MRCA News & Dicussions (IV)

[saptarishi]

80 million dollars each is rafale's price,,so eurofighter is priced even higher,,,i think gripen has a gud chance in mmrca because of iaf's reluctance to go for uncle's birds

 

[vishal_lionheart]

Please guy check how many parts are American made in GRIPEN NG

 

[vishal_lionheart]

Can Anyone Post the same scenario related EURO FIGHTER Tyfoon? I heard that a couple of part in Tyfoon also American made.

@D.B.C. do you have any information regarding it?

Every plane except MIG 35 has AMERICAN components, means American policies and strings attached to it, and Every Player is hiding this truth.

 

[saptarishi]

thats enormous,,,,,gripen ,f-18,f-16 are all made of uncle's components,,mig-35 ain't any maverick as far as avionics and strike capability is concerned ,,,rafa and typh are pricey,,,MAN THE GREAT MMRCA CONUNDRUM,,,,,,what to do.......

 

[SHASH2K2]

Please guy check how many parts are American made in GRIPEN NG

Vishal its known to everyone that all major components in Gripen are made in USA. Thats the reason despite being a good and cheap plane its out of favour since beginning. Fact is that Even French plane have many USA components, advantage with Gripen is that they took clearance from USA before submitting the bids while French will go for approvals after winning the bids(if it happens) .

 

[SHASH2K2]

thats enormous,,,,,gripen ,f-18,f-16 are all made of uncle's components,,mig-35 ain't any maverick as far as avionics and strike capability is concerned ,,,rafa and typh are pricey,,,MAN THE GREAT MMRCA CONUNDRUM,,,,,,what to do.......

Go with the one that gives maximum TOT and allow maximum opportunity for Indian defence industry to gain out of it.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Gripen specs are very similar to LCA why would we go for this??

 

[vishal_lionheart]

Hello Guys, I am little bit off topic, Why India did not invest in YAK 141 which is Father of F 35.
We missed that opportunity in the past. Today I saw the Video clips of both the Aircraft, there are lot of similarities in Yak 141 and F 35 in Airframe and Engine. Though Yak 141 was 20 years old, but it had great job done by Russian engineers. Today's F 35 look like copy of past Yak 141 even though they have lot of composite and latest technology.

Sorry for off topic, but I am curious about it....

 

[vishal_lionheart]

May be this can help http://ifile.it/8ld9vx6/MIG31.zip

Yefim Gordon on Russian Air Power states that the new Mig-31BM upgrade focuses mainly on A2A capabilities , with R-37M and the new BM upgrade ( not to be confused with old BM ) the Mig-31 is capable of intercepting targets flying upto Mach 6 and is effective in dealing with Stealth Targets.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=102378&page=18

ref : Austin

 

[p2prada]

Take a good look at this picture of the Mirage 2000, notice the wing begins well behind the air intake, now please explain how the delta wing of the Mirage can influence the amount of air pushed into the air intake?

I stand corrected. I am too used to LCA so, I forgot about the Mirages design. However, I am not wrong about the high altitude bombing capability of the M-2000. It came as a surprise with regards to the M-2000s capability to be used as a Dive bomber, and that is how the aircraft was used.

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/06_02_Weapons_Use.php
High-Altitude Dive Bombing

If you're coming up on a target you want to bomb at high altitude, you don't have to pass it by. Such a target can be hit by following these guidelines:

Cut power to 55 percent.

Line up the target directly in front of you.

Set the radar to the shortest range.

When the target appears on the radar, activate the bomb sight and start a steep dive.

Keep track of your progress by watching the radar screen. Adjust your dive if necessary to prevent passing the target.

The target triangle should appear on the ground as you pass 10,000 feet. If it doesn't appear, you've probably passed over the target.

Drop the bombs and/or pull up at 3500 feet. If at any time during your dive you lose control, extend the speedbrake to stabilize the aircraft.


This is dive bombing as carried out by a F-15. Notice the Bold parts.

Over the Himalayas the air is known to be thin. So, a 55% power is all you can work with anyway. At 20000 feet, the air density is lower by more than 30%. The Mirages had to come in on their targets from 30000 feet. At 800m even the LCA work only at 80% power, GE F404 engines.

The F-15 delivers package at 3500 Feet and quickly gains altitude using greater power. The Mirage-2000 does the same. However, 55% over the Himalayas is not the same as wherever the F-15 operates. Also, the Mirages have significantly lesser power compared to the Eagle. However, the effect was reduced due to the higher drag on the Delta during climb. Drag provided lift and lift enabled more efficient climbing angles due to the Deltas ability to manage high AoAs at lesser power.

Thin air? Delta High Drag?? Drag is a drag, it has a detrimental effect on aerodynamic performance.

No Drag is also detrimental to performance.

You should read a bit before you make such assertions, you claim the Mirage 2000 was praised due to its munition delivery capability. Until Kargil, the Mirage 2000's were employed by the IAF as air defense fighters, IAF considered the Mirage to have limited ground attack capability.

You forget about people's ability to innovate in the last moment. We used bombs meant for the HAL Ajeet on the Mirage-2000 in the last minute. These were made by Spain and delivered in the 70s. M-2000 was our primary nuke delivery aircraft since the 80s.

A little bit about Operation Safed Sagar. The war started in May and ended in July. IAF first began its bombing missions on the 26th of May. On the 27th we lost a Mig-21 and Mig-23 along with Mi-17. On the 30th Mirage-2000s carrying vintage 250kg bombs were brought in. 12 bombs for each aircraft for every sortie, 12 aircraft in all were used in the early stages. No PGMs were ready at the time. On the 24th of June, 2 Mirages carrying PGMs were first used on targets over Tiger Hill. That is a whole month after bombing started in the first place. The Mirages alone led 240 Strike missions and dropped 55000 Kgs of ordinance over the enemy. Out of the 55000 Kgs only 4000Kgs were PGMs.

The Mig-23s and Mig-27s were our best strike aircraft outside of the Nuclear envelope in the IAF. The Mirages were actually a bit inferior in that respect due to their limited capability in strike missions, as you said. Lack of capable EW equipment on the Migs forced us to use Mirages for Nuke missions. The only reason the M-2000s were brought in to the war was because of their ability to engage high altitude targets effectively. At first the IAF was not even contemplating use of the Mirages in Kargil.

You make claims in your post but don't support it with any evidence, it is universally acknowledged that delta designs are more suited to interception and air defense roles.

It came out as a surprise that the Mirage 2000s made good dive bombers in high altitude warfare. Primarily attributed to its wing design as explained earlier.

Interception and air defence roles are meant for high altitude engagement after all. So I concur. Deltas provide similar advantages in dive bombings too.

where did you read the Hornet failed the Leh Trials?iamhullucinating.com :emot15: ?

4 out of 5 fighters failed trials at Leh. Gripen wasn't in the list. That leaves SH, EF, Rafale, Viper and Mig. The Mig-35 is believed to be the only possible contender to have made it through the trials at the time. Mig-29s have operated out of Leh before with the older, smokey engines. It does not take a genius to figure that out.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

4 out of 5 fighters failed trials at Leh. Gripen wasn't in the list. That leaves SH, EF, Rafale, Viper and Mig. The Mig-35 is believed to be the only possible contender to have made it through the trials at the time. Mig-29s have operated out of Leh before with the older, smokey engines. It does not take a genius to figure that out.

Lets first address your Leh claim, you said and I quote "The best we can get from the news today is that SH failed the Leh Trials. No matter how good the aircraft is, it's useless if you can't fly it where it is supposed to fly.".

You implied there was news that the Super Hornet failed the Leh Trails.The casual uninformed reader in all likelihood would have accepted your statement as fact. You should have made it clear that your statement was an assumption based on the fact that the IAF has previously operated Mig-29's from Leh. It is a reasonable assumption provided the Mig-35 being offered has the same engine and same MTOW as the Mig-29 currently operated by the IAF. We both know this isn't the case, the RD-33MK power plant of the Mig-35 is an evolved version of the original RD-33. We also know the MTOW of the Mig-35 is 8,700 kgs higher.

The original news report carried by 'The Hindu' clearly stated four of five aircrafts experienced problems and needed 'modifications to the fuel systems'. How did you deduce failure from the words 'experienced problems' and 'needed modification to the fuel system'.

Ministry of Defence officials familiar with the MMRCA trials told The Hindu that while they expect no hiccups during the weapons drop over Pokhran, the Leh exercise proved challenging to the other contenders vying for the MMRCA deal.

The officials confided that four of the five aircraft in the MMRCA competition faced problems starting up in the rarefied atmosphere of Leh, and the IAF had to ask the manufacturers to undertake modifications in the aircraft's fuel systems.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article267530.ece

A long distance runner could experience muscle cramps(a problem) and still finish first. I interpreted the original report to mean four or the five aircrafts experienced minor difficulties required minor modifications but completed the Leh trails successfully. All five aircrafts are equipped with modern engines and high lift devices such as canards (Rafale /Tyhpoon) and LERX (Super Hornet/Mig 35) and can be configured to operate from Leh if the IAF chooses to do so post procurement.

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/06_02_Weapons_Use.php
High-Altitude Dive Bombing

If you're coming up on a target you want to bomb at high altitude, you don't have to pass it by. Such a target can be hit by following these guidelines:

Cut power to 55 percent.

Line up the target directly in front of you...

The dive bombing instructions you quoted is from a flight simulator game manual, in real life dive bombing is a high risk maneuverer and is rarely performed unless it is tactically necessary. It was tactically necessary in 1999 due to the location of targets on mountain ridges and the absence of precision air-to-ground tactical missiles in IAF inventory.

.......Mirages have significantly lesser power compared to the Eagle. However, the effect was reduced due to the higher drag on the Delta during climb. Drag provided lift and lift enabled more efficient climbing angles due to the Deltas ability to manage high AoAs at lesser power.

Drag does not provide lift, wings provide lift to counter weight. Engine thrust is used to overcome drag in level flight. Pure delta designs exhibit poor AoA performance, an attempt to increase AoA at high speed will result in violent departure and slow speed high AoA will cause a deep stall, newer designs such as Rafale incorporate canards to improve the AoA performance of a conventional delta design. Canards act as vortex generating devices to prevent wing stall at high angle of attack but instantaneous drag and the resulting loss of energy caused by the delta wing remains a problem for delta canards.

 

[SATISH]

Take a good look at this picture of the Mirage 2000, notice the wing begins well behind the air intake, now please explain how the delta wing of the Mirage can influence the amount of air pushed into the air intake?

Thin air? Delta High Drag?? Drag is a drag, it has a detrimental effect on aerodynamic performance.



http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/dassault_mirage_2000.pl

Its clear that you have some misconceptions about delta designs, delta designs are preferred for superior supersonic performance made possible by higher wing sweep.



You should read a bit before you make such assertions, you claim the Mirage 2000 was praised due to its munition delivery capability. Until Kargil, the Mirage 2000's were employed by the IAF as air defense fighters, IAF considered the Mirage to have limited ground attack capability.




http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Kargil/PCamp.html

You make claims in your post but don't support it with any evidence, it is universally acknowledged that delta designs are more suited to interception and air defense roles.



where did you read the Hornet failed the Leh Trials?iamhullucinating.com :emot15: ?

Hey Kathy...good to see u here...

As you were saying that the delta configuration is good at supersonic performances and high altitude performance. The Delta also has a larger wing area that also directly influences the amount of fuel carried by a smaller airframe and also a larger surface area helps in high altitude manuvering. When we are talking about Kargil and the Himalayas you must consider it is a part of the highest mountain ranges that are 5000 feet above sea level. The air there is turbulent and is very thin.

The Mirage 2000 did its job perfectly as it was in its advantage flying over the mountain ranges and dropping bombs (more dumb bombs than precision).

Mirage 2000 was the first aircraft in the IAF to have the slightest multi-role capability. The MiG 29 was and is still the principle air-superiority fighter of the IAF. So the Mirage and the Jaguar were the only strike and recon aircrafts during Kargil after the shooting down of the MiG 21 by a MANPAD and engine flame out of the MiG 27.

And none of the MMRCA performed satisfactorily during the Leh trials. And the IAF asked everyone to tweak their aircrafts for operations from Leh. The main reason is because of the short runway and the turbulent air in the valley.

 

[utubekhiladi]

a video about mmrca

 

[p2prada]

Lets first address your Leh claim, you said and I quote "The best we can get from the news today is that SH failed the Leh Trials. No matter how good the aircraft is, it's useless if you can't fly it where it is supposed to fly.".

You implied there was news that the Super Hornet failed the Leh Trails.The casual uninformed reader in all likelihood would have accepted your statement as fact. You should have made it clear that your statement was an assumption based on the fact that the IAF has previously operated Mig-29's from Leh. It is a reasonable assumption provided the Mig-35 being offered has the same engine and same MTOW as the Mig-29 currently operated by the IAF. We both know this isn't the case, the RD-33MK power plant of the Mig-35 is an evolved version of the original RD-33. We also know the MTOW of the Mig-35 is 8,700 kgs higher.

The RD-33MK comes with additional thrust and also newer design principles compared to the old RD-33. Modified manufacturing techniques have been applied, so there is less loss of power even in high altitude areas. You could say the RD-33MK is made for Indian conditions simply because they made the Mig-35 particularly to sell to India. My statement is an assumption and is unconfirmed. But it is the closest to the truth. The Russians have the best knowledge about Indian requirements among the competitors.

MTOW does not matter since it is impossible for any aircraft to fly at MTOW from Leh. Useful load matters and there is no doubt the Mig-35 can indeed fly from Leh at useful load. However it is yet to be officially verified. The Mig-35 has improved aerodynamic design for lift induced drag. It is Made for India.

A long distance runner could experience muscle cramps(a problem) and still finish first. I interpreted the original report to mean four or the five aircrafts experienced minor difficulties required minor modifications but completed the Leh trails successfully. All five aircrafts are equipped with modern engines and high lift devices such as canards (Rafale /Tyhpoon) and LERX (Super Hornet/Mig 35) and can be configured to operate from Leh if the IAF chooses to do so post procurement.

As of today, SH still failed. If new modifications are made, then we will see. We will hear that from the Air force first.
The fuel lines need modification in order to clear Cold Tests. Nothing to do with Aerodynamics. It is yet to be seen if all the contenders can indeed fly with a useful payload from Leh.

The dive bombing instructions you quoted is from a flight simulator game manual, in real life dive bombing is a high risk maneuverer and is rarely performed unless it is tactically necessary. It was tactically necessary in 1999 due to the location of targets on mountain ridges and the absence of precision air-to-ground tactical missiles in IAF inventory.

A game site does not make the physics wrong. Dive bombing is always tactically necessary in the Himalayas, as it is in the Alps, the Rockies or Tora Bora. PGMs are not useful over the Himalayas due to Naturally occurring fog. The winds do not favour dropping PGMs from high altitudes either, so Dive bombing is the only method. Therefore, the Mirage-2000 was the best suited for the job. The probability of Jag or SH executing a perfect dive bombing maneuver is lesser than the M-2000 over Mountains.

Drag does not provide lift

Drag enables Lift and Drag decreases Lift. But, without Drag there is no flying. The Drag over the Himalayas is very less, and not enough lift is generated if you do not have sufficient drag. The Thin air compounds problems as engine power is very limited. Thus the Delta design increases Drag forcefully to the required levels(minimum) to provide more lift enabled by a larger wing surface. Therefore, Delta = High Drag which is good.

You are basing your assumption on sea level physics which is significantly different. The atmosphere is thick, so overly high drag decreases lift. The Delta's wing design faces increased drag and thus more power is channelled by the engine to counter said drag. More powerful engines easily counter said Drag but Deltas have poor T/W ratio and thus decreased performance in low altitudes. Meaning if you use Mirage-2000s in Karachi for dive bombing, then you are Royally Fvked.

I am not saying you are wrong about your views. It is just that Mountains are different from Sea level and needs a different view because of the air density. What you said works in a different geographical location, while what we need are aircraft that work in a completely unique ecosystem.

Pure delta designs exhibit poor AoA performance,

Wrong. Delta provides high AoA at high altitudes and low AoA at low altitudes. Physics.

an attempt to increase AoA at high speed will result in violent departure and slow speed high AoA will cause a deep stall, newer designs such as Rafale incorporate canards to improve the AoA performance of a conventional delta design. Canards act as vortex generating devices to prevent wing stall at high angle of attack but instantaneous drag and the resulting loss of energy caused by the delta wing remains a problem for delta canards.

Delta Canards have been introduced to counter the Flankers and Eagles capabilities in generating lift. Rafale will be a better dive bomber over the Himalayas than the other wing forms because of Delta Canards. The very reason why the IAF wanted more Mirage-2000s in the first place.

EDIT: Correction: Delta always provides High AoA at any altitude. It is however recommended that high AoA be used at high altitudes and low AoA at low altitudes because Delta bleeds energy quickly during turns and may end up as a disadvantage to the pilot. Nothing is superior to the Delta when it comes to flying at high altitudes. The Mirage-2000 can be pushed to 13G and handles turns at 270deg/sec at high subsonic speeds at high altitudes. Only good pilots do it though.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Hey Kathy...good to see u here...

As you were saying that the delta configuration is good at supersonic performances and high altitude performance. The Delta also has a larger wing area that also directly influences the amount of fuel carried by a smaller airframe and also a larger surface area helps in high altitude manuvering. When we are talking about Kargil and the Himalayas you must consider it is a part of the highest mountain ranges that are 5000 feet above sea level. The air there is turbulent and is very thin.

The Mirage 2000 did its job perfectly as it was in its advantage flying over the mountain ranges and dropping bombs (more dumb bombs than precision).

Mirage 2000 was the first aircraft in the IAF to have the slightest multi-role capability. The MiG 29 was and is still the principle air-superiority fighter of the IAF. So the Mirage and the Jaguar were the only strike and recon aircrafts during Kargil after the shooting down of the MiG 21 by a MANPAD and engine flame out of the MiG 27.

And none of the MMRCA performed satisfactorily during the Leh trials. And the IAF asked everyone to tweak their aircrafts for operations from Leh. The main reason is because of the short runway and the turbulent air in the valley.

.................................................

Hi Satish,
Mirage 2000 is one of my favorites, but I also think the Indians give the Mirage way too much credit, flying 'nap of the earth' isn't easy, flying fast carrying heavy external stores through tall mountain peaks is even harder. The IAF Mirage pilots demonstrated real skill and bravery in Kargil, the Mirage isn't ideally suited for the task it was assigned in 1999.

 

[Patriot]

India to hand out giant war jet deal by July: Air force

NEW DELHI: India, which is racing to upgrade its military, is likely to hand out a 12-billion-dollar contract for 126 fighter jets by July 2011, the country's air force chief said on Friday.

Six global aeronautical companies are in a dogfight to grab the deal to sell 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) to the Indian Air Force, which is also shopping for up to 270 Russian-designed Sukhoi war jets .

"We had submitted the MMRCA report with the defence ministry on July 30 and if everything goes of well, then the contract should be signed by July 30 next year," air chief marshall P.V. Naik said, the Press Trust of India reported.

India issued the request for proposals to the six short-listed firms in August 2007 and the long-awaited trials of the aircraft competing for the world's most lucrative fighter jet contract began last year.

US-based Lockheed Martin, offering F-16, and Boeing's F-18 "Superhornet" emerged as the front-runners following the gruelling trials, industry sources have said.

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company has offered its Typhoon Eurofighter and French Dassault, which constructs the Mirage, has put forward its Rafale.

Russian manufacturers of the MiG-35 and MiG-29, as well as Sweden's Saab, which is hawking its Gripen fighter, are also in the running for the biggest fighter jet contract in 16 years.

The contract includes the outright purchase of 18 fighter jets by 2012 with another 108 to be built in India.

India would also have an option to buy 64 more such jets.

Air chief marshall Naik's announcement came a day after Moscow and New Delhi unveiled plans to co-develop 250-300 advanced stealth fighter jets for military technology-hungry India.

Aviation experts say the 30-ton Russian-designed planes could cost up to 100 million dollars each.






http://asiandefence.blogspot.com/2010/12/india-to-hand-out-giant-war-jet-deal-by.html

 

[smartindian]

.................................................

we cant understand aliens language. lol

 

[Patriot]

Germany offers India joint defence production for third-party sale

New Delhi, Dec 6 (IANS) Pitching hard to grab lucrative defence deals worth billions of dollars, Germany Monday said it has offered India provisions for forgoing an end user monitoring agreement and transfer of technology in joint production of military hardware for third-party sale in future.

German Ambassador Thomas Matussek told reporters here that, among other things, expanding defence trade ties would be one of the key focus areas during Chancellor Angela Merkel's talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he visits Berlin Saturday for a day-long trip.

German and European firms are eyeing multi-billion dollar India defence projects that include a $10-billion jet fighter contract, another worth $600 million for 197 light combat helicopters for the Indian Army, for six mid-air re-fueller aircraft worth $2 billion, and for six submarines worth $11 billion.

'Germany offers technology transfer on a broader scale. We want to offer you perhaps more than competitors. We want to offer you full technology transfer. We offer you to forego the end-user monitoring agreement,' Matussek said about the offer that even India's close partners like the US insist on.

The EUMA allows the selling party to periodically carry out an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred to India.

Matussek said Germany wanted to develop military hardware 'together with India also for later on sale to third countries'.

He said Germany's Eurofighter is a bidder for the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) together with three European partners namely Britain, Spain and Italy.

The Eurofighter's Typhoon is competing against the US' F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-16IN Super Viper, Sweden's Gripen, France's Rafael and Russia's MiG-35 to win the Indian Air Force's $10.2 billion project.

'What we are offering is a cutting-edge product. We stand ready to work together with India (for this) platform in future. That means this is not only an offer for sale but a long-term technological cooperation,' the envoy said.

Another contract a European firm is eyeing is light combat helicopters for the Indian Army. The helicopter contract for lifting supplies for troops stationed at high altitudes is worth $600 million.

'We are looking forward to the decision in the competition for 197 light helicopters for the army where Eurocopter is a promising contender. We are quite positive and hopeful on that,' he said.

Yet another contract is the mid-air refueller aircraft for the IAF, which order is worth $2 billion.

The Airbus Corp, the subsidiary of a pan-European Aerospace Corporation, European aeronautic defence and apace aompany, is bidding for re-fuellers.

Matussek said the Airbus Corp has offered 'highly' competitive bid to the IAF for six re-fueller aricraft.

'The tender offers option to reconfigure the aircraft for transport, including VIP transport. So you have the aircraft and it is up to you if you want to use it as the re-fueller or as you can chip around the furniture and the interior and use it as a VIP aircraft. I think this has been judged best value for money already a year ago,' the envoy said.

Another key area of defence cooperation, he said, are submarines. India is planning to spend Rs.50,000 crore ($11 billion) to build six submarines.

'So the issue is six submarines. Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft is contending for the project. This is at a preliminary stage and later on there will be tender offers.'

He said the Indian defence ministry has already forwarded a request for information to the HDW and that has been replied a couple of weeks ago.

Matussek said the two sides would also discuss enlarging the scope of the India-Germany strategic dialogue on key global issues like UN reforms, the international financial crisis, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and climate change.

The two sides will meet in Berlin after attending the summit of the 27-nation European Union (EU) in Brussels.






http://sify.com/finance/germany-offers-india-joint-defence-production-for-third-party-sale-news-default-kmgwatfidje.html

 

[SATISH]

.................................................

Hi Satish,
Mirage 2000 is one of my favorites, but I also think the Indians give the Mirage way too much credit, flying 'nap of the earth' isn't easy, flying fast carrying heavy external stores through tall mountain peaks is even harder. The IAF Mirage pilots demonstrated real skill and bravery in Kargil, the Mirage isn't ideally suited for the task it was assigned in 1999.

Hi, Kathy,

Did we have a better choice? I guess not. There were MANPADS and IAF is obsessed with Delta configuration since the beginning. The rivals are not far away from the national capital you see. We need aircrafts that take off real fast gain altitude and intercept the incoming strike package as soon as possible because of the huge mountain ranges nearby. That is why the insistence on more thrust for the LCA.

And Kathy we both know which aircrafts have made it to the final lot. So lets cross our fingers and wait for the decision.

Yes the Mirage is not ideally suited for the task but it did do its job well.

 

[Crusader53]

Go with the one that gives maximum TOT and allow maximum opportunity for Indian defence industry to gain out of it.

Which, would likely be Russia and what has India gaing from that????