Then there is tender for 197 LUH as well, Bell should win this.

Bell did not participate in the newly released tender for the LUH. they first raised objections for the first tender and when because of them the entire process was repeated, they gave some excuse about not being able to comply with the offset obligations and pulled out the second time around. the Eurocopter Fennec will be chosen for sure. this time around, Eurocopter has said that they will send the military variant of the helicopter, not the civilian, so they won’t repeat the mistake of the past. and anyway, HAL already manufactures part of the Ecureil/Fennec airframe for Eurocopter, so it won’t be a big deal going for the entire helicopter considering how much experience HAL has with helicopters.

Indian Air Force 197 Light Helicopter Contract: Bell Withdraws Bid Citing Offsets Clause

Dated 13/11/2008

After withdrawing its bid from the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) attack helicopter deal, US chopper manufacturer Bell has now backed off from the contest for 197 light utility helicopters (LUHs). “We are not participating in the competition as our senior management felt it was not feasible for the company to comply with the offsets clause in the tender documents,” a Bell Helicopters India Incorporated official said today.

The decision of Bell comes within a month of it exiting the attack helicopter bids citing problems with procurement procedure. India had issued the request for proposals (RFP) for the 197 LUHs this July. Bell claimed the Indian Defence Ministry had put down clauses under which the original equipment manufacturer winning the contract was bound to plough back 50 per cent of the deal amount to India as offsets, which was hard for them to comply with.

In fact, India was forced to issue a fresh tender for its LUH requirements, after cancelling the original RFP in December last following objections raised by Bell over rejection of its bids in favour of French major Eurocopter’s AS-355 ‘Fennec’.

Bell and Eurocopter were the two final contenders and India had decided to put its weight with ‘Fennec’ after technical evaluation.

Anyway, with the Cheetal upgrade of the Cheetah (it recently set a world record in November 2004, landing atop Sasser Kangri main peak at an altitude of 7759 meters), there is an option available for the IAF so that it doesn’t become a desperate need for the LUH.

any chance that the FC-1’s next version may get the J-10B’s AESA whenever it becomes operational instead of looking for the French or Italian radar ? and is the PLAAF looking to upgrade its existing J-10A’s to B standard or keep them as they are ?

except for the part about the N-LCA (it will fly with the new engine not the F-404 or Kaveri), the rest of the article is pretty good.

article link

India will commission its first indigenous aircraft carrier in 2014. A sneak peek into the making of the big ship

By Syed Nazakat/Kochi & Delhi

A dream is being crafted on this dock in Cochin Shipyard. Groups of workers in red and navy blue are shaping a vessel that will make the Indian Navy a truly blue-water force. On the dock, welders are hunched over their torches, plasma cutters are shaping sheet iron and crane operators are guiding huge hull blocks to their slots. These men with calloused hands and half-moons of dirt under their fingernails are erasing a history of hand-me-downs. They are making India’s first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC).

There is a momentary hush as a huge gantry crane hoists a super-lift module to be slotted into the carrier. The crane operator deftly works the controls and gently guides the unit home. As the crane moves off, the welders take over and attach the lift-module to its neighbouring modules. After the lift-module is welded in place, plumbers and electricians hook up the wires and pipes. If all goes well, the Indian Navy will commission the carrier in 2014.

The 22 functional aircraft carriers in the world are owned by nine navies. Only the US, Russia and the UK have built carriers exceeding 40,000 tonnes. India is the fourth country to build a ship in this class. “It was our dream to equip India with an aircraft carrier,” said Commodore M. Jitendran, chairman and MD, Cochin Shipyard.

Work on the IAC started in November 2006 and 70 per cent of the hull blocks are done. Displacement tests, defining the hull form and structure, space analysis and hydrodynamic modelling have also been completed. “The IAC will be launched in 2010 and commissioned in 2014,” said Jitendran. “There will be no delays from our side.” Italian firm Fincantieri is assisting with the integration of the propulsion system and Russia’s Naval Design Bureau is helping with aviation systems.

The indigenous aircraft carrier project signifies not only an attempt to modernise the Navy, but also a shift in strategy. In the past, India had planned only to counter threats from Pakistan and China. But now it is aiming at global reach. International maritime laws recognise aircraft carriers as sovereign territories in almost all of the ocean.

“As long as a carrier does not get too close to a nation’s coast, it does not need permission from host countries for landing or overflight rights,” a Navy officer said. “A forward-deployed Navy provides the country with unique strategic options.” Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma said India’s goal for the next decade was to have a fleet of 160 ships and over 300 aircraft.

India’s naval role becomes more important because of its proximity to two strategic commercial straits—Hormuz and Malacca. Almost 40 per cent of international seaborne oil shipments pass through Hormuz. In 2006, Malacca averaged 1.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. These figures alone highlight the strategic nature of these straits.

“The IAC will be a milestone in the Navy’s history,” said former Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash. “It is a symbol of power projection, which will simply resonate in other countries as it resonates in India. It [the IAC project] shows India’s seriousness to become a true blue-water Navy.” An accomplished carrier pilot, Prakash had commanded the INAS 300 when it updated to Sea Harriers in 1983.

Aircraft carriers are designed to support multiple activities. They transport a variety of aircraft, launch and land specific aircraft, serve as a mobile command centre for military operations and house personnel involved in these activities. “We have to fit a ship, an air base and a small housing colony in the carrier,” said a senior officer of the Southern Naval Command.

Designed by the Directorate of Naval Design (DND), the IAC will be powered by four General Electric LM2500 gas turbines. The turbines will generate an optimum 88MW, giving the carrier a cruising speed of 28 knots. The LM2500 is licence-built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The carrier will be 260m long and 60m wide with an endurance of 8,000nm.

The 40-year-old DND has designed 40 classes of ships and is the only government organisation worldwide to design ships. Elsewhere, the work is done by public sector companies or private shipbuilders.

Takeoffs and landings on carriers are a tricky business. Commander P.V. Satish, who served on the INS Viraat, said a night landing on a carrier’s flight deck is the most harrowing exercise in military aviation. Seated at the controls of a fighter that could weigh up to 25 tonnes, the pilot approaches the carrier and all he can see are the tiny lights lining the flight deck. “Imagine that! In the middle of the ocean and he has to land on a 200m-long runway,” said Satish.

The IAC’s flight deck will be in STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) configuration with a ski-jump. The ski-jump will give aircraft additional lift during takeoff. All carrier-ready aircraft have a tailhook under their tail. Three arrestor wires fitted on to the flight deck are supposed to snag the tailhook and bring the plane to a stop. If a pilot misses all three wires, he has to take off and attempt another landing.

The IAC will have aircraft elevators before and after the ‘island’, the command and control centre of the carrier. The elevators move aircraft to the flight deck from the hangar deck. Sources said the IAC is designed to support and maintain 30 aircraft including the MiG-29K and the naval variant of Tejas, the indigenous light combat aircraft. The carrier will have two 200m runways, a helicopter deck and a 1,600-strong staff.

The team overseeing the project is currently finalising the carrier’s weapons systems. Obviously, the exact details are top secret. Carriers being ‘runways at sea’, the IAC will have systems capable of stopping attacks from enemy aircraft and missiles. There will also be a long-range surface-to-air missile system with multi-function radars and close-in weapon systems. The carrier will have anti-submarine defence systems. All defence systems on board will be integrated through a combat management system. Sources in the Southern Naval Command said the carrier would have “jamming capabilities over the expected electromagnetic environment.”

The quest for the IAC began in 1989 when the Navy wanted to replace its ageing British-built carriers with two new 28,000-tonne carriers. The first vessel was to replace the INS Vikrant, which was set to be decommissioned in early 1997. French company Direction des Constructions Navales (DCN) was contracted to study designs for a 25,000-tonne vessel with a speed of 30 knots.

The plans were dropped in 1991 when the defence ministry shifted focus from conventional-sized carriers to the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi class. The new class put the carrier at around 17,000 tonnes with capability to support up to 15 aircraft. In 1997, the Navy whittled down DCN’s model to a 24,000-tonne Air Defence Ship (ADS). “But somehow it still did not fit India’s requirement,” said Deba Ranjan Mohanty, senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

Finally, in August 2006 the vessel was re-designated from ADS to a 252m-long IAC with a displacement of 37,000 tonnes. Because of design changes, the length was later increased to 260m and the displacement to 40,000 tonnes.

The project’s initial delay was due to the unavailability of high-grade steel. Though there was an initial agreement with Japan, it fell through after Pokhran II. Eventually, the Steel Authority of India Ltd produced the required steel under just about a year.

Senior Navy officials have confirmed that another core issue was the lack of funds. Prakash said the committee on defence expenditure had asked for downsizing to the Garibaldi class because of budgetary constraints. Many Navy officials said the current budget of Rs 3,260 crore was barely sufficient.

The IAC project has had other problems, too. Cochin Shipyard officials said IAC got delayed because of the ‘plan-as-you-build’ attitude. A minor alteration in the contracted design would lead to modifications of dozens of modules. But the Navy blames the shipyard for the “cost growth”. Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar, director, National Maritime Foundation, said delays occurred because the shipyard did not have basic equipment to build the carrier. This was solved by a special allocation of Rs 200 crore to Cochin Shipyard by the defence ministry.

Bhaskar said, “There was no clarity at the highest national level what kind of aircraft carrier India needed. There was a lot of confusion within the defence ministry about the nature of the carrier. Moreover, India is lagging behind in shipbuilding. We do not have good dockyard facilities and shipbuilding technology.” Perhaps this is why the IAC project is a matter of pride. Said Mohanty: “It is about achieving a long cherished dream and about a belief that, despite many odds, we can build a world class warship.”

In a bid to boost its blue-water credentials, the Navy is expected to operate three aircraft carriers by 2017. It is acquiring the Kiev-class Admiral Gorshkov (renamed INS Vikramaditya) from Russia and is planning a 50,000-tonne IAC 2 with CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) capability. CATOBAR will help IAC 2 to launch conventional aircraft. Only three countries have CATOBAR-capable carriers—the US (Nimitz class super-carriers and USS Enterprise), France (Charles de Gaulle) and Brazil (Sao Paulo).

Senior Navy officers said the order for IAC 2 was likely to be placed in 2010, after the launch of the first carrier. “The fate of IAC 2 will be decided by the performance of the first carrier,” said a senior Navy officer. On its part, Cochin Shipyard is using a modular approach to reduce construction time on IAC. If all goes well, after the initial launch the carrier will spend a year in the refit dock where all major components and underwater fittings would be fixed. Then it would be relaunched for outfitting.

The Navy has another external issue on its hands. The Defence Research and Development Organisation’s Tejas, which has to operate from the IAC, is behind schedule. The DRDO is thinking of installing the indigenous Kaveri engine in Tejas. But the engine has had multiple problems and French company Snecma is currently working on it.

The Navy might be forced to test Tejas with the current General Electric F404 engine. The test will ascertain its flight characteristics and whether its structural strength is sufficient for carrier deployment. When Tejas is fitted with Kaveri, the Navy will start operating it from a carrier. Reports said the Tejas naval variant was supposed to be ready for carrier trials by 2013.

Far away from the military planners, strategists and ‘Eyes Only’ files, the worker on the ground seems to have gauged the project’s significance better. Said a steelworker at the shipyard: “What is important for us is that we are doing something nobody else in India has done.”

I am surprised when people are thinking that Tejas MK-I and Tejas MK-II will have different airframe designs ,i can confirm that both will share 90 to 95 % of the Airframe design and only major changes will come in engine area and some extra sensor area for AESA Radar and its subsystems . Elta-MMR is been designed in such a way that it will take little modification to make it AESA . Tejas MK-II will get complete set of new avionics suite that includes new Aesa and lesser LRU , as soon as engine is selected work on the MK2 will start keeping in mind inputs taken for engine manufacture

Ashok Baweja, ex-Chairman of HAL had stated that the wing will be changed as well and some guys stated that additional hardpoints may also be added..are you saying that none of that will be done and that the only changes to the airframe will be to the intakes, air channel and the engine housing ?

It is possible that they’re offering it cheaper than they did to the Dutch. After all, Saab top execs have said in the past that the Brazilian and Indian deals are make or break deals. If they win either of them, they can stay in the fighter business for a long time to come. take a smaller profit, win the Brazilian or Indian tender, and you have a product that will be in service for another 30 years, and you’ll have a lot of time and other smaller contracts to get profits through.

The Folha newspaper, the same who broght out the leakage of FABs report, says that it believes that the proposed unit costs – including 5-year post-sale support, training package and some armament (not much!) – is: Gripen US$ 70 Million, F-18 US$100 Million and Rafale US$140 Million.

How reasonable do these number seem to you?

Regards,

the Rafale is just too expensive ! the Gripen NG at half that cost seems like a much better and affordable alternative..

Well my friend, noticing how “easy” it has been so far for Dassault to sell Rafales abroad one must ask: “if the Rafale is so expensive for a Brazilian sized military budget, would there ever be another South American country able to foot such a large fighter acquisition bill?

Always keeping in mind that the Venezuelans are solely buying from China and from Russia now, that Chile just bought TEN brand new F-16C/D(!) and Argentina is disposing of its obsolete military means at an alarming rate in order to desperately save cash… Colombia is a good US customer and recently got some revamped Kfirs from Israel and Ecuador is looking at China and Russia for new aircraft… As you see, Dassault could just as well offered Brazil the exclusive Rafale sales rights to the Moon and Mars and it would do us the same good as “The whole South American Market”…

very well said Hammer. 😀 Its indeed just a marketing gimmick, because even Dassault would know that except Brazil, no single other Latin American country could afford the Rafale. $7 billion for 36 Rafales sounds so ridiculous that its even surprising to me that Brazil would want to spend such a huge amount for such a small number of jets- BTW, does that figure include weapons/operating costs for certain number of years or is it just the up-front acquisition cost ?

No one outside the Ministry of Defense is taking seriously the “export potential” of the Brazilian built Rafales.

the Brazilian MoD must have cousins in the Indian MoD. they’re just as capable of foolish decisions 😀

Also differently from what you are assuming there is just no guarantee that the Brazilian-built aircraft might cost less then the planes now built in France. The costs to set up a new production line with new local suppliers as well as the garanteed margin for Embraer here in Brazil will certainly jack up unit prices. Slo if the price is not going to go down the idea is to get the most ToT out of this deal so we can make it all pay out in the end. If it doesn`t pay out then this local production idea makes absolutely no sense.

at least for the first batch of Rafales, the cost will definitely be higher as you rightly point out the factors that will cost money to set up a local assembly line. suppliers, factory, assembly line, workers training, even though having Embraer’s suppliers’ experience will help in reducing the learning curve. and having spent so much, it would be prudent to order more so that the unit costs go down.

the Gripen NG would make most sense, because if Embraer built Gripen NGs are cheaper than Swedish built ones, then they could co-market them to a lot of countries and it will be an attractive option for many countries if its in service with a major air force. In my opinion, the Gripen NG will be the best bet for Brazil, both for numbers it can afford, as well as how much the industry can gain from assisting in developing whatever is left to develop on the Gripen BR.