it would only reduce the probabbility of detection slightly , not eliminate it.

as far as aesa is concerned ,,now aesa is available from other vendors,,and india will get downgraded version of apg-79,,,similar to apg-80 with reduced range and tracking capability,,,better to get f-16in,,at least f-16 and its versions will be there in many air forces till 2040,

and so even TSP would have it and with more practice on it than IAF has (goven that they're operated it since 1980's) , also there is no guarantee that TSP's Jets would never get upgraded to IN standards in the future , who knows maybe even the Chinese may reverse engineer it in the future by access to Puki jets.

Super hornet may not be the standout contender but some here are in the habit of either hyping up a jet too much a la Rafale or bringing it right down in the mud.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 May 2009 18:07

If for any reason we need hypes in this thread, then it should be subject to LCA and MKIzations.

For LCA, which mrca contracting firm would help? What offsets etc., especially the engines and radars.

If Boeing is willing to put any radar, then they should be willing to put any weapons on it as well.. since, a radar that could be scaled up from LCA, might as well be in MRCA. In two years time, we could be fielding the modified Elta 2052s in LCA. An enlarged, or more t/r moduled panels could house a boeing fighter, if they think integration path is the way to win contracts with desh!

SH could fire russkies and rafael once as well.. drdo could be the king again, with vetrivel spear heading the nitty gritties!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2009 18:10

British reluctance to fund Tranche -3 of the Typhoon,pi**ing off its partners in the project,might have its effect upon the MMRCA contest.If the Typhoon promoted by EADS does come in at a higher price,tx to the Brits,it might price itself out of the contest.Being the last avatars of their ancient design,the F-16 and F-18 will come in at bargain prices I feel,if only to rope India into the US's military embrace.Like a clearance sale,when many nations were offered the F-5 Freedom Fighter along with the entire manufacturing eqpt.,lock,stock and barrel.so will these two aircraft be offered because no one else will buy them henceforth,with almost all the US's allies buying the JSF!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 May 2009 18:14

fyi: most clearance sales comes with -as is- basis and sometimes with no refunds.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2009 18:42

Lalmohan wrote:
NRao wrote: My recollection is that Boeing is willing to put any AESA that India wants on their AC..
Boeing will not get approval from ITAR and other US State Department export control nazis

May be you are right.

However, we do know that the RFP is out there and IIRC ALL vendors have stated that they can deliver what India has asked for. The technical specs (for what they are worth) have already been delivered to India and IAF seems to have gone through them. For heaven's sake, the trials are supposed to start in a few months.

And, we are speculating this late in the game, when some of it is already written in stone!!

The ONLY thing/s, IMVVHO, that stands to throw a wrench into all this are the agreements - end user, etc - from a US vendor PoV that is.

I feel no matter which AC India buys, it will be unique - just like the MKI. Yes, and the US planes are rather dated in design, but the question is if they would serve India well as a platform - perhaps to build on too, not just on them, but say perhaps on the MCA, etc.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 May 2009 20:13

Philip wrote:British reluctance to fund Tranche -3 of the Typhoon,pi**ing off its partners in the project,might have its effect upon the MMRCA contest.If the Typhoon promoted by EADS does come in at a higher price,tx to the Brits,it might price itself out of the contest.Being the last avatars of their ancient design,the F-16 and F-18 will come in at bargain prices I feel,if only to rope India into the US's military embrace.Like a clearance sale,when many nations were offered the F-5 Freedom Fighter along with the entire manufacturing eqpt.,lock,stock and barrel.so will these two aircraft be offered because no one else will buy them henceforth,with almost all the US's allies buying the JSF!

the reluctance has little to do with the quality of kit, more so to do with limited budget - need to keep forces in afghanistan in shape and a couple of aircraft carriers to buy. if something has to be cut, it is sophisticated air assets that will see limited use

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 May 2009 00:48

saptarishi wrote: 1.super hornets are slow..max speed is 1.8 mach and it drops to 1.6 mach in loaded configuration..it will be outmaneauvred by j-10 due to enter service in TSP air force

please explain what this means. if you have the slightest bit of understanding of fighter combat in WVR, then you'd know that ALL WVR occurs well under the supersonic regime. high supersonic agility is hardly a big requirement for any fighter and most are designed for transonic or subsonic maneuverability. at high Mach speeds, the turning radius will be so large, and loads so high, as to make it absolutely impossible to have combat at such speeds. supersonic dash speed is good only for getting to the theater quickly and egressing quickly when one has expended one's weapons or wants out of a fight.

in case you didn't notice, the trend with 4th generation fighters has been that their max speeds have been coming down quite noticeably as compared to 2nd or even 3rd generation fighters. instead of having complicated inlet designs that adjust the shock wave at higher speeds, the modern fighters have simpler, lighter inlet designs that emphasize reliability and lower weight at the loss of very high speed.

2.boeing claims its stealthy,,but what use if it loses its stealth after after loading with weapons

why only point this out for the F-18. the same is true of every other MRCA contender. so should they all be considered over-hyped as well ?

3.as far as aesa is concerned ,,now aesa is available from other vendors,,and india will get downgraded version of apg-79,,,similar to apg-80 with reduced range and tracking capability,,,better to get f-16in,,atleast f-16 and its versions will be there in many airforces till 2040,

from all news reports, the SH Block II is on offer. there has been no news report suggesting that a downgraded export APG-79 is being offered. ToT is a different matter though.

super bug is a waste of money

a pointless statement. let the IAF and GoI decide what is worth inducting or not. they have or will have access to all the data and information they require to make a decision on whether or not the SH is a waste of money. if it is, then it won't be selected.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 21 May 2009 01:15

Rafale Sensor Enhancements

Looks pretty impressive, at least on print.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 21 May 2009 01:27

We're probably not going to get governments back the SH, F-16 and MIG-35 like this since those jets has little future in their home countries.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=INT

Interview: Sten Tolgfors
Minister for Defense, Sweden

Q. Will Sweden continue to invest in and build its Air Force around the Gripen?

A. Of course. The Gripen is the core of our Air Force and of air forces in several other countries. It is a very cost-efficient and highly capable system. We will see to it that the Gripen remains very capable and competitive until 2040 or so.

Q. How important is it for Sweden to maintain a strong defense industry?

A. Very important. We have some key projects that we need, for security policy reasons, to continue developing. The Gripen is one. We aim at seeing the Gripen fighter being competitive until 2040 or so. This also comes down to needing a strong, competitive defense industry in this field.

The future for Sweden's defense industry lies in international cooperation.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 21 May 2009 01:36

Kartik wrote:
please explain what this means. if you have the slightest bit of understanding of fighter combat in WVR, then you'd know that ALL WVR occurs well under the supersonic regime. high supersonic agility is hardly a big requirement for any fighter and most are designed for transonic or subsonic maneuverability. at high Mach speeds, the turning radius will be so large, and loads so high, as to make it absolutely impossible to have combat at such speeds. supersonic dash speed is good only for getting to the theater quickly and egressing quickly when one has expended one's weapons or wants out of a fight.

in case you didn't notice, the trend with 4th generation fighters has been that their max speeds have been coming down quite noticeably as compared to 2nd or even 3rd generation fighters. instead of having complicated inlet designs that adjust the shock wave at higher speeds, the modern fighters have simpler, lighter inlet designs that emphasize reliability and lower weight at the loss of very high speed.

why only point this out for the F-18. the same is true of every other MRCA contender. so should they all be considered over-hyped as well ?

from all news reports, the SH Block II is on offer. there has been no news report suggesting that a downgraded export APG-79 is being offered. ToT is a different matter though.

a pointless statement. let the IAF and GoI decide what is worth inducting or not. they have or will have access to all the data and information they require to make a decision on whether or not the SH is a waste of money. if it is, then it won't be selected.

BR FORUM is a discussion forum where indian military enthusiasts express their opinions freely,,,,,pointing out my ""pointless statement"" is surely the point u picked from my point of view of SUPER BUG,,but please clear certain points for me ,so that next time i am not pointed at after making so called "pointless statements "

point 1: which fighter out of the mmrca contenders has the lowest thrust to weigh ratio ans--the super bug

point:2--which fighter has the least climb rate of the contenders
ans super bug

point 3:u pointed out that the maximum speeds of fighters have come downf-22 at mach 2.2,su-25bm at mach 2.25,eurofighter -mach 2+,f-16 blk60-mach -2+,,j-10--mach 2,pak-fa--sllated to be mach-2+,
ur highness ,,this is what u call coming down of max speeds,,i agree the requirement for mac-2.6+ interceptors like mig-25 and 31 IS FADING,,but if u know something about bvr combat higher speeds give some definite advantages

point 4:please do some justice to ur point of pointing my "pointless statement by asking urself few questions does super hornet possess the high thrust of f110-ge-132 of f-16in or eurojet,,does SH have mig-35"s tvc,,does SH possess modern canarded designs like the eurocanards........everybody in br forums knows the answer ---no
if aesa is the ony thing that makes super hornet hot then why not buy apg-79 and put them in our ageing migs,,,will that makes sense,,,fighter purchase on basis of capabilities is more than just aesa,,,by 2013 every mmrca contender will be having aesa,,,don"t u rememberbthe flak the erstwhile australian defence minister nelson drew for getting super hornets

let the IAF and GoI decide what is worth inducting or not. they have or will have access to all the data and information they require to make a decision on whether or not the SH is a waste of money. if it is, then it won't be selected

then why have the DISCUSSION mmrca in BR FORUMS,,let the GOI discuss WHAT"S THE BEST theN why dudes , folks,blokes and mates like u and me are wasting our time in BR

on an ending note would u get a jet ,to protect ur country , that has the slowest climbing rate ,least thrust to weight ratio,slowest speed( i mean super hornets drew flak for being slower than legacy hornets),,,,,,,

us navy got super hornets because it didn"t have a suitable carrier landing aircraft to replace the venerable veterans f-14s quickly at a cheap price,,,stealthy fifth gen concepts were tooo costly,,,aussies got super hornets for the same reason ie.to replace f-111 ardvaks quickly

if we want to cement our relationship with USA THEN IT IS BETTER TO GO FOR F-16IN

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2009 01:41

Kailash wrote:Rafale Sensor Enhancements

Looks pretty impressive, at least on print.

Look for more such articles, etc.

Dassault just bought enough shares to become nearly 25% owner of Thales and has kicked out most of the board members - just as of yesterday.

The Gov of FR I think is the largest owner of Thales.

The out going Chairman was concerned about Thales keeping other nations happy.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 21 May 2009 02:19

If EADS buy 5% more of Dassault they will control Dassault and Thales. There's some French investors and shareholders who is not too happy with what has happened and worry about Thales exports.

Rafale got a webpage for the Brazilian campaign why didn't they do one for the India campaign ? http://www.rafale.com.br

I think it shows that they do not put all efforts into a India sale.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2009 02:25

saptarishi,

JUST to deal with your concern: May 14, 2009 :: GE Eyes More Powerful Engine For Super Hornets, Growlers

Proposing a 20% increase in thrust.

General Electric is testing a modified version of the F414 engine for the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and EF-18 Growler that could increase thrust by 20% while improving durability and reducing fuel burn.

Although full details are not yet available, it appears the U.S. Navy-supported development is a combined product of two F414-400 upgrade efforts. One of these was originally focused on increasing the baseline durability of the engine, while the other is an ongoing study aimed at increasing overall thrust.

BTW, the F-22 seems to have the worst thrust among ALL air crafts per wiki!! 0.91 vs, 0.95 for the current super bug, and, 0.99 for the J-10.

IF this new engine - with 20% more thrust - works out, we should have a wacky F-18 @ 1.13 or so. Cool. Beats the F-16, as good as the MiG and nearly as good as the EF!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2009 02:59

Another piece of news from the same article above:

Gower also said the international sales potential remains buoyant in the wake of the export sales success to Australia, which will officially receive its first aircraft in a July 8 ceremony in St. Louis. The second tranche of 24 Australian F/A-18E/Fs will be built with wiring to support the G configuration. Beyond Australia, Super Hornet is competing in Brazil (with a final offer scheduled for June 2), India, Canada, Denmark, Kuwait and Japan.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 May 2009 12:54

NRao wrote: BTW, the F-22 seems to have the worst thrust among ALL air crafts per wiki!! 0.91 vs, 0.95 for the current super bug, and, 0.99 for the J-10.

IF this new engine - with 20% more thrust - works out, we should have a wacky F-18 @ 1.13 or so. Cool. Beats the F-16, as good as the MiG and nearly as good as the EF!!!

Thrust to weight ratios are sometimes misleading. Even if two a/cs have same thrust/wgt, it does not mean that they would be comparable in power and agility. How the engine is used is of high importance. Intakes, drag, aerodynamics etc count for much. F-22 may have least thrust, but it in no way proves that it is lacking in power and agility. Similarly, F-18 is not known to have best aerodynamics. It was never an agile a/c and even with higher thrust, it is not likely to be comparable with the likes of f-16 in agility.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 21 May 2009 13:09

if the super hornet gets the new engine within the mmrca timeline,then i am all for super hornet ,but will the new engine be available for flight evaluations slated to start later this year,i mean the rfp specifies that the offerings should be there before the evaluations start. GE has started to develop the new engines,,will the development finish within 2-3 years so that mmrca timeline is met.

The former effort, dubbed the enhanced durability engine, was begun to improve foreign object damage resistance, and includes specific fuel consumption (SPC) saving benefits that "will pay for itself over the life of the engine," says Bob Gower, Boeing vice president for F-18 programs.

In addition to this work, which principally concerns improvements to the high-pressure core, GE is also studying a new fan design "which could significantly increase thrust by around 20%," Gower adds. The thrust boost, thought to be produced by dramatically upping fan flow, is achieved without changes to the engine's outer mold line and "will be a form, fit and function replacement at this point," he adds. Gower also says the "the needs of the market will drive the need for increased thrust."

the engine with enhanced durability will be available ,i don't think ge will develop the higher thrust engine so early because now the studies on new high thrust engine is going on ,first development will start thethen funding

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 May 2009 13:14

I guess it is pointless to discuss max speed, thrust etc of F-18. I guess we all agree that F-18s are not for dogfights. They specialize in ground attack roles. Now it all comes down to if its strike capability is worth all the hype it is given. And if it is, then whether IAF feels F-18 compensates its a2a weakness with its strike capability. If India is looking for a true "MULTIROLE" a/c then SH certainly does not fit in. However, if strike is the main priority, then SH should be worth considering.

PS: When I say it is pointless to discuss max speed, thrust etc of SH, I do not mean that they do not matter. I only mean that they gain more importance in likes of Mig-35, F-16, Rafale etc where we have to estimate the a2a strength of an a.c whose aerodynamics is designed with agility given higher priority.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 21 May 2009 20:26

Rafale allowed to take part in aircraft bid

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 May 2009 20:38

^^ I guess most of the rakshaks would be elated by this news.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 22 May 2009 02:32

Dmurphy wrote:Rafale allowed to take part in aircraft bid

Yeah election is over and election funds are already paid. Now no payments till selection.

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 22 May 2009 07:58

France’s Rafale back in race for Rs 42,000cr deal

There will be at least two sets of field trials conducted in summer and winter, with the six jets being flown in the snow-capped peaks of Leh, the scorching Rajasthan deserts (Jaisalmer) and the humid conditions of south India (Bangalore)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2009 09:07

actually, we did not lose capabilities [from a broad selection of offers], with respect to technical aspects.. if the khans, ef2k and gripen were not present, then would have seen a different thread here.

so rafale going out or coming back,did not make much dent to this mrca, is my thought. it might nose dive on price again!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 22 May 2009 10:09

Which entities constitute the "Technical Evaluation committe" and "Defence Procurement Board" in the context of MMRCA?

Cheers....

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 22 May 2009 19:04

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 5420090522

Boeing's (BA.N) F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-16, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab (SAABb.ST) KAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, a consortium of British, German, Italian and Spanish companies, are in the race for the lucrative contract.

France's Dassault Aviation was knocked out last month on technical grounds, but could be back after answering queries related to its aircraft, a defence official said.

"All the paperwork is over and a technical evaluation report on the fighters has been placed with the ministry," defence ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar said.

"Security concerns are a top priority of the government and things should start rolling once the new defence minister takes charge," he added.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 May 2009 21:36

India's new government to speed fighter jet deal