Nick_76DARIN 3 news is also good in terms that the IAF is looking towards current systems available locally and abroad and not just sticking to the “safe” DARIN-2. While this will be more expensive, it means that much more expertise building up for HAL (ARDC) and DRDO (DARE) as they define, develop, integrate and serially productionize a new upgrade, which is an iterative improvement over DARIN 2. The new designation would not have been given otherwise.
This also means that HAL has stabilised the Jaguar production and DARIN-2 serviceability standards. Only then would the IAF go for DARIN-3 & place an order on HAL.
HAL has been pointing out for sometime, that Jaguar serviceability figures for the older Jags will be consistent at the ~80% level & upwards if original 80’s era avionics are brought up to current gen systems with improved MTBF and serviceability features (LRU testing, BITE).
A few posts above is the IAF placing an order on IAI for new Griffin-3 LGBs. Griffins are currently on IAF Mirage 2000 H’s, and DARIN 2 Jags and Upg MiG-27s.
It will be interesting to also see the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 detailed specs (Upgrade) and when the MKI MLU is planned for. Original estimates were for the last few squadrons. And then to be gradually applied onwards.
Nick_76Rahul, mea culpa. This weekend for sure.
Forgot the squadron number, the reference is in the last IAF deposition to the Parliament. The 4th Su-30MKI sq (8, Pursoots if memory serves) and the new Jag raising were mentioned. Context was how the IAF was now making up for deinduction of older MiG-21s & 23’s.
I have a hunch that a 5th MKI squadron raising is also well underway and will only be announced later, when the sq is fully ops.
Nick_76Wow. So thats all the Jags in IAF service upgraded then.
This is a big vote of confidence by the IAF for HAL & DRDO plus a definite statement about keeping the Jag around for quite some time to come.
DARIN 2 upgrades are being done to the 40 newer Jags, should be complete by next year iirc, plus the 37 new builds ordered are DARIN 2 as well. One new squadron has already been raised with the new builds, taking the number of Jag squadrons to 6.
If this report is correct, there are 68 + 40+ 37 Jags in IAF service, including reserves? Thats a substantial number. And almost double initial estimates.
A DARIN 2 Jag:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/JaguarIS/JS210.jpg.html
So now the remaining Jags will be DARIN3 & it will be interesting to see the specs for the MC, EW system etc.
Plus there were plans for new engines and a potential ASRAAM order as well. Wonder what happened to those?
2400 Crore = $ 569.34 Million
Thats $ 8.4 Million per bird. Pretty reasonable..should allow for a new SPJ as well for each A/C as on DARIN2’s.
Nick_76There is LCA to complete with Western suppliers.
The LCA does not have the range to hit deep into China, without IFR.
those days of mix-match of aircraft from various sources are over.
The IAF clearly doesnt think so.
considering the large order.
Which is what the IAF needs. Six squadrons at the minimum.
for banking offset better get A-320 assembly like China.
That too, is being done. Offsets apply to every deal > 300 Crore Rs/. 1 Crore = 100,00,000
what kind of precision strike weopons MIG-29A can carry and to what distance cosidering the short range. MKI has much more space for EW equipment and Radar is considerably powrful for all the roles.
The upgraded MiG-29 will be able to carry a range of A2G weapons if the IAF chooses to acquire the same.
MKI, yes. But you are diverting the issue.
It shows the maximum ceiling of operating Russian aircraft. so Flanker will not be worse than this for any kind of calculation for life cycle costs.
The point was not whether Flanker was worse, but whether EF was worse per your statement.
Even so, the issue of risk & additional capabilities overweighs the immediate cost issue as well.
BTW, the EF & others advertise low LCC, which will dip with indian logistics involvement.
Nick_76Even if MKI costs double to operate than EF per flying hour it is still cheaper than introducing EF both in short and long term by huge margin. there is no saving.
There is a “saving” in terms of strategic risk and banking offsets. India cannot afford to rely on one supplier alone. Lifecycle costs for the EF may be = to the MKI. Please prove otherwise.
It is just waste of time and money.
Your subjective opinion.
Just the learning curve of operating EF efficiently will take considerable time from introducing local parts to training.
Which the IAF has planned & is prepared for. So?
This whole MMRCA concept belong to old times when aircraft had single roles. like M2K and MIG-29 in IAF service.
Totally incorrect. In IAF service, the MiG-29s have hand a secondary A2G role, and the Mirage 2000’s have had 3 roles, Air Superiority, Air to Ground, and EW. At Kargil, they performed primarily in their secondary role.
$25k per hr is BlackJack operating costs according to Ruaf.
Relevance to above?
Nick_76Let see what happens at the end:diablo:. Platfomrs are becoming expensive and multifunctional. u dont introduce another type for every role. Thats old Soviet thinking.
Kindly explain what you meant more clearly.
The IAF has never operated w/ Soviet thinking. And if platform specialisation was “Soviet”, then all AF, including the USAF have been guilty. If the IAF had Jaguars & MiG-27s and Maruts, the USAF had F-111’s, A-7’s, the RAF had Tornado’s, Jags etc etc.
Second, who the heck said, that the IAF has some other “Role” for the MRCA?
It will have the same roles as the MKI, only that it will be less expensive to operate and allow the IAF to build up its numbers.
The MKI is a twin engine, twin crew, heavy multi role fighter. It is not cheap to operate.
Nick_76That is old assumption that MMRCA is going to complement MKI. how it is going to complement MKI in practice?..
Leave that to the IAF. Its their intent.
Nick_761b) HAL produced Su-30MKIs cost more than the Irkut units- caused a major scandal & review last year, so costing locally produced Typhoon at £37 million, add 50% to that figure and you’ll be closer. Probably a reason why Indian firms were offered a financial stake in EADS instead.
The price escalation was because India was importing several key items from Russia and counting facility costs as part of per unit costs. With full (90%+) indigenisation, the prices will come down, eg see the related article in the IAF thread.
Imho, the deserved winner will be SH (BM is too heavyweight for IAF’s reqmnt).
Personally, I’d prefer the EF or the Rafale. Giving the MRCA to the SH is rewarding the USG for giving Pak free F-16s and sabotaging the LCA project.
Nothing against the excellent and gracious people at L&M (which the LCA team acknowledges eg AM Rajkumars praise for the folks at aforesaid org), but the USG’s policies leave a lot to be desired. They did their level best to hurt India for pursuing its legitimate defence needs, again & again. I for one, would not want a SH or F-16 in the IAF, given how prone SD bureaucrats are to try and armtwist nations like India which have an independent foreign policy, using any and all means necessary.
BAe supported Indian needs many a time. I would think they are mostly reliable (they have resolved the Hawk issue per reports) & deserve due credit for their support to the LCA program, and so do Dassault.
I hope the EF bid falls well within IAF guidelines re: price & EADS outmagic Boeing & LM in the offsets/ TOT arena.
Nick_76If, as seems likely, trench3 gets cancelled that means it’s no-longer an MMRCA contender- leaving the Super-Hornet the clear favourite. Now which aircraft have Sukhoi officials gone to pains to compare the BM to recently? the SH!
An Indian order for the BM would be pretty smart: not as many as 126 would be required, ToT/off-sets would be no issue (as per MKI) and sub-systems/weapons commonality & upgrades for ’35BM, ’30MKI & PAK-FA-MKI would save significant $ in the long-term.
Otaku,
Su-35 was offered to the IAF for the MRCA some 2-3 years back and was rejected. Then a single seat version of the MKI was offered and rejected. Then came the MiG-35.
Its simply too heavy & expensive, operating costs wise, for the IAF, as you note correctly.
Plus an all russian fleet for the IAF is a heavy risk.
Nick_76Yeah well, a nice cabin doesnt quite mitigate the effect of being far away from the family & kith & kin does it Jonesy? You pay a lot for the fittings in human cost, when you are in service. I think the public tend to forget this point.
Nick_76Good god, you people are still going at it after eight pages!?
You are not fit to comment in this thread, unless you have canards or wing fences.
Do you?? Do you?
Nick_76Where are the aerodynamic examples? where is the science to validate your point? well nick definitively you are just saying blah blah blah nothing concrete
you are very right mig-23 mld!!
the lca doesnt have canards, its well and truly !@#$’ed.
the lca doesnt have wing fences, its well and truly !@#$ed.
** lca is made by thirdworld country.
Reference: MiG-23 MLD. (who cannot be & is not wrong)
Nick_76Thanks Swerve.
Nick_76The fact that there can be so much debate over the weight of the LCA is a good/valid indicator that someone in production or design has messed up.
Requirements creep took the weight to 6.5 T.
Better for the Indian defense research estabalishment to stop pandering to Armed forces whims and freeze requirements to get something functional instead of these machines that try to be everything and fail to be anything usefull.
You are an optimist for sure, to hope for something like the above.
But there are signs of improvement. The AEW&C was stated to be stalled because the IAF had changed its mind and wanted a brand new heavier plane and what not, but the projects going ahead. So somebody held the AHQ brass feet to the fire by showing them the original contract signed.
Nick_76Text of report in English by corporate-owned Russian military news agency Interfax-AVN website
Farnborough, United Kingdom, 17 July: The Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation admits that there are some problems with the fulfilment of arms contracts with China and India, but believes that they will not affect further military and technical cooperation with the two nations.“We had certain issues over the contract for the supply of Il-76 and Il-78 aircraft to China. However, they have been resolved and we are moving towards the implementation of the part of the contract envisaging the delivery of engines for the aircraft,” Aleksandr Fomin, the fist deputy director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, who heads the Russian delegation at the Farnborough air show in Great Britain, told Interfax-AVN on Thursday [17 July].
He noted that such issues arise before all arms exporters from time to time, because often there are objective grounds to such problems.
He expressed hope that the issue concerning the supply of aircraft will also be resolved, as both sides are willing to go back to this issue.
As for the fulfilment of the contract on the repair and modernization of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy, problems emerged because the scale of work was underestimated. {Some underestimation. A few million $? A few tens of million$? Escalation by a billion??}
“I should admit that India understood out concerns, and we have entered another round of talks to settle the dispute,” Fomin said, noting that a list of additional measures has been agreed and consultations are under way over the required additional funding. {Not like India had any other options, what with its IAC a long way off, and the Viraat getting longer in the tooth}
Originally published by Interfax-AVN military news agency website, Moscow, in English 0910 17 Jul 08.
(c) 2008 BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Story Source: BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union
As a reminder, this is what CNS Sureesh Mehta said:
http://www.indiadefence.com/nday07.htm
Admiral Sureesh Mehta said on Monday that the government should neither pay more money to the Russians for refurbishing the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, nor pull out of the deal. He said that the contact signed by Russia quotes a fixed price and it should be honoured. Russia has asked for $1.2 billion over and above the contracted price of $1.5 billion, almost doubling the agreed cost. “It is a fixed price contract and they should honour it,” Admiral Mehta said while also ruling out pulling out of the deal. “The ship is our property We have paid them almost $500 million already. There is no question of pulling out,” he said.
Admiral Mehta said Russia’s attitude raised vital questions about India’s partnership with the Russians. “Where is our relationship with Russia going,” he asked, adding that India had signed the deal with Russia at a time when they were going through a crunch. “They said give us work. I would like to believe we helped them in their times of need.”
Sign In
