mattReports from Delhi indicate Def.Min Antony will sign the PAK-FA ‘co-development’/co-production deal next week in Moscow.
Considering his comments last week on Russian IPRs and the need for indigenisation/customisation of weapons systems & the slipping in-service date (and obsolescence of the MMRCA) in a decade- may sound the tender’s death knell.
Hopefully common sense will prevail, Jai Hind!!
If true this really is a good step! I have heard otherwise that the MMRCA would go on but with reduced numbers since India is buying extra Su-30MKi’s.
Which isnt so bad either! Su-30MKI IV would be a juicy concept
Jai Hind, Jai Maha Pran, Jai Jawan
mattIndia will be facing up against minimum of 300 Su-30’s (J-11s), India does not have any proxy states to irritate China during a war like China has on India so you can bet if any conventional stand off takes place the Chinese will be able to concentrate fully on India. I am not saying that the full 300 will be sent against india at once but it still a large number of planes to counter from indias point of view, and these are just the dedicated fighters, let alone the chinese breed of copied/reverse engineered bombers fighters etc.. and the J-10s and what ever else China has in this inventory. So is India is not going to be an agressor and is going to play more of a defensive role it better had have the types of fighters that can counter the chinese threat!
And that does not include hastely bought fighters just for the purpose of getting a technology transfer
mattProblem with this number, i.e. 60 is that ToT is extremely unlikely to be fesible for such a small number. So unless IAF decides to buy them off shelf…which is unlikely anyway.
Erm I really do not see any great leap the guys at HAL and DRDO will get from ANY tech transfer from the offered aircraft. It seems India can do nicel without them and is at most a few very short years behind. It is not a case of Mentality at HAL rather then lack of technological know how.
India doesnt need the tech transfer from F/a-18, F-16, Mig -29 EFA or Rafael.
and what it does need it in it will not get. (talking radars etc)
You have to remember the west has been playing this game for a very long time and even with the amount of Technology transfer they can still garauntee to transfer only the mundain! you can trust your life on that.
mattI still stay stick with the MKIS, reduce the requirement of the MMRCA to 60 use the left over money on R&D and build lots of UCAV’s for bombtruck missions that are able to be guided by the MKIS WSO’s India does not need to go through the full cycle and learn the hard way when it is proven that UAV’s and UCAVS can really do the job when your talking about bombing missions.
mattand the looser would have retaliated in some form.
I do not think Syria with its “AXIS OF EVIL” partners would sit around do nothing if the Israelis had managed a punitive measure over it. I am sure we would have seen another skirmish between the gaurillas and Israel by now.
I doubt Israel was Successful as the media makes it out to have been. Makes little sense when you are dealing with a Machoistic culture and temprement.
Something is Fishy or as we say dal me kuch kala hai.
mattWell I would not mind the F/A-18Block II+ that the US has not even sanctioned yet, but anything other than that is blind in terms of sensor capability. IAF has a lot better sensored aircraft than the F/A-18E/F. Even the Boeing guys have seen the deficit in the offering to the USN and have setup the Block II+ for it.
Between the upgraded mig 29 and the Su-30MKI India has already got aircraft with a better sensor suite at a lower cost than the F/A-18E/F if all that is needed is AESA then go for an Israeli or Salex AESA radar upgrade atleast that way india might have a better chance of getting hold of the software and tweaking it for its own needs.
Why buy a an aircraft whose RADAR secrets the chinese already probably have (by accident or otherwise) and whose communications encryption etc the chinese have (lets not forget the articles posted here regarding Japan getting shakey over the US spyplane in China incident, that alone apparently compromised most of the US and its Allies comunications).
mattCan some one ask the Indian Airforce People what they are going to do with the MMRCA aircraft? as any aircraft picked from the group would be near obsolete when the contract is signed.
mattYou cant blame the dart of not hitting the bullseye if the eye is crooked.
And unfortunately the eye is crooked Be it Brown or Blaire. Read the article posted in the attack on syria thread, with recent spinning campaign by Brown i really do not see any difference between the two. If brown is and was really so much better than Blaire the UK being a democratic country Brown should have stoped Blaire instead of worrying about when Blaire was going to move over to give him power like promised.
matthttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
October 8, 2007 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text
Print E-Mail Feeds
Keywords
Iran;
Iraq War;
Bush, George W. (Pres.) (43rd);
Foreign Policy;
Pentagon;
Iranian Operations Group;
Plans, Planning In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
SNIP_______________
The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.” ♦
mattKeypub forum giving away Christmas gifts on demand?:eek: Thats GREAT!
OK,I want a Raptor:diablo:
you do know it wont be a real Raptor as much as you would like it to be!
mattfrom all this it just seems to me that India is definately better taking that hit in squadron reductions for a couple of years and push all that money into R&D in the country.
India will not be a power or a developed nation unless it stops depending on Russia or Europe or USA for technology. The tajikstan thing is just the point.
mattHarball Sales: Russia Forcing India out of Taijikistan?
23-Sep-2007 17:44 | Permanent Link
Related stories: Contracts – Awards, Russia, Asia – Central, Asia – India, Bases & Infrastructure, Alliances, Issues – Political, Issues – International
Tajikistan
(click to view full)Confronted by a waffling buyer, most vendors don’t immediately think of hostile acts a preferred sales tactic to close the deal. Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, seems to be taking exactly that approach as India remains locked in price negotiations over the former Admiral Gorshkov carrier and SU-30MKI fighters, and considers non-Russian aircraft in its MMRCA medium fighter competition.
Plans called for rotating Indo-Russian joint operation of the Ayni air base, located just 15km from Tajikstan’s capital. Its location above Afghanistan and Pakistan, and next to Uzbekistan et. al., makes it an important forward base for India to project special forces into the region, and send aid to Afghanistan over land routes. In July 2007, however…
IAF MiG-29B
(click to view full)Sify reports that under pressure from a ‘displeased’ regime in Moscow, Tajik Foreign Minister Hamrahon Zaripov declared that the government was no longer negotiating with New Delhi about Ayni, and that India did not have usage rights at the base.
Russia maintains a motorized division in Tajikistan for “logistical support,” and has a close relationship built on large foreign debts and security assistance. Russia’s share of India’s defense market has dwindled significantly since its golden days as India’s sole major foreign supplier, however; and India is working hard to diversify its alliances and establish strong relations with other countries, including the USA. This has reportedly been a point of friction involving Ayni. Senior Indian delegations continue to shuttle to Moscow for meetings, and Putin is scheduled to visit India by year end.
Geopolitical hardball has been known to work in this industry, and perhaps it will work again. Then again, it has also been known to fail, and to accelerate the very trends one was hoping to reverse.
_________________________________________________________
Looks like the russians are tightening the thumb screws.. india should cancel the mmrca and start working on being truely self dependent
mattThats incorrected, I know you might say why didnt you laid down in the thread started by me on private sector, but lets just say i donht feel comfortable giving out list of private firms working on various projects.
Other than that NO private industry in India will have profit margin and can maintain timeline and everything that calls on them to ‘design’ a fighter without public-private partnersip from ADA/NAL/ARDB/CASDE etc etc etc.
Joey I respect you might be privy to information you dont want to give so wont push that and similarly on my side.
But what is in PUBLIC DOMAIN leads me to think that their are very few companies in India being able to match Tier 1 suppliers like for example Spirit Aerostructures, GKN Aerospace engineering, SAAB, MHI, KHI etc etc etc..
mattDefense Industry Daily == Report on Gripen
snip________________________________________
“In Hungary we just don’t have large numbers of aircraft to train with, but in Spring Flag we faced COMAO (combined air operations) packages of 20, 25 or 30 aircraft. The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.
Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually2 – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill3 on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.
Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting,’ we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”
The lion in winter…
(click to view full)Unfortunately, the Gripen has lost out or been absent from consideration in important export competitions in Austria (Eurofighter), the Netherlands (F-35 JSF Tier 2 member), Finland (F-18), Poland (F-16), Switzerland (F-18), and Singapore (F-15SG Strike Eagle to replace A-4 Skyhawks). There is still some small possibility of success in Denmark (F-35 JSF Tier 3 member, JAS-39DK Gripen still on offer), Norway (F-35 JSF Tier 3 & Eurofighter memberships, JAS-39N Gripen still on offer), and even India (JAS-39 still on shortlist but chances fading close to nil). Brazil’s potential order has been delayed, and Slovakia is still seen as a possibility for a small number of aircraft.
Meanwhile, Sweden is about to downsize its Gripen force to 100 aircraft, flooding the market with second-hand models and choking new production opportunities. All this in a market where export orders overall have been below Saab’s expectations. Can the Gripen production line survive?
A number of factors could be cited as reasons for Saab finding itself in this situation: purchasing slowdowns across the industry, the inertia of existing relationships and equipment standardization, Sweden’s lack of geopolitical weight in contrast to countries like the USA, France or Russia; and (in Singapore’s case) its status as a single engine lightweight fighter with limited range in comparison to its competitors, and its partner BAE’s greater interest in promoting its own Eurofighter.
Still, the bottom line is that the Gripen was dependent on exports for profitability as a result of the unprofitable contract it signed with the Swedish government. The government’s ability to assist with foreign export orders has proven to be very limited, and envisaged export orders have been more in line with skeptics’ predictions rather than corporate hopes.
JAS-39: A Way Forward?
JAS-39N concept
(c) Gripen International
(click to view full)One possible way forward may be through upgrades. The JAS-39s on offer to Denmark and Norway would both be enhanced beyond the present C/D versions for greater range and payload, and in July 2006 Saab received a SEK 1 billion contract from the Swedish government (currently about $150 million) in order to improve the aircraft. This was later followed by a NOK 150 million (currently about $25 million) agreement with Norway in April 2007.
Flight International reports that Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options. These include a more powerful engine than the current RM12 variant of GE’s F404. GE’s F414, produced in partnership with Volvo Aero and in use on the Super Hornet, has a;ready been selected. Some reports have touted the possibility of a thrust-vectoring engine, but this was not listed as a selling point in Sweden’s JAS-39N submission to Norway. Integration of an AESA radar that draws on Ericsson’s “Nora” project in place of the Blue Vixen derived PS05 is an important future selling point, however, and was promised in some of Saab’s recent foreign bid submissions with progressive updates from 2012-2018.
At present, Saab is reportedly leading a team of “Gripen Demo” partners that include the Swedish government, Saab, Ericsson, Volvo and GE. A demonstrator for the new version due to fly in 2008, and an AESA radar is reportedly scheduled to fly on the demonstrator in 2009. Other upgrades will include fuel capacity, and the addition of Link 16 compatibility. Norway is now part of that effort as well, under a $25 million development agreement that is part of their F-16 replacement competition’s selection process.
JAS-39N CAP Concept
(click to view full)Saab’s JAS-39N submission to Norway touts the AESA radar and new engine, while offering a heavier aircraft with more fuel capacity (empty weight 300 kg to 8,100 kg, max. takeoff weight rises from 14,000 kg to 16,000 kg, but internal fuel rises 38%); an increase from 8 to 10 weapons pylons; increased external and internal fuel capacity (no word on whether this mean conformal fuel tanks or more fuel carried on the extra pylons); new and repositioned landing gear; and Improved computing and avionics, including satellite communication, Link 16 capability added to the Gripen’s existing datalink, and improved electronic warfare via jammer pod integration and other measures.
The least probable option mentioned by Flight International, but perhaps the most interesting, involves the possible creation of a carrier-capable Gripen that would take advantage of the Gripen’s natural short take-off and landing capabilities (it can function on a 6m x 900m runway). The most likely sales target would be India, with a possible future role in Brazil as a naval aircraft or as a backup choice to Britain’s F-35B Lightning II STOVLs on its new CVF carriers. Though the concept is intriguing, these sales prospects may not be enough to justify the expenditure involved.
JAS-39 over Swedish lake
(c) Gripen International
(click to view full)The hope is that appropriate upgrades would allow the Gripen to continue to surpass the F-16 and MiG-29, including upgrades like Russia’s new thrust-vectoring MiG-35/MiG-29OVT and Lockheed’s AESA-equipped F-16 Block 60 “Desert Falcon” flown by the UAE. At the same time, goes this thinking, upgrades would allow the Gripen to better compete with more expensive fighters like the Rafale, F/A-18 Super Hornet, et. al. as a lower budget option with “close enough” capabilities overall and some outright advantages in key areas.
That competitiveness is essential. Like France’s Rafale, which also depended on exports to finance its ongoing development, the Gripen is finding itself dependent on further government handouts in order to remain technologically competitive. On the other hand, given their status as the future backbones of their respective national air forces, non-competitiveness is hardly an option; in both cases, the questions is whether future upgrade costs will eat into procurement and maintenance budgets.
Nevertheless, Gripen International continues to pursue sales possibilities worldwide. Reports from Jane’s based on a Bloomberg interview outlined Saab CEO Ake Svensson’s thoughts about the aircraft’s potential export customers in the coming years:
mattIndia could be in for an Aerospace Boom, just as any of the other BRIC nations infact but i secretly think Brazil probably has a better chance of an Aerospace Boom then India at the moment.
India needs more private venture First teir suppliers. Tanaja Aerospace is the only one that comes onto the radar and their capabilities are not so impressive.
Tata does some work but is not very impressive and the rest well they manufacture licensed “built to print” light aircraft that are still only sold in India.
The indian administration or even state ministers need to give special dispensation to people wanting to do anything Industrial/hitech. so that India may finally have its Industrial revolution.
All the “GHOOSE” that has to be given to police+government officials etc etc is a real quagmire.
Their are companies in India who have licenses to make materials for aerospace but yet you hear nothing of them. Its a shame and an wasted opertunity.
Sign In
