MRCA News & Discussions

[Death.By.Chocolate]

---

---

Link:

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

A very long but satisfying & an absolutely must read!

Nice find Bang Galore, the Carnegie report is an interesting read, I was particularly surprised by the price of the Gripen.

[MST]

If the costs given in the report are correct (and I personally think they are) then it gives lot of advantages to the Teens. Considering that Mig 35 will not be preferred the Teens will be the L1 bidders.
Gripen at $82 + million is just too expensive. Alos considering the cost is from the Norwegian competition in 2008 the variant for India maybe even more expensive.

[luckyyy]

Not for MMRCAs, only for Tejas and they will add Indian weapons only to European, not replace them like they do with Russian missiles.

JV products will be put where ever they could be put , not restricted to LCA only...

[sancho]

If the costs given in the report are correct (and I personally think they are) then it gives lot of advantages to the Teens. Considering that Mig 35 will not be preferred the Teens will be the L1 bidders.
Gripen at $82 + million is just too expensive. Alos considering the cost is from the Norwegian competition in 2008 the variant for India maybe even more expensive.

The cost for Gripen is not correct, because that was not flyaway cost but most likely the system cost. From competitions like in Denmark, the Netherlands, it is known that the Gripen NG was offered for a flyaway cost of $45 millions, from Brazil it was reported around $50 millions.
The article also took the system cost we paid for Mig 29Ks and translated it to the cost of the Mig 35, although AESA radar, TVC and additional changes on the airframe will increase the costs obviously, so not every figure they took is correct. More important is that even they say, that the L1 is not the one with the lowest unit costs, but the cheapest that fulfills the requirements and included costs for ToT as well.

The first half of the analysis is very interesting, when it's about the requirements of IAF and the roles that MMRCAs are likely to do, especially in regard to China. But when they start talking about the capabilities of each fighter it gets strange, with the conclusion clearly in favour for the US fighters.

From the Facebook site of the author:

Tellis serves as Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. He was earlier commissioned into the Foreign Service and served as senior adviser to the ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. He also served on the National Security Council staff as special assistant to the President and senior director for Strategic Planning and Southwest Asia.

That should explain it I guess.


Also when you read the report it looks like the specs they took for the fighters are at least 2, or 3 years old, while the last part even includes a note to the article of Air Commodore (retired) Jasjit Singh, that came up at the end of last year, which makes it kind of confusing. It's good to read if you are interested in the MMRCA competition, but is not in all points a reliable source.

JV products will be put where ever they could be put , not restricted to LCA only...

Not really! Without approval you can't change a bolt of any of the MMRCA contender, especially not critical parts of the fighter, or do you expect anybody will allow to integrate Kaveri - Snecma engine in their fighters apart from Dassault?

[Capt.Popeye]

The cost for Gripen is not correct, because that was not flyaway cost but most likely the system cost. From competitions like in Denmark, the Netherlands, it is known that the Gripen NG was offered for a flyaway cost of $45 millions, from Brazil it was reported around $50 millions.
The article also took the system cost we paid for Mig 29Ks and translated it to the cost of the Mig 35, although AESA radar, TVC and additional changes on the airframe will increase the costs obviously, so not every figure they took is correct. More important is that even they say, that the L1 is not the one with the lowest unit costs, but the cheapest that fulfills the requirements and included costs for ToT as well.

The first half of the analysis is very interesting, when it's about the requirements of IAF and the roles that MMRCAs are likely to do, especially in regard to China. But when they start talking about the capabilities of each fighter it gets strange, with the conclusion clearly in favour for the US fighters.

From the Facebook site of the author:



That should explain it I guess.


Also when you read the report it looks like the specs they took for the fighters are at least 2, or 3 years old, while the last part even includes a note to the article of Air Commodore (retired) Jasjit Singh, that came up at the end of last year, which makes it kind of confusing. It's good to read if you are interested in the MMRCA competition, but is not in all points a reliable source.

Ashley Tellis is not the last word on the subject, least of all on the technical parameters of the aircraft.
That said, he is an specialist on strategic studies, with special emphasis on nuclear strategy. Have heard him speak in the USA on how India must be made to sign on the NPT dotted line. That was 2 decades ago.

[sancho]

Ashley Tellis is not the last word on the subject, least of all on the technical parameters of the aircraft.
That said, he is an specialist on strategic studies, with special emphasis on nuclear strategy.

Maybe that's why the first half sounds way more to be written by a man like him, while the last part could be done from someone else, who knows. Do you know if he published something like this earlier?

[luckyyy]

Not really! Without approval you can't change a bolt of any of the MMRCA contender, especially not critical parts of the fighter, or do you expect anybody will allow to integrate Kaveri - Snecma engine in their fighters apart from Dassault?

why not , Kaveri - Snecma engine can be put on GripenNG.......

not everyone coz the specification /dimentions would not be same to put it on their fighter....

[rockstar]

Link:

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

A very long but satisfying & an absolutely must read!

Good details, but i really doubt the prices of Gripen and F-16s.

[angeldemon_007]

F16 is cheap...but F18 was cheaper in the deal offered to Aus. and Brazil.
Are these prices for India or just normal cost because since India is purchasing 126, the prices would be less.
Also the prices of european fighters were reduced...but it is not shown in this assessment.

[kali]

Between Refale & Eurofighter which is better in term of technology transfer to india?

[SpArK]

Between Refale & Eurofighter which is better in term of technology transfer to india?

[rajan_united]

EF 2000 is better than Rafale.
As u know their earlier jets, b/w Tornado and Mirrage2000 Mirrage was very sucessfull (600+made). France opted out of EF program as it tought he could make same thing with next gen planes. They did great but still EF have all the things Rafale has + few extra(like communication buses)

[kali]

between Refale & Eurofighter which is best in term of price & life cycle cost?

[SpArK]

between Refale & Eurofighter which is best in term of price & life cycle cost?

[IMG][/IMG]

[Capt.Popeye]

---

---

[IMG][/IMG]

Benny, you gotta be on the Dassault payroll.