MRCA News & Discussions

[sancho]

---

---

The Indian ambassador to Italy recently mentioned that EF is the front runner ... Is that just diplomatic fluff ?

Partly, because he said it was the frontrunner before the trials started, so only by evaluating all the infos that the vendors provided. IF the EF could come fully developed and in time, as the EF consortium claims, it is for sure one of the most advanced 4++ fighters, but all reports about its development and integration makes that doubtful!

[suryanaidu]

Dassault Rafale is best or typoon ?

[KEETARP]

India considers tandem MMRCA radar competition
The Indian Air Force (IAF) may run a separate radar competition in tandem with its Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme, Russian industry sources have...
Only for subscibers
Jane's Defence Weekly - Your first line of defence

If anyone has a account plz post the full news
THNX
What could be it

[sancho]

Sancho i agree with some of your points and disagree with some. Mainly the TOT issue. YES companies do not decide the major TOT details but keep in mind the exception we got from the NSG. The amount of money in India for the next 10 years will be a big factor for the US to take into account before they decide anything. Again the ans is long and essay style lol but this is not the thread for that. In terms of turning and maneuverability of the F-18, the F-18 is comparable to everything except the MIG-35 and to an extent the Rafale. I am a bit unsure about the Rafale as its exports have been basically nil which is never a good sign. But again three way to many questions in your post and this is not the thread for that. Please post the same post in the MRCA deal thread and i will answer it there.

I highly disagree and already gave some good points, which can't be denied. Curious to know why you still think the F18SH can keep up in this field against the Euro-canards, or the Mig.

[KEETARP]

Which are the things going to hamper full TOT with SH and Viper.
One of them is Radar- Apg 79 or Apg 80 both will not come with TOT.
What else????????

[Shaggy82]

I dont think americans and russians will be willing for TOT...

Only Rafale or Typhoon are offering...

that to the offer from Typhoon seems more attractive as they are offering partnership in the program.

[KEETARP]

I dont think americans and russians will be willing for TOT...

Only Rafale or Typhoon are offering...

that to the offer from Typhoon seems more attractive as they are offering partnership in the program.

Seems u are underestimating the goodwill of Russia, it has shown over 40 years towards India.
Its not just a matter of 10-20 billions , but cooperation extends to hundreds of billions of dollars and still more in pipe line.

[DMLA]

Which are the things going to hamper full TOT with SH and Viper.
One of them is Radar- Apg 79 or Apg 80 both will not come with TOT.
What else????????

The error we all make when thinking of MMRCA is we look at the birds flying and think of the proposal submitted to be on the same lines. The truth is that what will be provided (through MMRCA) depends on what was asked for in the RFP! Thus there is no stopping the americans from providing a "trimmed down" AESA if it meets all the RFP requirements. They have the added advantage of mature systems which provides them the necessary room for "downgrading" (i.e. even after downgrading, they could come out as better than the european or russian radars!)

PS: It is important to note that some companies might provide so called "full ToT" but that has no use for IAF!!! It might help DRDO but why should IAF care about DRDO? Shouldn't they go for the best platform of the lot?!

Frankly, I don't think IAF requires technology for AESA. DRDO is already working on a domestic fighter AESA system (with modules being imported ofcourse as we do not have a fab for the same - RFI has been sent). What IAF requires is the source codes for future integration of weapons independent of the americans. That's where the problem (and maybe the solution) lies! So I am afraid, "full" ToT may not be interpreted here in the right context!

[Shaggy82]

Seems u are underestimating the goodwill of Russia, it has shown over 40 years towards India.
Its not just a matter of 10-20 billions , but cooperation extends to hundreds of billions of dollars and still more in pipe line.

i dont reallt think it is just a cooperation.....

We have been partner....

Russians are providing engines to chineese companies who are fitting rissuan engines into JF17.

This shows they consider India have been just a buyer to their technology.

this is the reason why india have opened doors for other technology providers.

shaggy

[Shaggy82]

India is the only country which have access to all major technologies in the world including Americans Russians French and Israil.

this makes Indian Military unique and adaptable...

[gen x]

well Indian can chose

Rafael and f18
typhoon and f18

order should be in two companies not to a single one

[Indiarox]

Why is every one underestimating the Mig-35??????????

[KEETARP]

The error we all make when thinking of MMRCA is we look at the birds flying and think of the proposal submitted to be on the same lines. The truth is that what will be provided (through MMRCA) depends on what was asked for in the RFP! Thus there is no stopping the americans from providing a "trimmed down" AESA if it meets all the RFP requirements. They have the added advantage of mature systems which provides them the necessary room for "downgrading" (i.e. even after downgrading, they could come out as better than the european or russian radars!)

PS: It is important to note that some companies might provide so called "full ToT" but that has no use for IAF!!! It might help DRDO but why should IAF care about DRDO? Shouldn't they go for the best platform of the lot?!

Frankly, I don't think IAF requires technology for AESA. DRDO is already working on a domestic fighter AESA system (with modules being imported ofcourse as we do not have a fab for the same - RFI has been sent). What IAF requires is the source codes for future integration of weapons independent of the americans. That's where the problem (and maybe the solution) lies! So I am afraid, "full" ToT may not be interpreted here in the right context!

We doo need the advantage of TOT
Look what all sort of problems we faced when Mig29 arrived firstly.
Our engines got down after every 2-3 sortie bcoz FOD foreign object damage and guess what they had to be sent back to russia .
Bcoz we didnt have related tot to take up engine repair or manufacturing in india itself.
Similar thing we faced in earlier su30k also ,

do you remember same thing said by US col after Red flag interview , video which created controversy and was removed later on.
He said same thing abt engine problems and being sent to russia, bcoz till then su30 were not 100% built in india. FOD ws the factor envolved

Suppose US dosent provide us tot of Engines - what will happen then ;whole fleet will be under danger once any problem erupts and we would have to sent parts to either Australia/US for repair. It dosent matter what was said in req/or Boeing is meeting all req as per Rfp
IAF dosent want that situation thats why req in RFP on first priority will be full TOT.

Regarding Radar - Just bcoz Aesa dont have Moving Antenae dosent mean they wont get damaged and what then???????.
For just changing LRU-replacable units which is a matter of hours sending to US will consume weeks.

And i dont buy the fact that Europens wont be able to build Radar upto US level,
I personally oppose Europe bcoz they wont get in time and price is a question otherwise if given money and time till 2013-2014 they would definately deliver Aesa Equivalent to US level.
I mean a 1200 micro array AESA not a 600 mmic what Russia / Us is offering.

[DMLA]

We doo need the advantage of TOT
Look what all sort of problems we faced when Mig29 arrived firstly.
Our engines got down after every 2-3 sortie bcoz FOD foreign object damage and guess what they had to be sent back to russia .
Bcoz we didnt have related tot to take up engine repair or manufacturing in india itself.
Similar thing we faced in earlier su30k also ,

do you remember same thing said by US col after Red flag interview , video which created controversy and was removed later on.
He said same thing abt engine problems and being sent to russia, bcoz till then su30 were not 100% built in india. FOD ws the factor envolved

I never said we "don't need ToT"!!! I said the level of ToT is defined by the RFP. The RFP typically involves local engine mfg./ maintainance (as was the case with Su-30). Afterall, IAF has also learned a lot from its past mistakes or rather experience. The issue has been the traditionally sad state of affairs when it comes to Russian engines. That has nothing to do with the "requirement of ToT".

My assertion is that all that matters is for the vendors to fulfill the "requirements". If downgraded equipment does that, there is nothing wrong with it! Ofcourse, it is for the IAF to decide what they should go for. But more often than not, Americans come up with very good technologies at their disposal and the end result is well known. Case to point include P-8I (which is different from the P-8A) but still trumped russian and European systems!

[sancho]

---

---

Which are the things going to hamper full TOT with SH and Viper.
One of them is Radar- Apg 79 or Apg 80 both will not come with TOT.
What else????????

Avionics, not even sure about engine ToT, cause only Eurojet stated yet they would provide ToT if we take EJ 200 for LCA.

PS: It is important to note that some companies might provide so called "full ToT" but that has no use for IAF!!! It might help DRDO but why should IAF care about DRDO? Shouldn't they go for the best platform of the lot?!

Because any useful ToT will improve our indigenous developments for future, which is the most important point if we want to be selfreliant, but I agree that not any full ToT offer is useful.
Mig 35 for example offers only ToT of the upg RD 33 that HAL already produces and knows and compared to western engines, the Russians aren't on par anyway. The only useful ToT from them imo, would be AESA radar and from OLS, but that alone doesn't equalise all its disadvantages.

Frankly, I don't think IAF requires technology for AESA. DRDO is already working on a domestic fighter AESA system (with modules being imported ofcourse as we do not have a fab for the same - RFI has been sent). What IAF requires is the source codes for future integration of weapons independent of the americans. That's where the problem (and maybe the solution) lies! So I am afraid, "full" ToT may not be interpreted here in the right context!

We do develop our own AESA, but IAF already stated that it is not good enough, even for LCA!
That is why they now searching for a foreign partner for a JV. Even the MMR wasn't developed alone, so I guess that's makes clear that we are still far away from catching up China, Russia or western nations and why we need any ToT, JV, or co-development we can get to improve ourself.