India opens bids in $10.4-bn combat plane tender.

[mayfair]

I'd say there is nil chance the French/Europeans would sell to China no matter how the contract goes.

EU bans arms sales to China
The U.K.'s position remains exactly as it has been over the last few years, which is now is not the right time to lift the ban

The French may sell to Pakistan (they had no problem supplying both sides in the Iran-Iraq war) regardless. The Germans in particular are fussy about selling to dictators who would use them against a democracy, but the four countries together would have so many issues that Pakistan is probably never a market for the EF.

French sold Pakis Mirage jets and Agosta submarines. They will have no issues selling them avionics for JF-17 as long as the Pakis can pay.

If the euro economy continues to go south and China bails them out, the arms embargo will be history.

 

[p2prada]

So, what's your point? Stealth and sensors always win? If that is the case, I wonder why the USA decided to redesign and build the F-35 rather than develop along F-22. Clearly the F-35 is not in the leagues of the F-22 stealth OR sensor wise. Even weapons load, avionics and maneuverability is not nearly there.

It seems you are going on a tangent. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter. So the equations are different for this type of a fighter.

The F-22, EF and MKI are air superiority fighters and the tactics used is different on such fighters compared to smaller ones like F-16, M-2000, Mig-29, F-35 or even Super Hornet.

Sensors are way better on the F-35 than the F-22. The F-22C will be a little closer to the F-35, but not as much even after that.

The F-35 may not be as maneuverable as a F-22 but a stealth optimized F-35 is definitely as maneuverable as a clean F-16 in the subsonic regime, that is plenty. The subsonic regime is where the F-35 needs to fly in as compared to the other three.

The clear reason is price, maintenance and "doing the job" - i.e. can it fly, detect and shoot reasonably well? If it can then it's a killer - right? Same for the JF-17, the MMRCA, the MKI, LCA or anything else.

Not necessary. Currently the SH can engage and kill MKIs from very far because of the high powered AESA. It does not mean a definite kill. Engagement is different from a kill. Locking on and firing a BVR is engagement, not a kill. Kill comes when the target is hit. But to hit the target there are a lot of parameters that need to be satisfied and are a lot harder to achieve than a simple BVR lock and fire.

The three show extremely high supersonic capability against, say, the F-35 and have the ability to out maneuver a BVR missile. This is what Carlo Kopp has been trying to tell. The question is not whether the F-35 is is good or bad, but the concept where people believe BVR is the end all of Air warfare. There is no guarantee the BVR will hit it's target. So, what happens if the BVR misses? A F-4 once fired a highly capable HARM missile at a B-52(by mistake) a long time back. The F-4 was at a higher altitude and though the target was an enemy ground AAA radar. It was a non maneuverable target with no warning sensors or indication of a lock on. The missile simply clipped past the tail and splinters damaged the tail, nothing happened. That's how the term "In HARM's way" was coined.

So, if a plane can fly, detect and shoot reasonably well it would also mean you are sitting on a rampaging bull, seek out beer cans and shoot em. Sure, you can do all this, but what is the guarantee you will hit all the targets?

 

[p2prada]

Since the initial order is expected to ramp upto to 200-220 fighter jets, what is the likelihood that we split them down the middle 100-120 each for Rafale and Typhoon.

The pluses could be
1. We get the best of both worlds- one of the best Air superiority and Air to surface fighters in the world and the accompanying technologies, which should have cascading benefits of their own
2. We get strategic tie ups with 5 nations, 2 of which happen to be UNSC permanent members
3. Since the two aircraft cost roughly the same, the price differential should not be that much compared to buying 220 of either type.
4. We preclude either the Europeans or the French from selling to China (or Pakis for that matter)
5. We get a wider array of weapon systems and and ensure cross compatibility
6. The complementary nature of the two systems would bring a much needed boost to the ability of IAF to hold its own in case of a two front war over diverse terrain.

The possible negatives
1. Logistical nightmare. Not sure if HAL has the ability or the infrastructure ti set up two independent production lines. Not to mention IAF will have its hands full with reconciling the potpourri of our fighter inventory
2. Life cycle costs may go up and it may be nightmare to negotiate with two different manufacturers for ToT, mid life upgrades, spares, weapon systems etc.
3. Contrary to previous assumption, the cost of 110+110 EF+Rafale may turn out to be much higher than 220 of either kind
4. Europeans and French may still sell to China and Pakis
5. The ToT may have redundant areas which would render the whole exercise not so beneficial- one option would be to ensure minimum overlaps in ToT and if there is any, go for the best one and extract something in lieu from the other party.
6. It may encourage European cartelisation- after all having the ability to influence a substantial portion of our combat fleet will come with a leverage of its own. Politico-Economic-Strategic implications are difficult to predict.

Even if we find the funding for it, the negatives far outweigh the positives, especially the first point followed by the second. HAL will not be able to deliver either.

 

[p2prada]

The DAS mentioned there has yet to be proven on a F-35 - there were significant problems associated with it. The same DAS can be put on the F-22 too.
Still, the AESA in F-35 will NOT match the F-22 and overall the F-35 is nowhere near the Raptor.

The F-35 is nowhere near the Raptor, yes. But the F-35 is far better than anything else flying today. That's the logic explained by Gates to Pentagon. If you are able to pay higher taxes only to allow the USAF more F-22s then go for it.

 

[p2prada]

If the euro economy continues to go south and China bails them out, the arms embargo will be history.

That's why we need to have a major head start in buying European stuff quickly and building equivalent stuff at the same time. That's the only advantage we have against China.

But if Europe takes longer than a few years to life the embargo then China may not need European stuff. Rather the Chinese will end up selling to Europe.

 

[mayfair]

That's why we need to have a major head start in buying European stuff quickly and building equivalent stuff at the same time. That's the only advantage we have against China.

But if Europe takes longer than a few years to life the embargo then China may not need European stuff. Rather the Chinese will end up selling to Europe.

We've had Jaguars, Mirages and Sea Harriers for a long time, but that hasn't helped us much in terms of building something actually equivalent- LCA is light years from being operational and appears more as a pilot (excuse the pun) project than the real deal. Even if one were to argue that those purchased did not actually involve technology transfer, our ability to absorbing new technologies and rerouting ti for our own benefit is yet to manifest itself.

I believe things may have changed of late as you pointed out p2p, with T-90s, Su-30 MKIs and even Nerpa, but how far are we from actually getting rid of the crutches is anyone's guess. China will find what it needs, by hook or by crook. I believe they gathered enough from the Russians to jumpstart their own aerospace industry, fleeced the Japanese and the Germans for their CHRs and as you pointed out, it may only be a matter of time before they render European assistance moot.

With all due respect, I fail to see our advantageous position as of now.

 

[SPIEZ]

Akash SAM has a 98% hit probability against a drone when ripple fired with 2 missiles.

Are you saying that the AKASH SAM is a poor missile. If it would require two missile's to fire at a drone ?

 

[SPIEZ]

Also if India buys one of the fighters, will it mean the other would go to the pukes ?

 

[Dovah]

Also if India buys one of the fighters, will it mean the other would go to the pukes ?

Dude, $$$$$????

 

[SPIEZ]

Dude, $$$$$????

Read a couple of previous posts. I wouldn't mind Europeans from selling them to the Chini's. But at the hand of the pukes it could mean trouble.
OTOH, I seriously doubt pukes have the money.
Also, wouldn't the import of a foreign a/c have a dent of the developmental efforts of J-series ?

 

[nrj]

Wasn't it already made clear that orders will not be split?

 

[p2prada]

We've had Jaguars, Mirages and Sea Harriers for a long time, but that hasn't helped us much in terms of building something actually equivalent- LCA is light years from being operational and appears more as a pilot (excuse the pun) project than the real deal. Even if one were to argue that those purchased did not actually involve technology transfer, our ability to absorbing new technologies and rerouting ti for our own benefit is yet to manifest itself.

Jaguars, M-2000, Mig-21s etc came with very little ToT as compared to today's fighters. These aircraft were the same to us as the JF-17 is to the Pakistan. It helped us build a manufacturing base in India. HAL learnt assembly of airframes and overhauling of engines. After a few decades of this HAL got into a partnership with Sukhoi and with enough experience we managed to configure and build the MKI on our own not only for ourselves but also for foreign countries like Malaysia. Even Russia seems to be looking at our version of the MKI. This took 15 years. Now we are building the MKI from scratch. None of these can translate to our own equivalent development so quickly. With HAL's experience with MKI, they became the most suitable partners for the PAKFA project. This time we aren't just configuring our own aircraft we are going to be part of R&D and this would be 25% of the actual work on PAKFA. 6 other labs will be involved in the project which shows we have been making strides. Compared to UK's excellent 20% industrial workshare in the F-35, we have 25% R&D share in PAKFA and 100% industrial workshare in PAKFA. Pretty neat.

Our ability to use ToT on our own designs will not come so quickly simply because we don't have such a capable industry as of today. Our attempt at LCA was quite ambitious and we are paying the price for it. But it still helped build experience. Even beyond technical experience we need managerial skills in managing such a big project. This is far more important than simply building an aircraft and flying it 15 years after the due date. So, our next project may be better and will take lesser time.

I believe things may have changed of late as you pointed out p2p, with T-90s, Su-30 MKIs and even Nerpa, but how far are we from actually getting rid of the crutches is anyone's guess. China will find what it needs, by hook or by crook. I believe they gathered enough from the Russians to jumpstart their own aerospace industry, fleeced the Japanese and the Germans for their CHRs and as you pointed out, it may only be a matter of time before they render European assistance moot.

With all due respect, I fail to see our advantageous position as of now.

China is in the same boat. They don't yet have a world class military product of their own. J-20 may turn out to be one, but that is still yet to be seen. Their attempts at J-10 and cloning J-11 aren't a great power's accomplishments. However they have more funding, a more advanced industry and a larger pool of technically qualified manpower than India does. We are at least 10 years behind. With J-20 and J-xx and similar projects like the Type-45 destroyers, Varyag type carriers, Nuke subs, Type 99 tanks etc they will even surpass European powers.

Even with our smaller pool of resources and manpower, we can still beat them by a superior influx of technology(from the west) that most countries themselves cannot afford to induct after developing it. For eg: We may end up with more PAKFAs than Russia. The Barak NG is already one of the most advanced SAMs in the world. Once done we can develop superior versions of it on our own. For eg: The Brahmos II missile will be fully developed and tested in India itself, including the Scramjet engine. So, while the Chinese are re-inventing the wheel, we are doing the same at a much faster rate and at a higher technological base using lesser money through Joint Ventures.

Now, if China were to start buying western technology and initiate such JVs with countries like France or Israel, then we are in trouble. But if there is a delay of 5 to 10 years, they we have very little to worry about.

Are you saying that the AKASH SAM is a poor missile. If it would require two missile's to fire at a drone ?

No. Akash is contemporaneous with the SA-6 missile. Read up on the SA-6. You could say the Akash is meant to replace the Sa-6 batteries with a similar level of capability but with modern seekers and radars.

The figure is true for most missiles except for the most advanced. Even for the most advanced like PAC or S-300, the figures are pretty much the same, but they do it at greater ranges and altitudes.

@mayfair
The Akash uses the Sa-6 as the base for it's development. So, this is a very good example of how technology bought from outside was incorporated into our own industry.

 

[weg]

French sold Pakis Mirage jets and Agosta submarines. They will have no issues selling them avionics for JF-17 as long as the Pakis can pay.

If the euro economy continues to go south and China bails them out, the arms embargo will be history.

No chance the US or UK will supply aircraft to China. They are the enemy.

 

[ptltejas]

Any updates about who had the lower fly away price in the bids?

No Its stickly denied to all employees, dassault and eurofighter. they cannot even give any details of the bid.

 

[p2prada]

No chance the US or UK will supply aircraft to China. They are the enemy.

Then all the more reason to buy Rafale. This way the French will not sell the aircraft to China and the UK will not sell the EF anyway.

 

[Galaxy]

MMRCA Winner Will Emerge Mid-December: IAF Chief

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2011

Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne, currently in Bangalore for the station commanders conference, spoke to the press a couple of hours ago, where he was (surprise, surprise) asked about the M-MRCA. Here's what he said: "We're calculating very hard. A lot of work is going on. In another four weeks, we should be able to wrap it up. No matter how long it takes, we have to get it right. There are a lot of complicated figures. But mid-December we should have a good sense of who gets selected."

"‹Livefist: MMRCA Winner Will Emerge Mid-December: IAF Chief

 

[The Messiah]

I am firmly in rafale camp.

why are names not visible in poll ?

 

[sayareakd]

can you guys throw some light on political decision for the deal.

when the deal goes to Rafale

when the deal goes to EF

or when the order is split 100+100 for both.

what are the benefits PMO and MEA is looking at.

 

[nitesh]

What I feel that our top leadership is looking for deriving maximum out of this deal, remember this 10 billion dollar is guess work, I have never seen any government official quoting the figure of 10 billion, it is a figure that is just going round. So we don't know how much our Government is ready to cough up for the deal. I think they are seriously looking at splitting the order, to get best of both. In the process getting as much tech transfer as possible.

I think if the order goes to one player, it should be EF, not Rafale.

 

[sayareakd]

I think they are seriously looking at splitting the order, to get best of both. In the process getting as much tech transfer as possible.

in long run we can afford to have 100+100 of both aircrafts, if you look at other state of other military procurements, powerful airforce is good option, if they can have common systems in both the planes, if EU countries can do that, they can recover from bad eco crises, we on our part would most of Europe on our side with this mega deal.

If that happens China will be frustrated and Pakistan would be economically bankrupt if they tried to match us.