RajanMy fav…
Eurofighter will last 30 to 40 years: German envoy
K.V. Prasad
NEW DELHI: Eurofighter, one of the six contenders for the multibillion-dollar tender for 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA), offers a cutting-edge technology without the End User Monitoring clause, German ambassador Thomas Matussek has said. 🙂
“It is really a next generation plane and it will be in service for the next 30 to 40 years,” he told The Hindu. “It also comes without any End User Verification, complete transfer of technology and production.”
End User Monitoring, which created a political controversy earlier this year, is a requirement the United States insists countries to which it supplies sensitive military equipment must agree to. American firms Lockheed Martin (F16) and Boeing (F/A18) are in the fray along with the Russian MiG, Swedish SAAB (Grippen) and French Dassault (Rafale).
Barring the first batch that will be supplied off-the-shelf, all fighters will have to be made in India under transfer of technology. Mr. Matussek said the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) would shift its entire technology, which means that in the event of war, the country will not have to worry about supplies from overseas.
As for software code supply, the ambassador said it would be much higher than what some competitors, including U.S. companies, might offer.
Germany has been nominated by the four-country consortium of EADS, which produces the Eurofighter, as the lead country to pitch for the fighter aircraft in India.
Mr. Matussek, while admitting that the Eurofighter was described as “expensive” by competitors, said the life cycle maintenance cost would even out the initial high price.
According to the Defence Procurement Policy, the offset clause makes it mandatory for the manufacturer to source 50 per cent of the value from India.
Strategic partner
Mr. Matussek said Germany was keen on supplying military equipment, including submarines, for the Navy. It preferred to have India as a strategic partner and, precisely for that reason, shelved the decision to supply similar equipment to Pakistan, he said. what submarine they will offer to India other than U-214?
As for the IAF’s mid-air refuel tanker, Mr. Matussek said the deal appeared to have hit a snag, with clearance stuck in the Defence Ministry. Although there is no official confirmation, reports indicate that Airbus A330 is preferred to Boeing.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/15/stories/2009121557241800.htm
———————
Thats the problem with USA…
India in no hurry to sign CISMOA with US
STAFF WRITER 14:11 HRS IST
Ajay Kaul
New Delhi, Dec 13 (PTI) India has made it clear to the US that it is in no hurry to sign CISMOA, a defence pact which provides for installation of American communication systems on US-made military aircraft with certain guarantees. what guarantees? we will monitor you
The Indian view on signing of Communication Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) was conveyed to the American side during the recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, sources said here.
The US side was told that the issue is under consideration of Indian government and “we will see”, they said.
The US has been pushing India to sign the CISMOA as it intends to enhance the inter-operability of the Indian and American forces.
It ensures secrecy of its C4ISR (command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/421300_India-in-no-hurry-to-sign-CISMOA-with-US
RajanLast week the IAF and industry visited Swedish Air Force bases F 17 and F 7 (Gripen Centre) to look at operational Gripens and training/support system.
Via: BR.
RajanAnother PAK FA saga… I remember someone in the previous thread wished to see the PAK FA before starting a new thread.
Nice pic Otaku! It will be very interesting if the S-37 Berkut comes out as the PAK FA from Zhukovsky and some of the faces here will be worth to look at! 😀
RajanAs far as I can remember, 2 global firms were shortlisted to supply an engine for the Tejas many months ago. So what is the news element of this statement?
What happened to the GTRE-Snecma JV as well? :confused:
RajanActually IAI recommended Boeing or Gulf stream as a platform for Indian phalcons since they had experience working on them ,it is right that Israelis had worked on IL-76 meant for china but i don’t know for what reasons Israelis where asking India to consider Boeing
Thanks for the info. India may be went for IL-76 as a reliable (sanction free) and cheap alternative.
RajanIndia: Global hub for warship-building
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi December 15, 2009, 0:32 IST
Strategic circles are abuzz with rumours that the United Kingdom will soon offer India one of the new-generation aircraft carriers that it is constructing, since they are turning out too expensive for the Royal Navy to afford. Interestingly, India will almost certainly turn down the offer.
The Royal Navy had planned to build two Carrier Vessels Future (CVFs): the 65,000 tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. With the budgeted price of US $6.4 billion (Rs 30,000 crore) for the pair, now apparently the cost of each, building a third and selling it abroad is an option being considered to reduce the unit price. But, in contrast to this exorbitant price, the cost of India’s 44,000 tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC), under construction at Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), is barely a third of the Queen Elizabeth. And the Indian Navy’s next IAC, a 60,000 tonne behemoth like the Queen Elizabeth, will cost less than half its British counterpart.
In the gloomy framework of Indian defence production, warship-building has emerged as a silver lining. The Kolkata class destroyers, being built at Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, will cost the navy Rs 3,800 crore each, one-third the global price for comparative warships. The INS Shivalik, now completing sea trials, is a world-class frigate built at Indian prices. Earlier this year, addressing an industries body, the Indian Navy’s chief designer, Rear Admiral MK Badhwar, called for making India a global hub for building warships.
While his appeal might have been tinged with strategic motivation — a larger warship industry would bring down unit prices, providing the navy with even more bang for the buck — there is little doubt that shipbuilders would profit more from crafting warships than from slapping together merchant vessels. India has developed the capabilities, including, crucially, the design expertise, to produce world-class warships. But the defence shipyards do not have the capacity to meet even the Indian Navy’s needs; playing the international warship market needs clear-sighted government intervention to synergise the working of public and private shipbuilders.
Building a merchant ship is a relatively cheap and simple process, from design to outfitting. Essentially, it involves welding together a hull (often from imported steel) and then installing imported systems such as engines, radars, the steering, navigation and communications systems, and some specialist systems, e.g. for cargo handling. Imported components form the bulk of the cost, with little value addition within the shipyard. A commercial shipyard’s business plan revolves around bulk manufacture, compensating for the small profit margins by churning out as many ships as possible.
Creating a warship is infinitely more complex, and expensive. The design process is critical, with complex software shaping the “stealthiest” possible ship, virtually undetectable to an enemy. Next, a host of sensors and weapons must be accommodated to deal with different threats: enemy ships, submarines, aircraft and incoming missiles. Harmonising their different frequencies, and canalising information and weapons control into a single command centre, involves weaving an elaborate electronic tapestry.
Actually building the warship is a labour-intensive task, which involves painstakingly duplicating key systems so that the vessel can sail and fight even with one side blown out by the enemy. More than 400 kilometres of wiring must be laid out inside, all of it marked and accessible to permit repair and maintenance. A modern frigate has 25 kilometres of pipelines, built from 10,000 separate pieces of piping.
All this generates many jobs. An army of skilled craftsmen, many more than in merchant shipbuilding, does most of this work manually, through an elaborate eco-system of 100-200 private firms feeding into each warship. And these numbers are growing as defence shipyards increasingly outsource, using their own employees only for core activities like hull fabrication; fitting propulsion equipment; and installing weapon systems and sensors.
In this manpower-intensive field, India enjoys obvious advantages over the European warship builders that rule the market. These advantages are far less pronounced in merchant shipbuilding, where Korean and Chinese shipyards are turbocharged by a combination of inexpensive labour, indirect subsidies, and unflinching government support.
What makes India a potential powerhouse in warship-building is not so much its labour-cost advantage as a strong design capability that the navy has carefully nurtured since 1954, when the Directorate General of Naval Design first took shape. The importance of design capability has been amply illustrated in the bloated CVF programme. The UK, having wound up its naval design bureau, has already paid over a billion dollars to private companies to design the aircraft carrier. And with every minor redesign, not unusual while building a new warship, the design bill and the programme cost goes higher.
India has everything it takes to be a warship-building superpower: the springboard of design expertise; cheap and skilled labour; and mounting experience in building successful warships. What it lacks is capacity, which the government can augment with the help of private shipyards. This will significantly augment private shipyard revenue, boost defence exports, and provide the government with another strategic tool for furthering its interests in the Indian Ocean region.
RajanGovt shortlists 2 global firms to supply engine for Tejas
Last Updated: Dec 15, 2009
NEW DELHI (BNS): The Defence Ministry has shortlisted two global firms to supply the engine for the Mark-II version of indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas.
“Request for Proposal (RFP) for procuring 99 engines has been sent to two short-listed engine manufacturers, namely GE F414 from General Electric Aviation, USA and EJ200 from Eurojet Germany,” Defence Minister A K Antony told the Lok Sabha Monday.
“Both the suppliers have responded to the RPF. Both commercial and technical responses have been received for procurement of 99 engines along with Transfer of Technology,” he said.
Earlier, the LCA was to be fitted with home-built Kaveri engines. However, delay in the development of the engine led to procurement of GE engines from the US.
Incidentally, two global fighter aircraft – America’s F/A-18 and Eurofighter – which are contending for the big ticket MMRCA deal India is going to finalise, have been fitted with the GE F-414 INS5 and EJ-200 engines.
Tejas is slated to replace Indian Air Force’s aging MiG-21 fleet by 2015. DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited are jointly developing the supersonic combat aircraft.
http://www.brahmand.com/news/storydetails.php?nid=2711&page=3&newsheadid=13
RajanAnd why was the AWACS built on IL-76 then?
Would it have been better if they had done a jaguar to IL-76, completely indegenize it.Hope they do it now for the MRTA
IL-76 was readily available to India and Israel. As well as Israel did lots of works on IL-76 mounted Phalcon for China. MRTA is yet to take shape and it will take many years before cleared for service as usual for Indian/Russian aircrafts.
RajanA deal for purchasing the ship was signed in Januray 2004. The original price was pegged at 974 million dollars, but in November 2007, Russia asked India to pay 1.2 billion USD, and this year, pushed it up to 2.2 billion USD. The eventual cost was pegged at a whopping 2.9 billion USD, which was almost three times the original cost.
Refusing to divulge the final price at which the deal has been struck, Ambassador Kadakin said unnecessary hype has been created over the deal.
Speculation suggests that the final price will be settled at 2.5 billion USD.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20091214/808/tnl-india-will-get-gorshkov-in-good-shap.html
$ 2.5 billion is much more than brand new IAC! IAC probably carries more aircraft than the Vikram with lots of new sensors and indigenous investment. INS Vikramaditya is worst defence deal made by Indian defence establishment. Now they are milking for the nuke sub as well!
RajanHe said confidently that we have TN weapons and we have with yield more than 45 KT but he did not want to reveal the exact yield of the bomb. Possibility means we have weapons in between low KT to as much as 200 KT. lol but these are not enough!!!!!!! They need to know exactly what is the yield of the TN weapons we have given to the army!!! 😮 lol
OK I cannot be a billionaire but I can be the chairman of the AEC, so I am telling these state secrets which Dr. Kakodkar could not reveal. Note these…. :rolleyes:
Karan Thapar: We have a credible thermonuclear bomb?
Me: We have more than 50 TN bombs!
Karan Thapar: The reason I ask is because Dr Santhanam writing in ‘The Hindu’ says that the thermonuclear device has not been weaponsied even 11 years after the tests.
Me: He was atleast 500 km away from the bombs than how could he learn about the bombs I don’t understand! If he has something like remote viewing capability thats another matter!
Karan Thapar: So you are saying to me that we have thermonuclear bombs–in the plural?
Me: We have more than 50 TN bombs! We have more than 50 TN bombs! We have more than 50 TN bombs! We have…
Karan Thapar: OK! With a yield of at least 45 kilotonnes each.
Me: Much more than that. Much more than that. Much more than that. Much….
Karan Thapar: OK! Much more than that?
Me: Yes. Weeeee haveeee theeeee TNNNNNN weaponsssssss withhhhh yielddddddddddd asssssssss lowwwww assssss sub-KTTTTTTT toooooo 200 KTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Weeeeeeeeeeeee….
Karan Thapar: OK! Thank you.
Me: I need to say that line atleast three times more.
Karan Thapar: No! Thank you.
Peace. 😀
RajanIlyushin’s bid was lower than that of EADS but the Air Force favored buying the A330 multirole tanker over the IL-78 of Ilyushin, which it had been using. The matter was referred to the Finance Ministry, which rejected the Air Force request, saying the lowest bidder should be the obvious choice.:confused:
India govt and her forces! Why the MoF will have a say in a defence matter! If the lowest bidder is always the winner, we will get lowest quality products most of the time. Same goes to MMRCA competition. Now here comes the great IAF! I don’t understand why they called for a new MAR at all! We currently have six IL-78MKI, which are working fine, with bit more logistic cost than others. They want everything in our forces, every weapon, every fighter. A330 is new and modern but costs much more than IL-78MKI and it will be need an entirely new logistic support.
RajanIt’s not the media making mistakes as usual. Read the underlined part. Perhaps for the sake of testing they split their task into two. And they would most likely be testing without any armaments in the clean config at first for airworthyness, promised height achievable with dummy weights etc etc. Although it goes without saying that in clean configuration it is not required by the end customer. And in the second test the fully weaponised one would be tested.
You are partially rite. I read the whole article. It’s not the official’s mistake. He was 100% correct saying that primarily they will build a non-weaponized one as a prototype than a final weaponized version. But the reported lack knowledge about defence matters. There is no comparison between the basic ALH and the non-weaponized prototype of the LCH.
RajanIndia to test – fly Light Combat Helicopter in December
Last Updated: Dec 14, 2009
The light combat helicopter, designed and developed by the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd
BANGALORE (BNS): India is ready to test fly a prototype of the indigenously developed Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) by end of December.
“The first prototype of LCH is expected to take to the skies between December 26 and December 29,” PTI quoted a senior HAL official as saying. 😎
The light combat helicopter, designed and developed by the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), is currently undergoing functional tests and is expected to be ready for ground run by December 24.
LCH is expected to get the initial operational clearance (IOC) by December 2010 and the final operational clearance (FOC) in 2011.
The delivery of the machines expected to begin from 2014 will augment the Indian Air Force (IAF) fleet of small and highly manoeuvrable rotary flying machines.
LCH would also have a weaponised version, similar to ALH. 😮 “There will be rocket pods, a machine gun and also air-to-air missiles in the combat version of LCH. But in the first prototype all these features will not be there,” the official said.
HAL has also started design of a light observation helicopter (LOH) which would eventually replace the ageing fleet of Cheetah and Chetak helicopters which have been in service since 1978.
“We have got about 600 of them (Cheetah and Chetak) in service now. They are reaching the end of their technical life as they have flown 60,000 hours or more,” he said.
HAL has already bagged a firm order to deliver 65 LCH to the IAF and 114 to the Army.
http://www.brahmand.com/news/storydetails.php?nid=2704&page=1&newsheadid=10
RajanYes..but the defining sentence of that part of interview is the one I quoted..so I m not sure.
Anyway that is how I read it.Others may differ.
If there is question about the existence of thermonuclear weapon (as per Dr. Santhanam) and we got the reply that we have TN weapon with ‘much more than 45 KT’, now which one is more defining? Surety about existence of TN weapon or ‘the possibility of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes’? I think you read this comment as well, “There is no issue about the arsenal at their command.” He is talking about TN bomb. So is there any space for ‘possibility’?
Rajan…
Not so simple or clear I think.
Karan Thapar: With a yield of at least 45 kilotonnes each.
Anil Kakodkar: Much more than that.
They only need to release the bomb design after all these…
Sign In
