EdLawThe fact is that MRCA has already been brewing for many years, and there is great eagerness to get the aircraft into service quickly. This is for a few reasons; firstly, the LCA delays; secondly, their Mig-21s desperately need replacement; thirdly, the Pakistanis are getting modern fighters. The MRCA project is needed to maintain squadron numbers, especially given the need to retire older types, especially the Mig-21s, -23s and eventually -27s and -29s.
As for your comment about not being able to deliver the same sort of deal as the Gorshkov and Mig-29K, there is some truth in this. Nobody else had an elderly carrier available, so anyone else would be selling a new carrier. You need to accept, however, that the Gorshkov is far from being a new carrier, even with all the overhaul. Also, at the price of the Gorshkov as it is now, it is genuinely questionable whether anyone else could have delivered a better offer! A French built carrier, e.g. the DCN Romeo design (i.e. their evolved CdG proposed for the French PA2 requirement), would have been much more capable than Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and probably not have cost all that much more.
The fact remains that India bought an elderly ship, that was never built for their purpose, simply because the sticker price was low. They got it at a bargain price, but then have had to pay through the Earth to make it work – in effect, they bought the equivalent of a rusty old 1976 Camaro, that has sat in the driveway for ten or more years, with one not-so-careful previous owner. They have then had to pay for a complete engine and transmission replacement, as well as replacement of most of the interior and bodywork. Hey presto, they end up paying almost as much as a brand new Camaro!
EdLawExcellent information HK, thank you very much!
I have to agree, it would seem to have been a logical choice for the Adelaide class (and of course the remaining USN Perrys). Since most of the costs were sunk for the NTU project, and this would basically be a re-working of old code (etc) onto new hardware through an emulator, I don’t really see it costing the Earth! In effect, the Aussie solution, as you indicate, seems to have opted for a customised system to do no more than the old system, performance wise. I know the new AWDs are being built in a few years, but it seems to me that there is still a need for interim AAW capability. Notably, without the mid-course updates (allowing much greater range due to autopilot fly-out on a ballistic style path), the SM-2MRs will not have too much advantage over the Evolved SeaSparrows!
Modern consoles fitted with an emulator would seem to be a pretty attractive way to have improved the Perry class. The somewhat worrying thing is of course that the OHPs now lack any kind of non CIWS based air defences. When the Mk13 was faired over, I had assumed that they were going to receive something along the lines of a Mk49 21-cell RAM launcher. This would have lacked the range of the old SM-1MRs, but certainly would have been enough for a lot of purposes – heck, it is supposed to be sufficient for the LCS! 🙂
EdLawAlso, last time I checked, the MRCA competition does not include the PAK-FA – the Russian submission is the Mig-35; PAK FA is intended more as a Flanker replacement. The MRCA competition is likely to be decided within the next year or two (RFPs have gone out, and submissions received already), so I doubt the Rafale production line will be finished before the close of the competition, I doubt it very much!
As Unicorn says, Indian defence purchases were very rarely open, and this new determination to hold proper open competitions is an important change. India is becoming more interested in buying what works, not just what looks good on paper. For many years, for financial and political reasons, the Indians bought largely Russian equipment, because it was cheap, and actually available to them. Nowadays, they have a far wider choice, e.g. they can buy rifles, radars and even missile systems from Israel, fighters and helicopters from Europe, and transports from the US (notably the C-130Js they are buying). They will still buy a lot from Russia, e.g. tanks and helicopters, but if they can get their act together, on projects such as Arjun and Dhruv, they will be less reliant on Russia.
EdLawDoes anyone have any info on proposals for a similar NTU for the Perry class? I would have assumed that they would have been logical recipients (albeit somewhat limited in the upgrade stakes) for the SM-2MR, allowing the SM-1MR to be replaced. The Perry class weren’t particularly old when all these decisions were being made, and though far from being high end Aegis-equipped ships, they were certainly numerous!
EdLawRussians hands is going to strengthen over time as it pour more money on its own projects which may attractive to India. India chose things based on price, availability and transfer of technology.
Russians already got MIG-29 upgrade work while French are still waiting for configuration with third parties. Hawk and Scorpene does not inspire any confidence either.
I have to disagree – the Indians are moving towards more open competitions, and is increasingly willing to pay for performance. As demonstrated in the Kargil war, the Mirage 2000 had availability rates that put their Russian fighters to shame.
As for transfer of technology, there have been problems there as well, notably on the Brahmos, where the Indians are complaining about the lack of full tech-transfer. Basically, the Indians are not going to suddenly just say “okay, we’re never going to buy Russian again”, but they will increasingly look elsewhere for items previously furnished by Russia.
If the Russians lose the MRCA competiton, then things may get worse even faster – I strongly suspect that the Russians will not take a loss like that sitting down. It could well see the Indians moving back from their heavy Russian influence, and towards European, Israeli and possibly even American equipment (less so). For instance, if MRCA were to go to Dassault’s Rafale, the future Indian fighter force could well end up being made up of mostly Rafales, Flankers and Tejas, with other Russian types retiring.
EdLawNone of the so-called Euro-canards are particularly bad looking – actually the Rafale and Gripen both look pretty good in general terms, and the Typhoon isn’t too bad either. For two-seaters, the Gripen does look a lot better in the two-seat form than the single seater; the Rafale doesn’t look quite as good as the single seater; and finally, the Typhoon just looks a bit odd in two-seat form. Mind you, I have seen the Typhoon up close, and it does look pretty good when you’re actually up-close and personal with it!
EdLawThe real question is going to be what the knock on effects will be – it has to be remembered that India is increasingly open to other suppliers. In particular, where they previously relied on Russia for pretty much anything complex, they are now buying Israeli missiles (Barak and the new super Barak thing), French/European missiles and in the future, Indian missiles! The Russian bargaining position is weakening with every year that goes by, and the more projects that go wrong, go overbudget, or simply disappoint, the worse it will get. I am hoping that MRCA goes to the Rafale, because it will be a suitable kick up the Russian’s behinds for the way they have been treating India.
The sad thing is that Sealord is right, though, the Indians really should have realised that the Russians were selling them a lemon. What makes it so much worse is that the Indians are willing to keep the lemon, and pay for it to be ‘fixed’. The best thing, as advocated by a number of us, would be to just cut their losses, and accept that the Indian-built carrier project is the only game in town (hence speeding it up!). It may mean accepting a $1bn plus loss, but in the long run, I get the distinct feeling that the name Vikramaditya/Gorshkov will send a shiver down the Indian Navy’s collective spines for many years to come! I doubt the final completion and handover will be the end of its problems! 🙁
EdLawcould you tell me more about the Mil deal?
Basically the Indians needed some more medium transport helos, and the Mil was obviously the favourite, on price, and because it is already in service, so settled on buying 80 Mi-171Vs. The deal was for 80 Mi-171Vs at a price of ~$650m, but Rosoboroexport have reportedly hiked the price up to over a billion dollars. This was reported in a number of reasonably respectable sources, e.g. Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3089956.cms
The basic story is that some are getting concerned at the fact that prices agreed are becoming subject to significant change – not ideal. This does happen in the West, so don’t think for a minute that I think the Russians are uniquely guilty of this. The problem is that if you keep doing this (i.e. deliberately under-bidding on contracts, only to demand a much higher price once the project is too far along to cancel), you eventually annoy the customer enough to go elsewhere. The problem is that Russia used to have a practically captive market in India (for a multitude of reasons), but now this is changing, and increased competition could cause Russia to lose out. Now is not the time for Russia to be using hard-bargaining – it is a buyer’s market, not a seller’s!
EdLawVery well put Portagee; the very idea that Scottish independence would result in units like the Black Watch becoming what would be perceived as ‘English’ regiments/battalions is a little far fetched. The fact is that Canadians and Australians pledge allegiance to the Queen; and it is entirely probable that hypothetical Scottish forces would continue to pledge allegiance to the Queen.
As for the equipment issue, it is quite likely that this wouldn’t be as big an issue as it may seem. For instance, the Clyde base for Trident could be replaced with Devonport, since it has the facilities needed for maintaining the Vanguard subs anyway (and is home to the SSNs). The Scottish share of equipment could be negotiated to not cause major problems, e.g. some Warriors, CR2s, AS90s and L118s for ground gear; some Typhoons, GR-4s and C-130s for air units, and OPVs, T-23s and perhaps LSD(A)s for naval tasks. In effect, it could involve little more than a re-alignment of tasks. For instance, the Fleet Ready Escort and amphibious roles could be shared, with Scottish units operating right alongside. Overall, I wouldn’t expect any drastic changes, just a slight alteration in the way things are done!
EdLawI very much doubt that Scotland would end up with an Irish-style defence force (i.e. a pacifist policy)! I live in Scotland, and frankly, I don’t see any reason why Scotland would end up with anything of the sort. The SNP may have the support of CND nutters, but beyond the removal of Trident from the Clyde, I don’t see a Scottish government adopting a pacifist foreign policy. The most likely thing would be for Scottish forces to operate alongside other British troops on peacekeeping missions, and just not actually deploy for major offensive operations. This wouldn’t rule out Afghanistan at all, far from it – more likely something more like the Dutch, Canadian or Aussie forces in practice.
Basically, don’t believe everything you read, the SNP don’t represent the views of everyone, and I very much doubt the carriers would pose any major problem. Heck, it would be entirely possible that even in the case of independence, the Scots would continue to contribute to UK naval forces (either simply by contributing ships on an ad hoc basis, a la Dutch amphibious forces; or as a full joint force).
EdLawThough it is worth noting that an AOR or cruise ship are rather simpler projects than building a carrier. I suspect it could easily have taken c.48-60 months, i.e. four or five years, but frankly, you are entirely right, the timescale would still have been very attractive compared to the Gorshkov deal. The sad thing is that Gorshkov was supposed to be a cheap and quick solution to the Indian Navy’s needs. Now, it is massively over-budget, i.e. not cheap, and massively delayed, i.e. not quick!
EdLawHaving taken a look for the new Vikrant design, and read about it in a bit more detail, I have to say I am pretty impressed! It would seem to be a very capable fleet carrier, and probably have been perfectly capable of Hawkeye ops in a conventional carrier form.
Heck, a CTOL carrier order might have seen the Rafale get its first export order, from India! :diablo:
EdLawI suspected that would be what you meant, I just wasn’t certain, so wanted to check. I knew there were real problems at Cochin, both in terms of facilities and with suitably trained workforce; I suspect that this could be the hardest problem to overcome. I do, however, suspect that a deal to build the carrier in an Italian yard would have helped overcome some of the capacity issues…. If given the contract, I am quite sure they would have found space!
I also wonder how differently things could have been had the Italians been given a proper contract for the carrier (i.e. to build the first one for the Indians), more than just design responsibility. Might we have seen Cavour actually being a conventional take-off and landing carrier, of the same design as the Indian IAC? I know the timetables may not have been right, but it could certainly have made things interesting – e.g. a French PA2 based on the Italian IAC design? Heck, even a British CVF based on it! A lot of fun things to wonder about! 🙂
EdLawI have to question the rationale behind this – the cost difference, whether trivial or not, was justified by much greater capability. It is like choosing a car – do you buy the Ford Expedition or the Chevy Suburban? Yes, one is more expensive than the other, but the difference in price doesn’t make choosing the Suburban inherently wrong. On the other hand, just because there were some problems with the decision making process, does not necessarily justify completely re-opening the contest. The better option could be to simply re-examine the specific issues raised, and make a determination as to whether the issues raised rise to the level of making the Boeing offer the preferred option.
Frankly, in any major procurement deal, especially one as complex as this, I would almost be surprised if there weren’t any problems. The deal was always going to be controversial, and no matter which company was chosen, I suspect that the GAO would uphold some form of complaint!
EdLawIndia is already building a new national carrier, the IAC, with the help Italian Fincantieri.
IAC is smaller respect of CVF design
That is the point – the article effectively argues that, despite all the problems with the Gorshkov deal, it is still the best deal in town. I have a major problem with that suggestion – the Italians, French, Brits (etc…) could all have offered better deals. The Russians promised an unbelievable deal originally (i.e. a refurbished carrier at a bargain price), but given Russia’s history of carrier experience, perhaps more scepticism was in order!
I am not sure about the capacity of the Italian yards (they were busy with Cavour), but a deal to simply have a first of class built there would have made a heck of a lot of sense. The French almost certainly had capacity, and could have used some of the lessons learned from the CdG’s problems to help put together a suitable IAC/ADS. I would also argue that had the Indians gone with this sort of deal from the start, then the ship would probably have been ready faster (not to mention speeding up the whole IAC project). As it is, the Indians are getting an old orphaned ship, which lacks commonality with future Indian carriers, and will probably need a lot of maintenance.
As for your comment about IAC being “smaller respect of CVF design“, I’m not sure I understand you; the IAC is, reportedly, based on a CTOL-ised Cavour design, with no relation to CVF.
Sign In
