EADS Eurofighter in the MRCA competition Thread

[Gabbar007]

papaji you must be great at shorthand typing.

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

I believe the 126 number is fixed while the $10B isn't.

No Brother.

Order value
The Order is for 126 aircraft with the option to buy another 64 - 74 more. While there were reports of the direct order being increased to 200, or split between two vendors, Former Chief of Air Staff of the IAF, Air Marshal S.P. Tyagi stated during Aero India 2007 that the number would remain the same, and would be sourced from a single vendor. The first squadron would be directly supplied by the vendor, while the rest would be manufactured under license in India by HAL. He stated however, that as the bidding progressed, this could change.

The Government of India has sanctioned approximately US$10 billion (Rs. 42,000 crore), with reports that another US$2 billion might be added to this. This is indicative of the high importance of the order to the respective vendors.

(according to Wikipedia)

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

papaji you must be great at shorthand typing.

SupermanKaPapa buddy, not Papaji

 

[dbc]

The Indian Express, 2 April 2005
Do F-16s have an edge over French Mirages? (SHIV AROOR)
NEW DELHI, APRIL 1: Does the American F-16 fighter have a better safety track record than the French Mirage-2000? The Indian Air Force certainly doesn't think so. In a presentation on military flight safety this morning, a senior IAF officer displayed data which indicated that the Mirage-2000H fighters operated by the IAF were the least prone to crashes by human error compared to Mirage-2000s in other countries and US Air Force F-16 jets. The Mirage-2000 and F-16 are among four fighters that will bid for a 126 aircraft tender later this year. A lower frequency of crashes due to human error would broadly, though not always, indicate a fighter that is simpler to operate in the air.

The above was cherry picked by SupermanKaPapa to support his theory that F-16 pilots are more prone to human error. He left out a critical piece from the same report which states that worldwide the Mirage suffers from a higher accident rate due to pilot error 59% compared to the F-16's 52%.

According to information made available by the IAF’s Director General (Inspection & Flight Safety) Air Marshal Padamjit Ahluwalia, 52 per cent of all USAF F-16 crashes were caused by human error, while the worldwide percentage for Mirage-2000s crashes is 59 per cent and a substantially lower 43 per cent for crashes of Mirage-2000H fighters operated by the IAF out of Gwalior

Do F-16s have an edge over French Mirages?

 

[soaringphnx]

USA will never provide complete technology transfer or source codes for their aircrafts. And India already know that.

I agree with you that the US don't like to transfer technology, and the best example in recent years will the the US denying several key techs to U.K. regarding the F-35 despite the fact that the U.K. is one of it's oldest allies and is a partner of the JSF "joint venture". But then no country will be willing to provide 100% ToT, especially on key technologies. The Russians and the Europeans can surely offer us much more than the Americans, but complete ToT is unlikely.

Already explained in preivous post; plz help urself. In short, Almost LCA........Now plz don't say that Gripen is Superior than LCA; I know it is. But only due to its Avionics and Components. Not due to frae, size, or any other physical measures. And these superior things can be added into the plane of same size, i.e., LCA, in future. Like they are added in Gripen many years later; today's Gripen is not what it was when it developed. It got many new and better things; and that can happen to LCA too.


Gripen is very potent plane; no doubt, for smaller countries. But for the role, which MMRCA has to play, it is not suitable, inferior than other contenders.

But do you think that today's Tejas can out-match and out-perform today's Gripen? Even if we put the same systems on the Gripen and the LCA, can you prove that the LCA is better than the Gripen or vice-versa? The basic airframe of the aircraft also plays a major role (and I admit I don't know which has a better airframe). Are you suggesting that if two aircraft are of the same size, their capabilities will be or can be made the same?

No; I have no Idea, I gotta Vodafone.

OMG..........Thats news for me. BUT plz tell me one thing, ARE Indian MoD and IAF are MAD. Why they sent RFI for Rafale and even Eurofighter Typhoon in this case. I believe this is also news for them. I think THEY HAVE NO IDEA TOO; they got BSNL.

Oh please, can you be atleast a bit serious???

Budget and Life Cycle Costs........hummm, good point. I don't know much (as you already pointed out), but let me try...

In the defence industry, cost includes:
Per Unit Cost and Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost. The thumb rule is that the Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost is usually between 3.5 to 4 time of the cost of each unit.

Please care to elaborate how the life-cycle cost is related to the unit cost by the simple relation:

Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost=Unit Cost x 3.5 or 4

Jokes apart, do you really think that Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost can be managed in 10+2 Billion............if so, for which fighter?

The 10/12 billion budget is not to include life-cycle costs as far as I know. It only includes the cost of the 126 fighters, spares and for ToT.

what happens if India is hit economically.......................I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT can you tell me plz...."what happen if the earth stop spinning?"

Holy lord , where is the 100 Billion dollars , i am falling short!!..................MY HOLY LORD; with $100 Billion u are still short!!! Plz rest assured, more money will be available, if there is a need.

Anathema has a valid point. Do you think it is wise to spend every single penny we have? Instead of wasting time, why not try to answer his questions??

 

[black flame]

Sorry for delay Buddy, was out of town.

But I m not superman..........i m SupermanKaPapa.



Sure brother...............here it is.




More detailed..........







It is a case of Uncle Sam's reliability too............u are in Ask anyone here about Sam's reliability. Ever heard about "Army, Allah and America?"

Sam is not a reliable partner........yes it is for European Countries; but they are Grandpas and Great-Grandpas of uncle Sam; same family. But not for Asian or African countries. For them, uncle Sam's moto is: Use and Throw. Few examples are: Pakistan, Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.

USA will never provide complete technology transfer or source codes for their aircrafts. And India already know that.

I strongly believe all the interest India had shown through the RFI for F-16s was nothing but to trick and mislead in order to stop the sale of these aircrafts to Pakistan.




Already explained in preivous post; plz help urself. In short, Almost LCA........Now plz don't say that Gripen is Superior than LCA; I know it is. But only due to its Avionics and Components. Not due to frae, size, or any other physical measures. And these superior things can be added into the plane of same size, i.e., LCA, in future. Like they are added in Gripen many years later; today's Gripen is not what it was when it developed. It got many new and better things; and that can happen to LCA too.

Gripen is very potent plane; no doubt, for smaller countries. But for the role, which MMRCA has to play, it is not suitable, inferior than other contenders.




No; I have no Idea, I gotta Vodafone.




SOME = 10+2 BILLION............. You must be a very rich man; but for me, this amount is not SOME.

Budget and Life Cycle Costs........hummm, good point. I don't know much (as you already pointed out), but let me try...

In the defence industry, cost includes:
Per Unit Cost and Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost. The thumb rule is that the Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost is usually between 3.5 to 4 time of the cost of each unit.

Now plz tell me with the Per Unit Cost given below; which Fighter fits in this criteria.

Aircraft: Per Unit Cost
Rafale: ~US$67.2 million or €48 million
Eurofighter Typhoon: ~US$91.2 million or €63 million
F-16IN Fighting Falcon: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: US$58 million
JAS 39 NG: US$48 million
MiG-35 Fulcrum-F: US$38.5 million


If India decides to buy and induct the cheapest one out of these, i.e. MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, the total cost will be:

126 units X $38.5 Million = $4.851 Billion
Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost at 3 1/2 times = $16.9785 Billion

Total costs for MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, i.e., Per Piece cost plus Life Cycle Cost, is approximately $21.8295 Billion. (Please excuse and notify me if thr is any miscalculation.)

That means INDIA can't AFFORD even 126 Mig-35. And if India want to induct Mig-35, then they need to cut the number to half (63). And lesser in case any other fighter is chosen.

I believe the "Budget and Life Cycle Costs" points are not calculated by Indian MoD, FM, and IAF correctly.

Jokes apart, do you really think that Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost can be managed in 10+2 Billion............if so, for which fighter?




OMG..........Thats news for me. BUT plz tell me one thing, ARE Indian MoD and IAF are MAD. Why they sent RFI for Rafale and even Eurofighter Typhoon in this case. I believe this is also news for them. I think THEY HAVE NO IDEA TOO; they got BSNL.




what happens if India is hit economically.......................I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT can you tell me plz...."what happen if the earth stop spinning?"


Holy lord , where is the 100 Billion dollars , i am falling short!!..................MY HOLY LORD; with $100 Billion u are still short!!! Plz rest assured, more money will be available, if there is a need.




again SOME...........U gotta very-very big scale.



you still doubt about the budget and Money associated............what to say now; I quit.

Cheers!!!

My Wish (still):

1. Rafale
2. Eurofighter Typhoon.
3. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

wooow this is some reply dude ya its been long since i read a reply like this i bet u had a good week off or ur boss might have pissed u off any ways it was fun reading it

 

[flanker143]

this thread like others is very informative and ext gud to read ....

earlier i enjoyed PDF...now i am addicted to it !!!

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

The above was cherry picked by SupermanKaPapa to support his theory that F-16 pilots are more prone to human error. He left out a critical piece from the same report which states that worldwide the Mirage suffers from a higher accident rate due to pilot error 59% compared to the F-16's 52%.




Do F-16s have an edge over French Mirages?

Brother; that wasn't my THEORY, but a report released by Indian Air Force officials. This was their conclusion about F16 vs. Mirage-2000 based on their experience with Mirage. Plz read again:

In a presentation on military flight safety this morning, a senior IAF officer displayed data which indicated that the Mirage-2000H fighters operated by the IAF were the least prone to crashes by human error compared to Mirage-2000s in other countries and US Air Force F-16 jets.

However; here is somebody' else theory...........

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996 Aug;67(8):777-83.

F-16 Class A mishaps in the U.S. Air Force, 1975-93.
Knapp CJ, Johnson R.

USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5123, USA.

Abstract
All USAF F-16 fighter Class A (major) aircraft mishaps from 1975-93 were analyzed, using records from the U.S. Air Force Safety Agency (AFSA). There were 190 Class A mishaps involving 204 F-16's and 217 aircrew during this 19-yr period. The overall Class A rate was 5.09 per 100,000 flight hours, more than double the overall USAF rate. The mishaps are categorized by year, month, time of day and model of aircraft in relation to mishap causes as determined and reported by AFSA. Formation position, phase of flight and primary cause of the mishap indicate that maneuvering, cruise and low-level phases account for the majority of the mishaps (71%), with air-to-air engagements associated with a higher proportion of pilot error (71%) than was air-to-ground (49%). Engine failure was the number one cause of mishaps (35%), and collision with the ground the next most frequent (24%). Pilot error was determined as causative in 55% of all the mishaps. Pilot error was often associated with other non-pilot related causes. Channelized attention, loss of situational awareness, and spatial disorientation accounted for approximately 30% of the total pilot error causes found. Pilot demographics, flight hour/sortie profiles, and aircrew injuries are also listed. Fatalities occurred in 27% of the mishaps, with 97% of those involving pilot errors.

Link: F-16 Class A mishaps in the U.S. Air Force, 1975-9... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 1996] - PubMed result

More detailed analysis of F-16 Accidents & Mishaps for the United States Air Force:
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/USAF

BTW; how come "Death By Chocolate?"

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

this thread like others is very informative and ext gud to read ....

earlier i enjoyed PDF...now i am addicted to it !!!

ME TOOOOOO

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

wooow this is some reply dude ya its been long since i read a reply like this i bet u had a good week off or ur boss might have pissed u off any ways it was fun reading it

Thx a lot Bro.

I don't hv any boss.........I got my own company, which is in hands of good managers. So I got some time spare.

 

[SupermanKaPapa]

I agree with you that the US don't like to transfer technology, and the best example in recent years will the the US denying several key techs to U.K. regarding the F-35 despite the fact that the U.K. is one of it's oldest allies and is a partner of the JSF "joint venture". But then no country will be willing to provide 100% ToT, especially on key technologies. The Russians and the Europeans can surely offer us much more than the Americans, but complete ToT is unlikely.

Very true. But still there are better offers other than US one; LIKE:

1. The French government has cleared full technology transfer of the Rafale to India, including that of the RBE2-AA Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar (which will be integrated with the Rafale by 2010) and the transfer of software source codes, which will allow Indian scientists to re-programme a radar or any sensitive equipment if need be. Without the software source codes, the IAF would have to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers to enable configuration of their radar, seriously compromising security in the process.
2. Dassault has also offered to fit the Kaveri engine into the Rafale, which, if chosen, would greatly improve commonality with the Tejas aircraft that will enter service into the IAF by 2010. Concerns have been raised about cost issues as well as potential sales to Pakistan, which has also expressed interest in the Rafale. However, no such jets have been sold to Pakistan, and India and France have recently agreed to "go beyond a buyer-seller relationship."
3. EADS has invited India to become a partner of the Eurofighter Typhoon programme if the Typhoon wins the contract, and will be given technological and development participation in future tranches of the Typhoon. Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of EADS Defense Department, elaborated that if India becomes the fifth partner of the Eurofighter programme, it will be able to manufacture assemblies for new Eurofighters.
4. Russia's willingness to give full ToT for Mikoyan MiG-35.
5. In January 2009 SAAB International, proposed to India the transfer of technology if Gripen win the MRCA and make India 'an independent manufacturer' of its own fighter jets. SAAB favored 'extensive transfer of technology' well in excess of 60 % more than requirement of RFI to boost India's indigenous capabilities in fighter jets.

But do you think that today's Tejas can out-match and out-perform today's Gripen? Even if we put the same systems on the Gripen and the LCA, can you prove that the LCA is better than the Gripen or vice-versa? The basic airframe of the aircraft also plays a major role (and I admit I don't know which has a better airframe). Are you suggesting that if two aircraft are of the same size, their capabilities will be or can be made the same?

When did I dare to claim that??? Chk bold part below. My point was only that we got better options than Gripen for MRCA, in Rafale and Eurofighter, or even F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Don't you think so?

Originally Posted by SupermanKaPapa
Already explained in preivous post; plz help urself. In short, Almost LCA........Now plz don't say that Gripen is Superior than LCA; I know it is. But only due to its Avionics and Components. Not due to frae, size, or any other physical measures. And these superior things can be added into the plane of same size, i.e., LCA, in future. Like they are added in Gripen many years later; today's Gripen is not what it was when it developed. It got many new and better things; and that can happen to LCA too.

Gripen is very potent plane; no doubt, for smaller countries. But for the role, which MMRCA has to play, it is not suitable, inferior than other contenders.

Also I can't prove Gripen is better or LCA; I am not a fighter pilot. I just tried to assess them according to data found on net. May be you can tell us which one is better.

Oh please, can you be atleast a bit serious???

That was a long reply; some fun was desperately needed.

Please care to elaborate how the life-cycle cost is related to the unit cost by the simple relation:

Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost=Unit Cost x 3.5 or 4

Can't..............another assessment according to my LITTLE knowledge. Somebody from Airforce or something similar can put some light.

The 10/12 billion budget is not to include life-cycle costs as far as I know. It only includes the cost of the 126 fighters, spares and for ToT.

I believe the same. But "anathema" had another opinion.

Originally Posted by anathema
.......you think just because India is planning to spend some dollars it will be able to afford and absorb any fighter aircraft ? You dont have any idea what a budget means right ? You do know what life cycle costs mean right !!

100 billion over one decade -- one year = 10 Billion dollars. You know what is the cost of Rafale in the ongoing Brazil competition -- Its almost 8-10 Billion dollars for 36 aircrafts -- You know how much it will cost for 120 planes ? ...You know much life cycle costs does Rafale have? Further if Rafale has to undergo any future upgrades you know how much it will cost considering that Frenchies are notoriously pricy!!

Anathema has a valid point. Do you think it is wise to spend every single penny we have? Instead of wasting time, why not try to answer his questions??

Who is saying to spend every single penny we have??? But $100 Bn is not everything we have..........we have a lot more than that. It is wise not to splash the cash, but this is also don't afraid to spend when needed!!! Obviously, those who are responsible for these purchase decisions, must have their budget plans on how to spend money.

BTW, which questions I have to answer???

 

[falconfx]

Without the software source codes, the IAF would have to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers to enable configuration of their radar, seriously compromising security in the process.

Not true. Software can accept parameter inputs. India doesn't have to specify mission parameters.

 

[anathema]

I had no clue that you had replied -- sorry very poor in tracking threads.

Sorry for delay Buddy, was out of town.

But I m not superman..........i m SupermanKaPapa.

ooopss sorry -- in betn that was real funny !

Sure brother...............here it is.




More detailed..........

As death by choc pointed out -- Cherry picking here are we ? The fighter aircraft whose service length is unmatchable and whose combat history is lengedary is being questioned on its maintenance ?
Pakistan has been operating F16's fore more than 2 decades -- what is the crash rate in Pakistani air force ? Last i heard it was 4-5 crashes in its two decades of service length. Last crash happened in 2009 and before that i think in 1995, a gap of 15 years !! F16 maintenance , service length , multirole ability is as good as it gets which other aircrafts (in MRCA) can only dream of achiveing.

It is a case of Uncle Sam's reliability too............u are in Ask anyone here about Sam's reliability. Ever heard about "Army, Allah and America?"

Sam is not a reliable partner........yes it is for European Countries; but they are Grandpas and Great-Grandpas of uncle Sam; same family. But not for Asian or African countries. For them, uncle Sam's moto is: Use and Throw. Few examples are: Pakistan, Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.

USA will never provide complete technology transfer or source codes for their aircrafts. And India already know that.

I strongly believe all the interest India had shown through the RFI for F-16s was nothing but to trick and mislead in order to stop the sale of these aircrafts to Pakistan.

Sorry -- If uncle sam is not reliable then India wouldnt be buying the equipment that it has planned to buy. The Globemaster deal is worth more than 5 Billion dollars - and we are trying to figure out whether Uncle sam is reliable or not. For all that matters - GoI has thought about it and decided that Uncle Sam is reliable enough to buy cutting edge defence equipment.

If you ask my personal opinion then yes i would prefer europeans to uncle sam but thats not what GoI thinks and in the end thats what matters !

With regards to ToT -- sorry if we dont get the right ToT then its not Uncle SAM's fault, ITS OUR FAULT. We should make sure that we will not be doing any such deals where we are handicapped -- why blame the manufacture , a customer should always do research before investing.

Already explained in preivous post; plz help urself. In short, Almost LCA........Now plz don't say that Gripen is Superior than LCA; I know it is. But only due to its Avionics and Components. Not due to frae, size, or any other physical measures. And these superior things can be added into the plane of same size, i.e., LCA, in future. Like they are added in Gripen many years later; today's Gripen is not what it was when it developed. It got many new and better things; and that can happen to LCA too.

Gripen is very potent plane; no doubt, for smaller countries. But for the role, which MMRCA has to play, it is not suitable, inferior than other contenders.

You know you remind me of some Pakistani posters -- JF 17 will be equal to Su 30 MKI by 2015 -- as if Su 30 MKI will be just waiting for JF 17 to come on level playing ground. That simply is not going to happen!
Gripen NG is superior to LCA in every aspect ! Be it avionics , engine , payload , endurance , radar , etc...further Gripen allows us to do a MKI sort of platform where in we can integrate all the Israeli tech that we want in the plane. There were structural modifications for Gripen NG -- re adjustment of landing gear for greater fuel storage , air intake adjustment for GE414 , etc ..and swedes accomplished all this in a very short time, so to say 'new components were added to old Gripen to make it New Gripen' is well totally incorrect !

If LCA had been what it was supposed to be then maybe it could have thought of going up against Gripen C/D -- but the way things are - LCA is far from achiving IOC , then comes FoC..then comes LCA MK2 ...and by this Gripen would have made its own advancement !!

No; I have no Idea, I gotta Vodafone.

..good one.

Budget and Life Cycle Costs........hummm, good point. I don't know much (as you already pointed out), but let me try...

In the defence industry, cost includes:
Per Unit Cost and Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost. The thumb rule is that the Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost is usually between 3.5 to 4 time of the cost of each unit.

Now plz tell me with the Per Unit Cost given below; which Fighter fits in this criteria.

Aircraft: Per Unit Cost
Rafale: ~US$67.2 million or €48 million
Eurofighter Typhoon: ~US$91.2 million or €63 million
F-16IN Fighting Falcon: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: US$58 million
JAS 39 NG: US$48 million
MiG-35 Fulcrum-F: US$38.5 million


If India decides to buy and induct the cheapest one out of these, i.e. MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, the total cost will be:

126 units X $38.5 Million = $4.851 Billion
Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost at 3 1/2 times = $16.9785 Billion

Total costs for MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, i.e., Per Piece cost plus Life Cycle Cost, is approximately $21.8295 Billion. (Please excuse and notify me if thr is any miscalculation.)

That means INDIA can't AFFORD even 126 Mig-35. And if India want to induct Mig-35, then they need to cut the number to half (63). And lesser in case any other fighter is chosen.

I believe the "Budget and Life Cycle Costs" points are not calculated by Indian MoD, FM, and IAF correctly.

Jokes apart, do you really think that Life-Cycle Operating and Support Cost can be managed in 10+2 Billion............if so, for which fighter?

First the cost of Rafale is very close to EF -- and not 68 million..i know many websites report it ...but the deals that french are trying to make with other countries doesnt reflect that.

Indian Mod has made it very clear that Lifecycle costs will be considered for MRCA acquisition. That being said -- pure cost is not the driving factor -- in addition to cost it will also go by geopolitical benefits and ability of platform. If US offers UN security council seat - then this deal goes to F18SH , pretty much sure about that.

According to eastimates India is planning to spean $100 Billion dollars over the coming decade -- If India a contender like EF or Rafale then pretty much the entire lifecycle costs would be more than 50 Billion dollars (based on your calculation)... What will India do for other services ? What will India do for Navy, Army , Intelligence , Coast Guard , para military , etc ? Further what if these fighters are to be upgraded what will be cost involved !!

So to answer your question - no life cycle costs will not be managed in 10-12 billion dollars. The 10-12 billion dollar amount was propped up a decade back in the Indian media -- In 2009 according to new directive frm MoD -- it was directed to IAF that Lifecycle costs be considered for the acquisition -- so no 10-12 doesnt include life cycle costs. But with platforms like EF or Rafale the costs are just exhorbitant.

OMG..........Thats news for me. BUT plz tell me one thing, ARE Indian MoD and IAF are MAD. Why they sent RFI for Rafale and even Eurofighter Typhoon in this case. I believe this is also news for them. I think THEY HAVE NO IDEA TOO; they got BSNL.

No you are asking the question other way round ! Mod raised RFI to the companies -- MoD has to, since as per the Defence procurement bidding procedure , it needs to give everyone a chance. So MoD raised the RFI to the companies , and yet the companies choose to respond to RFI !! So its not MoD's responsibility , it was companies!

Further RFI never gives out dollar details -- RFI procedure contains a set of questions around the ability of the aircraft and the acircrft manufacture. If the Aircraft manufacture and airplane meeds the criteria then they are in !! There is no dollar amount associated with RFI , this happens in the later stages. You can also find these in recent procurements - where MoD raised RFI's for i believe LUH to eurocopter , sikorsky and Kamov...Initially Eurocopter responded favourably to RFI ...but later they send another letter saying that they are not able to meet the requirements and hence nullifying them from competition. The Rafael deal for making the armed forces net centric can also be used as an example.

what happens if India is hit economically.......................I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT can you tell me plz...."what happen if the earth stop spinning?"

You might read the article 'Defence deals that bankrupted Greece'. It will give you a good idea of what i am talking about. There is no rhetoric, it was never meant to be. This shouldnt be a case of biting more than we can chew.

Holy lord , where is the 100 Billion dollars , i am falling short!!..................MY HOLY LORD; with $100 Billion u are still short!!! Plz rest assured, more money will be available, if there is a need.

Sure there is no question about that. But if that situation ever arises then it would tantamount to bad planning and fore sight. We can understand that happening with projects like Kaveri (where we had no experience) but when it comes to dealing with international firms with years of experience in aircraft manufacturing then there should be no scope for bad planning. We all know what happens when deals escalate -- for example Gorshkov - a blot in indo-russian history.

you still doubt about the budget and Money associated............what to say now; I quit.

There is always a money and budget associated! To say that its not is mere fallacy !! India is neither China nor US with seemingly infinte wallet -- if that were the case there wouldnt have been a bidding process.

Cheers!!!

My Wish (still):

1. Rafale
2. Eurofighter Typhoon.
3. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[/QUOTE]

My list

Rafale ( i cant see how it is practically possible)
Gripen
F18 SH

EF has still not proved its A2G capability -- And india's main focus is A2G capability.

 

[anathema]

1. The French government has cleared full technology transfer of the Rafale to India, including that of the RBE2-AA Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar (which will be integrated with the Rafale by 2010) and the transfer of software source codes, which will allow Indian scientists to re-programme a radar or any sensitive equipment if need be. Without the software source codes, the IAF would have to specify mission parameters to foreign manufacturers to enable configuration of their radar, seriously compromising security in the process.

1. 
   
   What is a re-programming of radar ? What do you mean by changing configuration of radar ?
   
   If you are refering to Radar modes then it doesnt require any source code transfer. Source code transfer is not even required to specify mission parameters -- if it had been how would PAF be able to operate its F16 fighters ? How would nations operate their F35 fighters if they cant change mission parameters ? These are all configurable where in the country which has brought the equipment can change the mission parameters through parameterized inputs (falcon said this correctly). The latest generation fighters - can have their mission profile and parameters updated via data link .i.e no need for any manual intrevention-- goes to show how far techonology has progressed.
   
   Now the question -- why do we need source codes ? Very simple -- so that we can integrate our own components , missiles , systems to the aircraft without depending on the manufacturer. This is where source code transfer is important. So in your example - If rafale had been selected then we would have to depend on France to integrate Astra on Rafale if there were no source codes available to us.
   The second advantage is our scientists can understand how advanced nations have written , managed and incorporated their source codes.
   
   However it is not as easy as it sounds -- Source codes are actually programming languages -- further most of the aircrafts have it in ADA language which is a serious headache (JF17 has it in C+) -- to decipher and understand it is a very lengthy process.
   
   
   
   
   

   [*]Dassault has also offered to fit the Kaveri engine into the Rafale, which, if chosen, would greatly improve commonality with the Tejas aircraft that will enter service into the IAF by 2010. Concerns have been raised about cost issues as well as potential sales to Pakistan, which has also expressed interest in the Rafale. However, no such jets have been sold to Pakistan, and India and France have recently agreed to "go beyond a buyer-seller relationship."
   [*]EADS has invited India to become a partner of the Eurofighter Typhoon programme if the Typhoon wins the contract, and will be given technological and development participation in future tranches of the Typhoon. Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of EADS Defense Department, elaborated that if India becomes the fifth partner of the Eurofighter programme, it will be able to manufacture assemblies for new Eurofighters.

   
   All the above things that you have listed is great to read. However in our field -- whenever we resign from a postion then manager offers us better paypackage, better position , greater responsibilities --and everything.
   We call it 'GAJJAR de RAHA HAIN' ....These are all marketing tactics. Further Kaveri is long way from complete -- what Rafale achive if it integrates Kaveri ? Whos going to design the airframe again ? Who will be charged for the re design ?
   
   

   [*]Russia's willingness to give full ToT for Mikoyan MiG-35.
   [*]In January 2009 SAAB International, proposed to India the transfer of technology if Gripen win the MRCA and make India 'an independent manufacturer' of its own fighter jets. SAAB favored 'extensive transfer of technology' well in excess of 60 % more than requirement of RFI to boost India's indigenous capabilities in fighter jets.

Russia and Swede (SAAB) are the only countries which can offer us some real ToT. Russia because well we deal with them, so we know what they can offer us and russians know that they cant bluff us by making these kinds of statements. SAAB because there is too much for them to loose -- this is a make or break deal for them -- If SAAB clinches this - the Gripen legacy will continue to live, if not then it would face its eventual demise -- just the Mcdouglas (maker of F18) faced its demise when it was not selected for the F35 program.

[/QUOTE]

 

[soaringphnx]

India and France have recently agreed to "go beyond a buyer-seller relationship.

But the French haven't specified what sort of a relationship they mean, did they?

EADS has invited India to become a partner of the Eurofighter Typhoon programme if the Typhoon wins the contract, and will be given technological and development participation in future tranches of the Typhoon.

Please note that India will not be an equal member of the consortum.

Already explained in preivous post; plz help urself. In short, Almost LCA........Now plz don't say that Gripen is Superior than LCA; I know it is. But only due to its Avionics and Components. Not due to frae, size, or any other physical measures. And these superior things can be added into the plane of same size, i.e., LCA, in future. Like they are added in Gripen many years later; today's Gripen is not what it was when it developed. It got many new and better things; and that can happen to LCA too.

Are you suggesting that if two aircraft are of the same size, their capabilities will be or can be made the same regardless of how they may differ in their basic airframes?