Decision on $10 billion MMRCA deal soon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Trust me, scrapping MMRCA & going ahead with govt-govt bulk deal from shortlisted contenders is Plan B. And it'll take same time as that of MMRCA schedule.
If it takes as long as MMRCA it will be 2022 before IAF gets its next fighter. :rofl:

Too many european guests in south block these days. Fingers crossed.
Relax, Rafale will be there soon enough.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
If it takes as long as MMRCA it will be 2022 before IAF gets its next fighter. :rofl:
You are missing the point. It doesn't take time to do some paperwork & shake hands. Delivery schedule will be same i.e last MRCA fighter in 2018 unless Dassault/GmbH/HAL adding delay in manufacturing.

One can never discount the possibility of the said Plan B.


Relax, Rafale will be there soon enough.
Its there already, along with EFT :D
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
You are missing the point. It doesn't take time to do some paperwork & shake hands. Delivery schedule will be same i.e last MRCA fighter in 2018 unless Dassault/GmbH/HAL adding delay in manufacturing.
If MMRCA is dropped it has to be retendered, and in the case of India that takes YEARS.

One can never discount the possibility of the said Plan B.
You give them too much faith if you think GoI has a Plan B. Just look at the artillery. :laugh:

Its there already, along with EFT :D
Only on paper...
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
6 Squadron Typhoons Shadow Russian Bears



On 11 October Typhoon aircraft of Number 6 Squadron maintaining the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) mission at RAF Leuchars were launched to intercept two aircraft in the NATO Air Policing Area that could not be identified by any other means i.e. the aircraft is not talking to civilian or military Air Traffic Control, has not filed a flight plan and is not transmitting a recognisable secondary surveillance radar code. The aircraft were identified as Russian Long Range Aviation (LRA) assets 'Bears' and the 6 Squadron Typhoons maintained contact until the Russian aircraft cleared the UK's Flight Information Region.


 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
If MMRCA is dropped it has to be retendered, and in the case of India that takes YEARS.

*****
Why should they drop the MRCA and retender it .
If not happy with number 1 and 2 a/cs for some reason , just go for plan B .

bcz if they retender the MRCA , at the end of the day the same A/Cs will come again with higher price tag and will take more time .
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
if mmrca is dropped than iaf will be disbanding itself after few years or may be a decade. su-30 mki- a beast but 270 is the maximum no and all other aircrafts are in very limited no.

we cant put all our hopes on distant projects like fgfa and amca( one can include lca mark 2 also).

i think iaf will get frustrated and may come out with a statement saying we are not battle ready and even sri lanka can overpower us- this will cause a huge hue and cry and politicos will shit in their pants leading to off the shelve purchase of fighters at extortionist price.

fighters will come, thru mmrca or other means but they will come.

but even if rafale comes or EF2000 both are junkies as compared to f/a-18 and f-16in. cost-wise or tech wise.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
but even if rafale comes or EF2000 both are junkies as compared to f/a-18 and f-16in. cost-wise or tech wise.
Misrepresentation of facts. Both F-16 and F-18 lost in technical parameters to Rafale and EF. Considering IA chose Apache over Mi-28 by citing technical parameters, we know how the game is played. The better aircraft wins.

IAF picked the best aircraft of the lot and there is nothing more to it. Don't believe every bit of info the Americans tell you. Not all of it is true. Big ticket European and Russian equipment is as good as what the Americans make. The Americans are ahead of the technology curve in some aspects and far ahead in all the little things which are as crucial. But nothing to indicate the F-16 and F-18 are the best of the lot.

Cost was not considered during shortlist. IAF was given permission to pick the two best aircraft regardless of costs. Contrary to popular perception politics played a very small part in the deal. Losers will always give excuses.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Misrepresentation of facts. Both F-16 and F-18 lost in technical parameters to Rafale and EF. Considering IA chose Apache over Mi-28 by citing technical parameters, we know how the game is played. The better aircraft wins.

IAF picked the best aircraft of the lot and there is nothing more to it. Don't believe every bit of info the Americans tell you. Not all of it is true. Big ticket European and Russian equipment is as good as what the Americans make. The Americans are ahead of the technology curve in some aspects and far ahead in all the little things which are as crucial. But nothing to indicate the F-16 and F-18 are the best of the lot.

Cost was not considered during shortlist. IAF was given permission to pick the two best aircraft regardless of costs. Contrary to popular perception politics played a very small part in the deal. Losers will always give excuses.
i know more than you as i know more people in IAF than you. read my signature too and compare the stats of all the planes on your own. F/A-18 was the first love of IAF before it took a political angel.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
i know more than you as i know more people in IAF than you. read my signature too and compare the stats of all the planes on your own. F/A-18 was the first love of IAF before it took a political angel.
Cheers. If knowledge is measured by the amount of people you know, then best of luck with all your future endeavours.

BTW, the Hornet version offered to us wasn't the same as what is in the USN. Even the radar offered was a generation behind. The Rafale and EF radar promised to us had EW channels, Boeing gave us no such option.

When Boeing realized it was losing they even offered the EPE engine which was rejected by IAF because the time to submit specifications had already passed. Boeing could only offer the APG-79 RACR for the LCA program.

IAF loved Boeings initial offer only because it had the first generation AESA coming with it. The game changed once Dassault and EADS upped the ante. No matter how many people you know, the Air Chief's media statements say it all. The EF and Rafale scored the highest points among all the aircraft.

As for stats, depending on what is required the EF is the best or the SH. Both aircraft suit different roles. In air to air the EF would be the better aircraft. The SH with it's high wing loading performs better at low altitudes which is required for bombing. Rafale simply comes in between the two. It's not an ace either in A2A or A2G primarily because of a weaker radar, but it's wing design is better suited for high altitude air to air combat, same as the EF. Even though aircraft cannot be judged simply on specs alone we know enough to presume IAF is in need of air superiority fighters with secondary ground attack capability. So, the best bets are EF and Rafale.

If the decision was political then Hornet would have won the contract hands down. Your signature simply backfires on you. Ask your IAF friends what the Air Chief said.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Cheers. If knowledge is measured by the amount of people you know, then best of luck with all your future endeavours.

BTW, the Hornet version offered to us wasn't the same as what is in the USN. Even the radar offered was a generation behind. The Rafale and EF radar promised to us had EW channels, Boeing gave us no such option.

When Boeing realized it was losing they even offered the EPE engine which was rejected by IAF because the time to submit specifications had already passed. Boeing could only offer the APG-79 RACR for the LCA program.

IAF loved Boeings initial offer only because it had the first generation AESA coming with it. The game changed once Dassault and EADS upped the ante. No matter how many people you know, the Air Chief's media statements say it all. The EF and Rafale scored the highest points among all the aircraft.

As for stats, depending on what is required the EF is the best or the SH. Both aircraft suit different roles. In air to air the EF would be the better aircraft. The SH with it's high wing loading performs better at low altitudes which is required for bombing. Rafale simply comes in between the two. It's not an ace either in A2A or A2G primarily because of a weaker radar, but it's wing design is better suited for high altitude air to air combat, same as the EF. Even though aircraft cannot be judged simply on specs alone we know enough to presume IAF is in need of air superiority fighters with secondary ground attack capability. So, the best bets are EF and Rafale.

If the decision was political then Hornet would have won the contract hands down. Your signature simply backfires on you. Ask your IAF friends what the Air Chief said.
the iaf first love was F/A-18, other best option was F-16in, which was 4.5 gen as compared to these two birds which are 4th gen only. the only reason why american planes lost were the apprehension among the politicos about the reliability of usa as future partner and also they didnt wanted to toe us lines in future in order to maintain the upkeep of this vast fleet.

EU is not like usa and we can have our own will, how to use and when to use these planes. not as complex as usa.

the political intervention made usa planes lost and then the fight was only between the remaining four and these two shortlisted fighters are here in front of us.

eu planes have newly developed technology but it is not as good as american. my iaf friend is no ground staff he is responsible for every acquisition iaf makes. and i dont like to create sensationalism.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
the iaf first love was F/A-18, other best option was F-16in, which was 4.5 gen as compared to these two birds which are 4th gen only. the only reason why american planes lost were the apprehension among the politicos about the reliability of usa as future partner and also they didnt wanted to toe us lines in future in order to maintain the upkeep of this vast fleet.

EU is not like usa and we can have our own will, how to use and when to use these planes. not as complex as usa.

the political intervention made usa planes lost and then the fight was only between the remaining four and these two shortlisted fighters are here in front of us.

eu planes have newly developed technology but it is not as good as american. my iaf friend is no ground staff he is responsible for every acquisition iaf makes. and i dont like to create sensationalism.
There are plenty of people involved in acquisitions and as is the case anywhere there are plenty of varied opinions formed. These opinions are debated and the best opinions are chosen. The American technology comes with strings attached and have ToT constraints. Therefore this seems like a political decision. However things are not as simple as they seem.

What your friend said is correct, as it stands today the SH is way ahead of the competition. Even F-16IN does not come close to it and even the F-16 is ahead of the competition. But, the truth is what the Europeans offered was even ahead, albeit it is still under development. This gives us the flexibility of having avionics developed according to our own specifications. If we consider the SH to be a benchmark for 4.5th gen then today's Rafale and EF are clearly 4th gen aircraft. If we consider Rafale and EF to be 4.5th gen then you could say SH is 4.75th gen. But if we compare the SH with today's specifications and compare it to Rafale or EF of tomorrow, then the reverse is applicable because what matters is what is offered and not what exists. What was offered by Boeing was the SH of today and what was offered by the Europeans were the Rafale and EF of tomorrow, with AESA, towed decoys, ECM suites and the works.

Whatever was offered on SH can be achieved on a higher scale on EF and Rafale over the next 20 years. The fact is there is no well defined technology road map for the American and Russian planes as compared to the Europeans. The French like their Rafale and the Germans are quite serious with EF, with neither showing interest in the F-35. The Air forces and Navies of US and Russia have no interest in the old platforms considering one country has better replacements like F-35 and the other simply cannot afford a new type. The only options were the 3 European aircraft. Considering Gripen is a LCA, it's capabilities cannot be compared to the heavier twin engine counterparts. Thus the best options were Rafale and EF. ToT is also forthcoming. There was no real point in considering the SH in such a situation, political or not.

Considering Rafale and EF are superior in design to other aircraft, avionics becomes a moot point since we are still years away from getting our first squadron. The avionics the SH has been brandishing today could become junk tomorrow. It is the same as how the F-15C has inferior avionics to that of the MKI today, even though the F-15 came a decade earlier than the Su-27.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
There are plenty of people involved in acquisitions and as is the case anywhere there are plenty of varied opinions formed. These opinions are debated and the best opinions are chosen. The American technology comes with strings attached and have ToT constraints. Therefore this seems like a political decision. However things are not as simple as they seem.

What your friend said is correct, as it stands today the SH is way ahead of the competition. Even F-16IN does not come close to it and even the F-16 is ahead of the competition. But, the truth is what the Europeans offered was even ahead, albeit it is still under development. This gives us the flexibility of having avionics developed according to our own specifications. If we consider the SH to be a benchmark for 4.5th gen then today's Rafale and EF are clearly 4th gen aircraft. If we consider Rafale and EF to be 4.5th gen then you could say SH is 4.75th gen. But if we compare the SH with today's specifications and compare it to Rafale or EF of tomorrow, then the reverse is applicable because what matters is what is offered and not what exists. What was offered by Boeing was the SH of today and what was offered by the Europeans were the Rafale and EF of tomorrow, with AESA, towed decoys, ECM suites and the works.

Whatever was offered on SH can be achieved on a higher scale on EF and Rafale over the next 20 years. The fact is there is no well defined technology road map for the American and Russian planes as compared to the Europeans. The French like their Rafale and the Germans are quite serious with EF, with neither showing interest in the F-35. The Air forces and Navies of US and Russia have no interest in the old platforms considering one country has better replacements like F-35 and the other simply cannot afford a new type. The only options were the 3 European aircraft. Considering Gripen is a LCA, it's capabilities cannot be compared to the heavier twin engine counterparts. Thus the best options were Rafale and EF. ToT is also forthcoming. There was no real point in considering the SH in such a situation, political or not.

Considering Rafale and EF are superior in design to other aircraft, avionics becomes a moot point since we are still years away from getting our first squadron. The avionics the SH has been brandishing today could become junk tomorrow. It is the same as how the F-15C has inferior avionics to that of the MKI today, even though the F-15 came a decade earlier than the Su-27.
first of all there is nothing like 4.75 gen plane. american f-16 was 4.5 gen plane, not even offered to anyone in the world.


and even you are agreeing to the political interference. american ouster is the proof of political intervention. and it actually happened. iaf also considered mig-35 for replacing mig-23 and mig-25. the plan is somewhere in mod.
you know the EF2000 cannot roll. a plane that cant even roll is technical winner of mmrca. all other planes can roll even gripen.
rafale is best way forward as it is true multi role. we cant do anything about the decision already taken
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
first of all there is nothing like 4.75 gen plane. american f-16 was 4.5 gen plane, not even offered to anyone in the world.
It is a country specific designation. According to the Americans nothing short of a F-16 Block 60 or SH with AESA is 4.5th gen. They will bring in the 4.75 gen designation once the Hyper Hornet is made or else nada. The Russians have their own designation like 4+ and 4++. The Chinese simply call it 3rd gen and higher.

and even you are agreeing to the political interference. american ouster is the proof of political intervention. and it actually happened.
Like I said it is not as simple as that. Even the Europeans stop spares supply if we don't toe their line. The Europeans toe American line anyway, especially in case of war. Nuclear tests would mean the same thing, be it America or Europe. Only Israel and Russia are all weather suppliers and even Israel can bend to political whims of the US.

If we fvck up big time, then EF has the higher chance of being sanctioned as compared to Rafale. France is more reliable in some parameters. It depends on how badly we have pissed the west off. Politics is not particularly US specific. If it is within US interests, then they will even look the other way while you do your thing.

iaf also considered mig-35 for replacing mig-23 and mig-25. the plan is somewhere in mod.
IAF will have exigency plans for any eventuality. IAF may also consider SH or even F-35 for replacing Jaguars and Mig-27.

you know the EF2000 cannot roll. a plane that cant even roll is technical winner of mmrca. all other planes can roll even gripen.
rafale is best way forward as it is true multi role. we cant do anything about the decision already taken
Who told you that? EF can roll. You need to simply look at videos before believing everything you hear.

Anyway, if you don't believe it here you go;


Plenty of rolls there.

and here,


EF is multirole too and I don't regret the decision IAF made. They picked the two best aircraft and whichever aircraft is chosen depends on the Vendor's price.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
first of all there is nothing like 4.75 gen plane. american f-16 was 4.5 gen plane, not even offered to anyone in the world.


and even you are agreeing to the political interference. american ouster is the proof of political intervention. and it actually happened. iaf also considered mig-35 for replacing mig-23 and mig-25. the plan is somewhere in mod.
you know the EF2000 cannot roll. a plane that cant even roll is technical winner of mmrca. all other planes can roll even gripen.
rafale is best way forward as it is true multi role. we cant do anything about the decision already taken
What is the Tactical value of rolling in a dog fight? even dogs can roll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top