MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[luckyy]

IAF has not made any statements throughout the MMRCA tender and trials despite many speculative articles, analysis, theories put out there. If some unsubstantiated news is not refuted by IAF doesn't mean it is true. TimesNow like its news paper outlet Times of India try to sensationalize without substance and facts. So, lets wait till this news gets substantiated by at least one other source before jumping the gun and declaring the Typhoon and Rafale are finalists. Otherwise, this thread will be a speculative web.

come on , if you think report is speculative in nature then why did you change the name of the thread.....?

 

[luckyy]

boeying should had offered F-15 silent eagle inplace of F-18...they had dreastically undermine the IAF requrements...

 

[civfanatic]

boeying should had offered F-15 silent eagle inplace of F-18...they had dreastically undermine the IAF requrements...

F-15 Silent Eagle is reserved for U.S. puppets like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

As India is not a U.S. puppet (yet), they will offer second-rate aircraft like F-16s and F-18s. I mean, even offering the F-16 to the IAF is an insult to India. Do the Americans think we are so stupid that we will buy the same airplane used by our archenemy??

 

[thakur_ritesh]

come on , if you think report is speculative in nature then why did you change the name of the thread.....?

this is the first supposedly concrete information on this subject, and so it gets tagged on the header, but incase we find something contradictory to this report the header will certainly be changed back to what it was previously because that would be a clear indication of a lot of speculation and we will resist making any speculation as our header.

Times Now much like ToI doesnt really have a good enough credibility, who have often been accused of pushing foreign agencies/countries agenda and on top of that they are known to sensationalize every small thing that comes their way. Dont forget these are the same people who sold the story of india's second line of sub contract value at rupees50,000crores.

in the report never once was any official quoted on the contrary an european gets quoted, not even any oblique reference was made, but since srinjoy choudhary is one of their better reporters and supposed to have better contacts contacts so we changed the header.

though if this was indeed an accurate assessment as is claimed by TN, then there was no reason why this leak was limited to TN, it would have been across the news network which has not happened which in it self makes this a suspect news.

-----------------

anyways coming back to the discussion did you guys notice the following from Chindit's Report:

A senior IAF (Indian Air Force) told DNA, "The commercial bids of only the short-listed vendors will be opened, but the fresh price as on date needs to be known. Since the trials have caused delay, so the April 2010 deadline could not be met," adding that finally the deal would go upto around 18 billion dollars with infrastructure, training and other expenditure included.

 

[luckyy]

anyways coming back to the discussion did you guys notice the following from Chindit's Report:
A senior IAF (Indian Air Force) told DNA, "The commercial bids of only the short-listed vendors will be opened, but the fresh price as on date needs to be known. Since the trials have caused delay, so the April 2010 deadline could not be met," adding that finally the deal would go upto around 18 billion dollars with infrastructure, training and other expenditure included.

ya , intresting , in the sence , when two of our rivals pakistan flying $15ml jf-17 , and china $20ml j-10...we are spending to fly a $120ml plane.....

and even after spending so much , we won't be going to war either.....due to nukes you know !!

ecomonically mmrca not going the right way .

 

[neo29]

Chhindits report also says that Sh-18 engine is underpowered. Thats weird considering GE with its ge-414 its one of the contenders to supply LCA engines.

IAF may reconsider if engine issues sorted but i dont think GE will do any modifications since its US govt has not cleared its sale and US never allows modification of its product. But surely after the US fighters are out of the race, F-16 for sure and Sh-18 for its supposedly underpowered engine.

 

[Armand2REP]

boeying should had offered F-15 silent eagle inplace of F-18...they had dreastically undermine the IAF requrements...

F-15SE hadn't achieved export clearance, I am not sure if it even has it yet.

 

[Armand2REP]

ya , intresting , in the sence , when two of our rivals pakistan flying $15ml jf-17 , and china $20ml j-10...we are spending to fly a $120ml plane.....

and even after spending so much , we won't be going to war either.....due to nukes you know !!

ecomonically mmrca not going the right way .

If you think JF-17 only cost $15 million with Russian engines and Italian radar, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Armand2REP]

If that is off topic how about deleting any post questioning the Times Now report. There is nothing to contradict it so as it is now, it stands. You can delete this once you have done that.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

If that is off topic how about deleting any post questioning the Times Now report. There is nothing to contradict it so as it is now, it stands. You can delete this once you have done that.

from here on you stick to the topic, and this is the last time you are being told that.

 

[EagleOne]

More On TimesNOW's Post On The MMRCA Selection
(shiv)Spoke last evening to my friend and colleague on the beat Srinjoy Chowdhry about his report on Times NOW to get a better sense of what it was all about, and to clarify some of the stuff left tantalizingly unsaid. Srinjoy's sources tell him the air force has based its trial evaluation report (submitted on August 1) on the overarching and unstated directive that it needs select a "modern western combat aircraft". Read those first two words carefully, because they mean different things to different people in the air force, government and aircraft-manufacturer campaign offices. Anyway, by this frame of reference, according to Srinjoy's sources, the MiG-35 is out because it isn't western or modern -- the IAF definitely doesn't want to squander this opportunity buying more Russian hardware. The F-16 is out because it isn't a modern platform with promising developing latitude ahead of it, they say. Interestingly, the F/A-18 is a "borderline case" according to his sources, who indicated to him that the Gripen is out because it's too much like the Tejas, and buying the Gripen would be to preempt and make redundant the Tejas programme. Significantly, according to Srinjoy's report, the IAF has cleared all six fighters for the next level, but clearly indicated its preference in an order of merit. In other words, a green light for the Rafale and Eurofighter, a yellow light for the F/A-18, and big red for the Gripen, F-16 and MiG-35. Also, it is almost certain that the final order for aircraft will be closer to 200 airplanes


http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-on-timesnows-post-on-mmrca.html

 

[nitesh]

So again one more source talk the same language as came from Times now. Armand a query, will French be open to integrate multiple weapon systems in to there plane, namely Indian, Russian and Israelis. I think they were reluctant previously for that.

 

[luckyy]

More On TimesNOW's Post On The MMRCA Selection
Srinjoy's sources tell him the air force has based its trial evaluation report (submitted on August 1) on the overarching and unstated directive that it needs select a "modern western combat aircraft". Read those first two words carefully, because they mean different things to different people in the air force, government and aircraft-manufacturer campaign offices. Anyway, by this frame of reference, according to Srinjoy's sources, the MiG-35 is out because it isn't western or modern -- the IAF definitely doesn't want to squander this opportunity buying more Russian hardware.

Significantly, according to Srinjoy's report, the IAF has cleared all six fighters for the next level, but clearly indicated its preference in an order of merit. In other words, a green light for the Rafale and Eurofighter, a yellow light for the F/A-18, and big red for the Gripen, F-16 and MiG-35. Also, it is almost certain that the final order for aircraft will be closer to 200 airplanes


http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-on-timesnows-post-on-mmrca.html

all six cleared the trails.....

now how IAF will convince the MoD & Finance ministry to buy eurofighter or rafale when a almost 50% cheaper options has also cleared the trails...

so , on the trails bases , the IAF order of marit goes like this...

1) eurofighter
2) Rafale
3) F-18
4)MIG-35
5)F-16
6)Gripen

congratulations , everybody stil in race.

 

[pankaj nema]

Even If China gives J10 and J F17 to Pakistan as FREE , we can do nothing about it.
AND In order to keep this India - pakistan rivalry going ,so that Pakistan remains a challenge for India , china will continue to provide weapons to Pakistan at throw away prices.

ALL we can do is keep our economic growth at a high rate so that we can devote adequate resources to meet our security challenges.

Fortunately for us ,Pakistan's economy is in such bad shape that no amount of aid from all its friends is able to revive the Pak economy.That in itself restricts Pakistan's defence expenditure.

 

[neo29]

India has scorpion, mirage upgrade and milan anti tank missile deals with France. Mmrca deal with france may look like India put all money in one basket.

Rafale is a good plane no doubt and gives fair challenge to EF too. Rafale will also be ready with its AESA way before EF does. Proven A2G capabilites. Since IAF operates mirage the training and maintenance cost may reduce considerably. This puts India in a fix which too choose, EF with goodies loaded or France with proven superior products and life costs.

But day dreaming that by 2022 IAF has Su-30 mki, LCA, Mirage, Pakfa, upgraded Jaguars, Mig 29, EF or Rafale is pleasing. Seeing in a chinese perspective will make anyone nervous.
Is IAF aiming for being the deadliest AF in the world ??

 

[Singh]

A senior IAF (Indian Air Force) told DNA, "The commercial bids of only the short-listed vendors will be opened, but the fresh price as on date needs to be known. Since the trials have caused delay, so the April 2010 deadline could not be met," adding that finally the deal would go upto around 18 billion dollars with infrastructure, training and other expenditure included.

Reliable sources have confirmed to DNA that the F/A-18 IN Super Hornet, has an underpowered engine, with both engines adding upto 180 KN (wet power) , and the thrust to weight ratio being less than 1, which doesn't meet the IAF ASQR, which should be more than one.
Said a senior IAF officer, "The .93 thrust to weight ratio of the Super Hornet speaks of the underpowered engines, plus the aircraft can only pull a maximum of 7.5 G, which is below the requirement which is 9G."

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/08/xclusive-mmrca-update-f-18-has.html

 

[Singh]

according to Srinjoy's sources, the MiG-35 is out because it isn't western or modern -- the IAF definitely doesn't want to squander this opportunity buying more Russian hardware. The F-16 is out because it isn't a modern platform with promising developing latitude ahead of it, they say. Interestingly, the F/A-18 is a "borderline case" according to his sources, who indicated to him that the Gripen is out because it's too much like the Tejas, and buying the Gripen would be to preempt and make redundant the Tejas programme. Significantly, according to Srinjoy's report, the IAF has cleared all six fighters for the next level, but clearly indicated its preference in an order of merit. In other words, a green light for the Rafale and Eurofighter, a yellow light for the F/A-18, and big red for the Gripen, F-16 and MiG-35. Also, it is almost certain that the final order for aircraft will be closer to 200 airplanes.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-on-timesnows-post-on-mmrca.html

 

[vikramrana_1812]

New fighters for Indian Air Force

After exhaustive trials of six fighter jets, Indian Air Force (IAF) has made its choice clear to the Government on the kind of fighter jets needed. Frontrunners for the force are French fighter Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon built by the European consortium. Bernhard Gerwert, Chief, EADS, says "If you are taking into account the portfolio of EADS we can bring the bridge between civil aviation and military aviation." But the Americans and Russians have lost out. Boeing's F18 no longer a frontrunner and Sweden's Gripen too falling off the Indian radar.

Despite MiG 35s big thunder, its engine failing to impress while the F-16, according to the IAF has no future. Another reason favouring Rafale and Eurofighter is political. Thomas Matussek, German Ambassador, "We regard India as a strategic security partner and this is why we do not insist on an end user monitoring agreement period." So when the mother of all defence deals is signed for the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft either Rafale or the Eurofighter will fly away with the Rs 42,000 crore deal.

http://www.timesnow.tv/New-fighters-for-Indian-Air-Force/articleshow/4351233.cms

 

[SHASH2K2]

How many engines for the MMRCA?
Anytime now, the Indian Air Force (IAF) should be submitting its report on the technical evaluations of six aircraft for its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, indicating its assessment and by extension, preferences, after which the Ministry of Defense (MoD) will open the commercial bids submitted by the six vendors and list them in terms of the best prices offered.

But in this contest, the IAF has to make a comparison of the performances of single-engine aircraft, the Gripen and the F-16, with twin-engine fighters, the MiG-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. Speculative noises over the past year have indicated it to be entirely possible for all these aircraft to make the cut as far as the parameters or Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQRs) laid down by the IAF are concerned.

Indeed, the varied character of the six aircraft taking part in the competition, which also cleared the paper-evaluation of their respective technical abilities last year, indicates that possibly all six aircraft could match these parameters in different ways to, more or less, the same extent.

The IAF has also said over the past year, that no aircraft would get extra credit for exceeding the SQRs. From all accounts, the IAF has been comparing the aircraft with the parameters laid down in the SQRs and not with each other. In such a scenario, the IAF could end up having a difficult time distinctly marking their preferred aircraft from the six in the fray. Three possible scenarios could come up.

The IAF could indicate a preference for either only single-engine or twin-engine aircraft, but questions could be asked as to why the IAF made no prior indication of a preference for either type of aircraft. Or thirdly, the IAF could throw up a mix of both types, if not all the competitors, in its technical report. So if the IAF does clear both, single and twin-engine aircraft, in its report, the MoD could be faced with the task of finally comparing the technical merits of the contenders with respect to their cost.

How do you compare the cost and reliability of a single-engine aircraft with a twin-engine aircraft? It seems obvious that single-engine aircraft would be much cheaper to buy and maintain, especially in terms of life-cycle cost, and that the reliability of twin-engine aircraft would exceed those of single-engine aircraft.

And if the IAF gives no extra points for performance exceeding the ASQR parameters laid down, then a decision on selection could rest solely with the MoD judging the commercial bids, where single-engine fighters would have an edge in terms of pricing.

Or would they?

The Austrian decision on the purchase of fighter aircraft is an interesting study of how a unified measure of the cost of the two types of aircraft with respect to their performance can be quantified.

The Austrian Court of Auditors examined the award of a contract for the supply of 24 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to the Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte (Austrian Air Force) in 2004, which had been competing with the Swedish Gripen for the order. The court looked at the process their Austrian Ministry of Defense used to arrive at a cost and utility analysis of the two aircraft on the basis of a mathematical model.

The court scanned the process their MoD used for gauging the operational capabilities of the two aircraft — what the report refers to as 'the military benefits of an aircraft' or what it means in a fight. Weightage was given to different criteria of performance (range, payload etc), which were tabulated and summed up out of a maximum cumulative weightage of 1000 points. The Eurofighter Typhoon scored a little higher in terms of the weightage given by the Austrian Air Force for performance with respect to their requirements.

The report says the auditors, evaluating the result of the Austrian Air Force and the MoD, found that weightage given to 35 performance criteria required adjustment, which resulted in a further shift of the cumulative weightage in favor of the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The relationship between the respective costs and the military benefits or operational performance of the two aircraft produced the cost benefit/utility analysis, which was a quantification of military benefits and what they cost. The cost benefit/utility analysis reflects the quantification of benefits with respect to their costs. The Austrian Air Force was looking for the maximum capability at the best price, or the 'best bidder'.

In case of payment on delivery or in ten equal half-yearly annual installments Gripen offered the better deal. In case payment were made in 18 equal half-yearly installments, the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was better.

But the unit price for the Eurofighter Typhoon wasn't necessarily lower than that of the Gripen. What the court validated was the judgment of the MoD that the offer for the Eurofighter Typhoon was more attractive, considering the payment model being offered for the performance criteria matched by the aircraft. While the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was higher than that of Gripen if payment were made on delivery or over ten half-yearly installments, the cost and utility analysis of the Eurofighter Typhoon offer was a little less than Gripen's quote, if payments were made in 18 half-yearly installments.

What's also interesting is that the offer made by the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium for 24 aircraft by payment on delivery wasn't all that much higher than the offer made by Gripen (the order was later reduced to 18, and then, 15 aircraft). This, in spite of the fact that the engine in a fighter is often considered to make up around one-third of the value of the aircraft.

But at the same time Jane's has reported a different scenario in the ongoing Romanian process for acquisition of 24 fighter aircraft, with Saab ready to offer 24 new Gripen aircraft at a cost of EUR 1 billion, against 24 second-hand Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft (and also, 24 second-hand F-16 aircraft) being offered at the same price.

It must be noted the costs considered by the Austrian Air Force and Ministry of Defense were not life-cycle costs, as India is going to adjudge. The costs are the offers made for the aircraft, in addition to weapons systems and other support systems. Nor does the report mention the performance criteria which were weighed in tabulating the cumulative military benefits of both aircraft. Each performance criteria may also be weighed differently and indeed, Indian requirements may well be very different.

But at the stage of consideration of the commercial bids, will the ministry also look at issues such as the opportunity cost in the event of a crash of one of these aircraft? "If a single-engine aircraft loses an engine, say in the event of a bird hit, the IAF loses the aircraft and possibly also the pilot. If a twin-engine aircraft loses an engine, the IAF loses an engine, which can be replaced," says the representative of another vendor in the contest. But single-engine fighter aircraft vendors claim that engines in current twin-engine aircraft have very few failure modes that allow an engine to run in case the other fails and that they are so closely fitted that an engine down due to bird hit or weapon strike would probably result in an explosion, causing the other to malfunction.

Most aircraft in the MMRCA competition are fairly recent developments and do not have an operational history lengthy enough to get an idea of their reliability in terms of the number of their engines.

The United States Air Force (USAF) figures tabulating engine-related Class A mishaps for single-engine and twin-engine aircraft tell an interesting story. Class A mishaps are those where the total cost of damage is $1 million or more, and/or involves destroyed aircraft, and/or fatal injury, and/or permanent total disability. The USAF Air Safety Center has tabulated charts up to March 31, 2010 and, in general, the rate of engine-related Class A mishaps is higher in single-engine combat aircraft than in twin-engine aircraft.

From 1972 to last December, the F-15 had chalked up 5,783,436 flight hours. In this time, 140 of these aircraft suffered Class A mishaps with 118 aircraft destroyed and 50 people killed, including 43 pilots. Since 1975 to December 2009, the F-16 had flown 9,217,670 hours, suffering 339 Class A mishaps, with 309 aircraft destroyed and 116 people killed, including 80 pilots.

The USAF Air Safety Center has put together statistics for engine-related Class A mishaps of F-16 aircraft running on four different engines and F-15 aircraft running on three different engines. Two engines are common to both aircraft. According to these statistics, the F-16 has suffered 70 engine-related Class A mishaps after 6,408,377 Engine Flight Hours running on the four different engines (not counting the record of the aircraft running on the F100-PW-200 engine), while the F-15 has suffered 31 engine-related Class A mishaps after 11,409,530 Engine Flight Hours on the three engines listed.

When comparing the reliability of both aircraft in terms of common engine usage, the F-16 experienced 23 engine-related Class A mishaps after 2,062,376 Engine Flight Hours on the F100-PW-220 engine since 1991. The F-15, powered by the same engines, suffered 9 engine-related Class A mishaps after 3,105,962 Engine Flight Hours, since1989.

The F-15, powered by the F100-PW-229 engine, suffered 4 engine-related Class A mishaps after 859,542 Engine Flight Hours, since 1997. The F-16, running the same engine, suffered zero engine-related Class A mishaps after 244,846 Engine Flight Hours till date.

Lockheed Martin dismisses the idea that these figures indicate single-engine aircraft to be less reliable than twin-engine. Its Director of Advanced Development Programs, Michael Griswold, points out that engines have improved over time and that even the next generation F-35 runs on a single engine and is safe enough to be envisaged for operations off aircraft carriers. He also thinks this kind of comparison between the F-16 and other aircraft isn't necessarily valid, as they have 'totally different missions' and 'different roles'.

But for the IAF, this comparison may well become relevant considering the variety
http://www.stratpost.com/how-many-engines-for-the-mmrca

 

[nrj]

anyways coming back to the discussion did you guys notice the following from Chindit's Report:

that finally the deal would go upto around 18 billion dollars with infrastructure, training and other expenditure included.

If the price shows up this figure, few years after signing the contract then its just sad to have known. But I don't think this much amount will be cleared from Fin Min without glitches or cross-checks.

However other POV is, even if winner is announced in next 3-4 months; the contract won't be signed any soon IMO. Once the winner is selected, GOI/MOD will throw series of obligations including 'Re-investment in India', which is most important IMHO. So then if we are watching 18 Billon USD co-invested in India, then its better than anything.... :happy_7: Although above is still largely speculation as this is early to comment on investment I think....