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

[Param]

here are some of the things that can happen.

1. one of the two won the tender.
2. Tender can be cancelled.
3. Tender is delayed for some more time.
4. worse case both of them are asked to give 125 fighter each with TOT. (we can afford this if we play or cards right) one is made by HAL and other some private company (TATA or L&T)
5. allegations of bribes and kickbacks and both or either of them is blacklisted.

LOL if both are blacklisted, they'll blacklist MoD in return.

 

[Galaxy]

50 Mirage upgradation will happen in 10 years.

Tejas still underdevelopment for last 20 years. Last time, I heard 1st squadron in 2015. Looks like MoD don't even want it to fly as it will be operating in Sulur, T.N.

MMRCA process is going for last 8 years.

I have serious doubt on MoD ability and may be they are involved in big corruption. We don't need enemy if we have such MoD. All are traitors worst than terrorist.

 

[sayareakd]

@ Saya
Even if we choose anyone, It won't make any difference to IAF. Mark my words.

yeah you are right, it wont make any differtence, but you have to understand that we have other objectives in mind.

1. TOT big time
2. LCA, specially the engine part.
3. AMCA tech
4. how to counter china and pakistan in two front war.
5. chines J20 etc.
6. total cost of plane in long and short run.
7. how to influence world
so these things will be taken into consideration.

 

[Param]

yeah you are right, it wont make any differtence, but you have to understand that we have other objectives in mind.

1. TOT big time
2. LCA, specially the engine part.
3. AMCA tech
4. how to counter china and pakistan in two front war.
5. chines J20 etc.
6. total cost of plane in long and short run.
7. how to influence world
so these things will be taken into consideration.

1. What about the tot provided till date?
2.What LCA engine part? Are they going to help us fine tune Kaveri or just sell the M88 core to replace Kabini?
3.And how are they going to help us counter china and Pak in a 2 front war? What kind of "Word influence" are we going to win by buying French or European stuff?
Maybe the consolation is France not selling stuff to pak for JF Bandar.

 

[Galaxy]

yeah you are right, it wont make any differtence, but you have to understand that we have other objectives in mind.

1. TOT big time - We can BUY MMRCA 126+ on ToT but we should buy 60-70 direct from Europe so that we will be operating around 4 squadron by 2017. Rest of the jets can be manufactured by HAL 2017 onwards. Anyway, 1st home made squadron will be raised only in 2017 that also if all goes well. We won't able to learn anything important between 2015-2017 i.e. 3 years.

2. LCA, specially the engine part.
3. AMCA tech

We have technology for MKI, MIG old series, Even we will get Mirage 2000 on ToT. If we can't make 4+ generation TejasMK1 on that then what's worth ? BTW, 1st Tejas MK1 will be inducted in 2015 and Tejas MK2 won't come in picture till 2017-18. In any case, We will have better knowledge. As far as AMCA, We can use knowledge of MKI, MIRAGE and FGFA and MMRCA between 2018-2021.

4. how to counter china and pakistan in two front war. - We can Buy 40 more MKI direct from Russia. We already learnt what we need to know. so that by 2017 == we will be operating around 300 MKI, 60-70 MMRCA or 100 Super Hornet + 150 MIG29/MIRAGE/Tejas MK1.

5. chines J20 etc. - J-20 will be inducted only in 2017-18. By that time, We will have 40 Odd Super MKI and may be 1st squadron of PAK FA too. BTW, How we will fight J-20 with MMRCA ? Only possibility is Super MKI/MMRCA + Phalcon or PAK-FA and both possible by 2017-2018.

6. total cost of plane in long and short run. We should Buy on ToT and in that way so that we will have few squandron by 2017 which is possible.

7. how to influence world - We don't need to influence world by waiting for 6 years for 2 squadron. We should buy 100 odd Super hornet which will be delivered within 5-6 years as per their earlier track record on F-A/18 S.H. or 60-70 MMRCA direct from Europe and rest home made by HAL.

 

[Galaxy]

IMO best possibility is :-

1> We should BUY 100 Super Hornet + 40 More MKI from Irkut.

By this way, We will be operating 300 MKI + 100 Super Hornet + 150 MIG29, MIRAGE M2k, Tejas MK1 by 2017-2018. IAF will be very strong in this case and we can face 2 side war or/and J-20 too with more addition of AWACS or/and 1 squadron of PAK-FA. We can develop Tejas MK2 on own by taking help of Mirage and Sukhoi, may be 2-3 years late but it won't decrease our quality neither strength. This is best solution.

2> BUY 126 MMRCA on ToT (but half from Europe and half by HAL after 2017) +40 More MKI from Irkut (Optional)

By this way, We will be operating 272-300 MKI + 60-70 MMRCA + 150 MIG29, MIRAGE M2k, Tejas MK1 by 2017-2018. This is also very good and 2nd best options and we can face 2 side war or/and J-20 too with more addition of AWACS or/and 1 squadron of PAK-FA. We can develop MK2 on own by taking help of Mirage and Sukhoi, may be 2-3 years late but it won't decrease our quality not strength.

In both the above cases (1-2 year won't make major difference)


3> We will Buy 126 MMRCA on ToT, 2nd squadron by 2017. So by 2017-2018 we will be operating 272 MKI, 36 MMRCA and 150 MIG29, MIRAGE M2k, Tejas MK1. What it will make difference to IAF by adding 2 squadron of MMRCA ? In any case, Tejas MK2 won't operational before 2017 and just for the sake of learning something more that also between 2015-2017. What does it matter if TejasMK2 is operational in 2017 or 2019 when we can operate 500 quality fighter jets by 2017-2018 including 4-6 squadron of MMRCA or Super Hornet. Learning should not be expense on RISK.

We should learn more between 2017-2020 by FGFA or/and MMRCA. 50 PAK FA will come direct from Russia and FGFA work will start only after 2020. If it is 2-3 years late, then we can Buy more PAK-FA. Till 2017, We can learn from Tejas MK1, Mirage and MKI. I don't see any major difference.

 

[sayareakd]

F18 is not even come any why near IAF requirements..................so out of question.

Sarkari tender is never been so difficult.

 

[nrj]

Shornet airframes are no longer airworthy.

 

[Galaxy]

F18 is not even come any why near IAF requirements..................so out of question.

Sarkari tender is never been so difficult.

Super Hornet did qualified as per tender and our need. Super Hornet is still par with Rafale or Typhoon if not better. We are not buying because they are not providing on ToT. Nothing more. We buy on ToT and spend decade(s) and does not make any difference.

Example: 1 squadron of 20% indigenous MKI in 2012 after 10 years of deal.
Example: 1 squadron of MIrage 2000 home-made after 10 years of deal. (2021)

are we planning to manufacture Mirage 2000 after 2020 ?

 

[natarajan]

our enemies are here not outside borders ,we need some immediate solutions and these purchases are merely for kick backs and to increase swiss account

 

[Galaxy]

our enemies are here not outside borders ,we need some immediate solutions and these purchases are merely for kick backs and to increase swiss account

Exactly. I complete agree with you.

I failed to understand what 126 MMRCA by 2025 will do ?? At that time, Maximum we will be operating 3 squadron in N-E and China would be operating 100-150 J-20 due to their rapid manufacturing. What MMRCA will do in that case ???? Sitting duck and hoping for radar to give signal ?? It would be MMRCA or Super MKI or Super Hornet + AWACS or PAK-FA/FGFA that really matters. What does it make difference whether Super MKI or Super Hornet or MMRCA ?? So why wait for 15 years for maximum 3 squadron when we can get 3 squadron in 3 years and we will maintain Air-Superiority for many years to come ??? Just to get some more knowledge for Tejas MK2 that also after 7 years 1st squadron will be raised somewhere in South India which will be again sitting duck.

 

[SpArK]

F-35: Should India Really Ride The Lightning?

By Mihir Shah & Aditya Mandrekar


The recent statement by a United States Department of Defence official, that the US would be willing to discuss a possible sale of the F-35 Lightning II to India, or even consider bringing India into the ambitious programme as a partner, has generated a lot of attention in the Indian mainstream media.




While this is not the first time the F-35 has been offered to India, the timing of the pitch is interesting. Coming six months after the two American contenders vying for the lucrative Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract failed to make the Indian Air Force (IAF) shortlist, and just days before the bids by EADS and Dassault were opened, it is being widely seen as an attempt by the US and Lockheed-Martin to get back into the competition. Sections of the Indian news media – both print and electronic – have called for its consideration for the MMRCA tender (and some have called for an outright purchase) resulting in a new round of teeth-gnashing over a topic that has stretched over a decade. All things considered, here's why we don't think this is a very good idea.


First, basics. There is no doubt that the F-35 will meet accuracy and modernity standards required from any new-generation military equipment. But does it provide true bang-for-buck that the Indian Air Force needs? The way we see it, not really.



The Lightning II can barely be called a "medium weight" aircraft – the only aircraft heavier than it in the MMRCA competition was the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Now couple this with the fact that its payload just about matches that of the Tejas, and you start to wonder whether it's such a good fit for the IAF. Next, even if it is advertised as a "multirole" aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability. Also, its stealth is not all-aspect like the F-22's, and so it cannot be relied upon to make its way in and out of enemy territory unassisted.


Additionally, the F-35 features a significantly smaller combat radius than either MMRCA finalist when on internal fuel and weapons (which also means a smaller payload due to restrictions on space available). There is no official mention yet about external fuel tanks on the F-35, and the moment you hang weapons on external pylons, you can kiss both range and stealth goodbye. There are doubts, too, about its aerodynamic capabilities. The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.


There is also an issue that seems minor at first sight, but could throw a spanner in procurement. The IAF has, over the last two decades, gravitated towards two-man crews for any aircraft that will be involved in strike roles beyond close air support. This was highlighted in the Kargil War when IAF Mirages had to perform precision bombing tasks at high altitude while avoiding air defences, staying within the border and keeping an eye on possible interception. It is the reason why a third of the MMRCA batch is touted to comprise tandem-seaters just as all the new Jaguars have been. The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.


Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22's radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure. Even six years after it entered service, new and potentially fatal problems continue to surface with alarming regularity. It isn't too hard to guess how the F-35, whose design borrows heavily from that of the F-22 and even outclasses it in certain aspects, will fare in this regard.


If that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won't be for a decade. Going by past experience, further schedule slippages and cost overruns look like a distinct possibility. Now, factor in the additional uncertainty created by the possible need to develop a tandem-seat version for the IAF alone, and one quickly begins to see why any optimism regarding timelines and costs could be highly misplaced. In the midst of all these arguments and calculations, the main reason why new medium fighters are being bought is often forgotten: the IAF needs new aircraft as fast as possible to shore up numbers and make up for the rapid obsolescence of a large portion of its fleet, and each delay only serves to make an already precarious situation worse. It is already taking a significant risk with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as it is. What is the point of bringing more uncertainty into the equation now, that too to procure a fighter that offers little in addition to low-observability?


And speaking of low-observability, how much will it cost to maintain the stealth features, especially in the hazy, dusty conditions of India? For that matter, will the IAF even get an aircraft that is as stealthy as the ones the US and UK operate? Will it get all the avionics, even watered down versions? The US is reluctant today to provide the UK, the only level-1 partner in the project, with full access to the aircraft's source code. What are the chances of India getting a better deal?



Finally, there is one additional issue that bears examination in this debate, and that is how procuring the F-35 will affect the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project. Because of the similar roles the two aircraft shall be expected to fulfil, there is a distinct possibility that purchasing the F-35 will kill the AMCA for good, with disastrous long-term consequences. Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.


Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of "kicking the door down" in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence.


And yet, the reason this may turn out to be a bad idea is that in the same way the MiG-25 was replaced not by another aircraft but an indirect replacement – spy satellites – the F-35's role can be performed not by another aircraft, but by missiles. We already operate the ground-launched BrahMos. The air-launched version should be available within the next few years, giving us a 300-km reach anywhere beyond its launch point. Throw the Shaurya into the mix and suddenly we can hit targets deep inside enemy territory without having to risk aircraft or pilots. Granted, missiles cannot do everything an aircraft can but even if cruise missiles provide partial coverage, the costs in maintaining a squadron's worth of special aircraft and pilots cannot be justified.


This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning II should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.


MIHIR SHAH is a US-based engineer who tracks aerospace issues closely. He has contributed before to Livefist and Pragati magazine. He works at a firm specialising in energy efficiency consulting.


ADITYA MANDREKAR is an electrical and avionic systems engineer who currently writes embedded software for an electronics company in the UK.


This column reflects the personal & independent views of the contributing columnists | Photo / Lockheed-Martin

 

[Zebra]

@ Saya

Even if we choose anyone, It won't make any difference to IAF. Mark my words.

5 Squadron in 10 years ?? Why not Buy F-18 Super Hornet, U.S. will provide 100 Odd Jets within 5 years. Yes, No ToT, But what does it matter? What we learnt from MIG and Sukhoi in last 30 years ?? Tejas which is still in underdevelopment for last 20 years ?? 1st Home made MKI with 20% indigenous after 10 years ?

For SH ,
No ToT for Avionics and Engine . Rest is available . ( I think ) .

 

[SpArK]

surprise o surprise. deccan herald claims eurofighter unit cost cheaper than Rafale..:shocked:







Fighter deal suspense continues





Termed the mother of all defence deals, the procurement of 126 multi-billion dollar medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) has taken a new shape and India may well end up with the newer and more advanced aircraft from the two companies left in the race.


The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has shortlisted European Consortium EADS' Eurofighter and French firm Dassault's Rafale for the estimated $10.4 billion deal, disqualifying the other contenders.


The MoD, on Friday last, opened the commercial bids of the two contenders clearing way for further negotiations before it announces the lowest bidder. According to well-placed sources, EADS, which is promoting the more advanced and thereby more expensive aircraft is said to have quoted a lower price "unit flyaway cost."


"This comes as a contradiction to all the assessments made in the past that Eurofighter is costly and that India might not purchase it due to cost pressures," a source said.


The two aircraft were, according to Air Commodore B"ˆR Krishna, Commandant, Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment, were "shortlisted after they complied with the 600-odd parameters laid down in the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements." Sources, while adding that though there was not too much of a difference between the two quotes, however said:"ˆ"This shows how important the deal is for countries involved in the promotion of the aircraft and with the European economy not exactly in a comfortable position, such deals have become more dearer."


The vendors refused to comment on the matter as there is confidentiality agreement. Speaking to Deccan Herald, MoD spokesperson Sitanshu Kar, without confirming anything said:"ˆ"...This is just the unit cost, there is more work left before one could rejoice or feel otherwise. We have some of our best personnel looking into the matter and the L-1 could be announced in another six to eight weeks."


The MoD is busy with benchmarking and standardisation of costs, so that there are common parameters for the bidders. Kar said a Joint Director rank official from the Defence Accounts Department will head the deliberation of costs.


Given that India is, for the first time going to consider more than just the direct acquisition costs before selecting the lowest bidder, the MoD will also evaluate the life-cycle costs (keeping in mind a time span of 40 years of operation), cost of other aspects like the electronic warfare equipment, avionics et al.


And considering that the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture the selected aircraft in the future, transfer of technology costs will also be considered.




Fighter deal suspense continues

 

[JayATL]

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

 

[Galaxy]

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

Nope. A2A.

 

[JayATL]

^^^what is the indian airforce need ( inventory) not your personal choice- its A2A?

 

[SPIEZ]

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

Ever heard the term multi-role ????

 

[p2prada]

surprise o surprise. deccan herald claims eurofighter unit cost cheaper than Rafale..:shocked:

I mentioned this as a possibility even before the bids opened. The buying power of 4 nations + Saudi is greater than one. They can afford to go lenient with price initially only in order to get a partner which can spend more money later.

They are unanimously offering a partnership that not even they have with each other. Dassault is a business transaction rather than a partnership. I still support the Rafale, but won't be disappointed with a EF win. They have made great strides since 2007.

Anyway can the article be verified officially, because even Deccan Herald can lie?

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

IAF needs an aircraft to do both and both aircraft do both. Now the question is which of them is cheaper.

 

[JayATL]

if i can very generalize the differences here, from what I understood ---

eurofighter is better at A2A and rafale is better at A2G both being under the MMRCA class. and the need for India leans towards having a A2G aircraft? is that right?

Nope. A2A.

Ever heard the term multi-role ????

see the progression of the question asked...