MMRCA Misgivings Unfounded (a must read)

[sancho]

That it might well be but for now it is not as clear as you might wish it to be.(if you see my posts on the MMRCA from before, you would see my initial support for a twin contract between the SH & the Gripen to supporting the Rafale when the choice was made)

Your idea of splitting was rejected by MoD from the start and that for good reasons, because neither IAF nor MoD wanted to increase the number of types and logistics again. Former Air Chief Naik once stated, that an ideal IAF would only need a single type of fighter, but that the aim now is to have 4 to 5 at max (LCA, MMRCA, MKI, FGFA and possibly AMCA). So splitting the numbers would work against that plan, but not only that!
Reducing the number will further increase the unit cost of each fighter, that means even a Gripen would cost well above $100 million each when you buy just 63 of them , while the F18SH would be even costlier. This obviously works against your point to reduce the total cost of the deal and when you add the operational and logistical cost increase, it all would end up closer to the EF total costs.
Not to mention that it gets less attractive for foreign vendors to set up a licence production, if the total number of fighters is lower, that they then will offer less ToT and industrial benefits and so on.

So all in all, this idea would work against anything we actually wanted to achive with the competition!

 

[Bang Galore]

Your idea of splitting was rejected by MoD from the start and that for good reasons, because neither IAF nor MoD wanted to increase the number of types and logistics again. Former Air Chief Naik once stated, that an ideal IAF would only need a single type of fighter, but that the aim now is to have 4 to 5 at max (LCA, MMRCA, MKI, FGFA and possibly AMCA). So splitting the numbers would work against that plan, but not only that!
Reducing the number will further increase the unit cost of each fighter, that means even a Gripen would cost well above $100 million each when you buy just 63 of them , while the F18SH would be even costlier. This obviously works against your point to reduce the total cost of the deal and when you add the operational and logistical cost increase, it all would end up closer to the EF total costs.
Not to mention that it gets less attractive for foreign vendors to set up a licence production, if the total number of fighters is lower, that they then will offer less ToT and industrial benefits and so on.

So all in all, this idea would work against anything we actually wanted to achive with the competition!

Err...I never said that it was the IAF/MoD's plan, only that my original position was inclined to that possibility because I saw no logic in replacing single engined planes with larger fighters alone. I have never been a fan of this overreaching worry about number of platforms because I have opined that as long as we are buying from foreign sources, diversification is a must. We can worry about that only when we have an indigenous fighter that can take that place. Otherwise, economic suicide by coercion is guaranteed. Having said that I do not disagree with your logic of splitting making it more expensive and therefore that MoD was probably right in their decision on the undesirability of a split..(when the initial conversations was going on the figures were thought to go up to over 180 which was when I made the remark about the split - that was when the economy was in a better shape & the UPA had not yet committed economic seppuku)


As far as the numbers go, we will just have to see. Doesn't look like the GoI is in a position to sign anything this year because the IAF's capital expenses budget won't cover even the initial down payment. We are in for a tough ride, no matter what you choose to believe.

 

[sancho]

I have opined that as long as we are buying from foreign sources, diversification is a must.

Exactly why IAF don't want to make itself more dependent on Russian techs and weapons on more Russian fighters, but the number of engines have no importance in diversification.