As it was quoted by DM in the Lok Sabha i think IN seriously consedering three systems are on offer and will get one of these onboard P-15A. I also not happy with 60-70KM Barak-2, when it will be inducted into the Navy in 2012 the western navies will have something with more than 200km range.

We should go for atleast 150km Barak-2/8 with a KKV technologies can be derived from naval version of Green Pine and the missile should be a development of Arrow-2/PAD with booster stage must be there for longer range as well as altitude.

Dude if you go by media DM of lok sabha quotes many things including, there is no nuke sub project and no sagarika.

Let me tell you one thing we dont even know for sure the range of barak-2 as of now.

So much debate, so many points of views, and i guess we are still no way near, and it remains anyone’s guess.

Someone recently posted an article in IAF discussion thread which quotes former IAF chief S.P.Tyagi ((in reference to India’s fleet of warplanes manufactured in France, Britain and Russia) that “It is the biggest nightmare to run an Air Force with planes of different origins,” and that Indian Government has now decided in principle not to go for multiple origin planes.

If so, then at least in theory this rules out F-16/F-18/Gripen.
Typhoon is prohibitively expensive (or so i think) with Rafale coming quite close.
This leaves Mig-35…but would then India be willing to de dependent on a single source for most of its advanced fighters that are to serve for many many years to come???

Some real hard choices to make, and i dont envy those who have to make them.

Mate, Dont take what IAF chief says at face value and definitely do take everything with a pinch of salt if someone retd. says anything about procurements or armaments, there are manything which comes into factor here which if you put might complete the picture unknown to us perhaps@

^^ ROTFL!

Pwned 😀

Ankush I dont think hypothetical scenario determines the status of a bird which didnt had BVR. but if your posting context was to show “nor does 71:0 ratio determines the quality of the bird without counting the opposition and machinery it was going up against” , its justified

and kaduna mate its nothing against PAF but to show the context of comparison of one not being right how can another be? I guess?

F16 has HUGE Variants, thus judging the metre of a plane based on one variant is not right, nor is judging the quality of a plane based on a kill ratio.

It is kinda like AMRAAM (older versions) is better than R77 because it has great combat record, bar the pilots it went against.

Lastly, PAF’s F16’s didnt had Full BVR let alone developing tactics for them, Our mig 29’s did, so lets not judle F16 Block 52 (which they will be getting) also the Block 60 based on that.They are highly capable with all the soft kill goodies!

IIRC seems like VERY VERY old video! atleast 3-4 years old?

I dont know why ADA isnt releasing LSP-1 videos, Our Establishment lacks proper marketting anf advertisement skills.

Why wouldnt EF provide TOT if we become their 5th Developement partner and say fund the AESA maybe 😉

Better still if not partner integrate Israeli stuffs! ELta 2052!!

One problem India may consider, if they buy US is there a possible conflict of interest between them and Pakistan?

What would happen if a war erupted between the two, would the US supply both with spares and weapons? Probably not.

Mate the way I see things it seems almost unpredictable what is going to happen.

Let us analyze things a bit,

MRCA was to replace Mig 23 and 27!

India was initially looking for Mirage 2000, French has told ready to transfer the production line and will modify it with many internal things from Rafale.

Now that deal went off.

The requirement was a good strike platform with less maintenance and better uptime and single engined fighter, later when US chipped in the bidding the process changed and maximum MTOW was increased.

Now Gripen was one of the strongest contenders but its die-hard similarities with LCA wont make it happen.

Mig 35 is a great bird but would need Indian money to make it what India wants, on the plus side, We get best TOT arrangements.

In the meantime mig29 upgrade deal signed and mirage upgrade deal signed.

honestly speaking the most capable aircraft seems F18 Block 2 but problem is what is fit for USN might not be fit for us, more importantly they wont customize the damn thing for us!

Like we have our ownd atalink programme called link 2 programme, i have very much doubt if US will allow us to integrate our datalinks with its FCS.

Now problem is India wont move a bit with TOTAL TOT (once bitten twice shy).

Recently after GRTE , Parliamentary comitee has criticised the delay of kaveri and asked HAL to tie up with global manufacturers for parallel engine developements.

HAL is presently thinking of tieing up of a JV with

honeywell for F125 engine
rolls royece for adour
P&W..

French also has offered to integrate Kaveri in Rafale if we want as slow upgradation of Kaveri willt take it to french engine standards.

My choices as follows,

If mig 35 then integrate the ELM 2052, and go for any European bird to get access to meteor and integrate it in Mig 35 as well.

So whatever you buy sometimes it feels India cannot invest so much on one costly bird thus split deal?

I’m really fed up of what will happen!

Sometimes Gripen N seems favourable as well..

One clear growth path that i can see is make kaveri online put it in LCA, and start working for MCA, when Kaveri will reach 20000 lb mark (the target around 80~90% has been achieved so far), MCa’s engine is ready even before its steel cut.

It will be much easier to predict the growth of Indian aeronautics industry once this this deal is done, else is hard to predict what will happen.

This is the TOT requirements,

http://mod.nic.in/dpm/welcome.html

From Page 54

17. Transfer of Technology (TOT)(If applicable). The Govt of India, Ministry of Defence is desirous of license production of (generic name of equipment) under TOT. Aspects of TOT which are to be fulfilled by the vendor are given at Appendix ‘L’. Govt reserves the right to negotiate TOT terms subsequently but the availability of TOT would be a pre-condition for any further procurements. If negotiations for TOT are not held as a part of the negotiations for equipment, then subsequent and separate TOT negotiations would continue from the stage where the equipment has been selected.

Note:-
(The RFP in such cases would spell out the requirements of TOT depending upon the depth of the technology which is required, and whose range could cover technology for repair and overhaul; production from CKD/SKD kits and production from raw material and components level. Aspects which are to be included in the RFP in case production from CKD/SKD/IM kits are given at Appendix ‘L’ to Schedule I. Care should be taken to spell out the selection criteria clearly. The nominated Production Agency (PA) for the receipt of technology will be closely associated in the preparation of RFP).

Page 75-76 of the PDF.

Full TOT for the following systems for overhaul and repair is mandatory:
(i) Air Frame including metallic and composite structures,
empennage,
(ii) Canopy, Radome, Special process, Casting & Forgings
(iii) Flight Control Systems including FBW hardware and software
(iv) Landing Gear system including all castings and forgings
(v) Electrical and Avionics systems including Cockpit display systems
(vi) Instruments, Communication and Navigation equipment, Power
generation and distribution systems.
(vii) Power Plant System including FADEC, Engine accessories,
Turbine, NGV and compressor blades
(viii) Hydraulic System including pumps, servo actuators along with its
spool & sleeve
(ix) Wheels and brakes system
(x) Fuel System including in flight refuelling
(xi) Environment system including OBOX, Pneumatic system
(xii) Ejection Seat
(xiii) Weapon Systems Integration, hardware and software.

………………………………..

(c) The TOT shall be for “D” level maintenance to cover Airframe, Engines,
Avionics and other aggregates. . It shall be comprehensive and shall cover all aspects of maintenance up to the lowest level which will enable the Maintenance Agency to, repair, overhaul, support and maintain the license product. TOT shall include the details that are needed to give disposition during the maintenance on deviation/ concession; modify/ upgrade the licence product and substitute parts and systems of the licence product as required by the certifying agency and the maintenance agency.

From page 76-77

(a) The TOT Documentation to be provided by the OEM shall be in English
language in Electronic and hardcopy formats, and include documentation under the following heads:-

(i) “D” level Maintenance documentation in ATA100/ATA iSpec
2200.
(ii) Engineering documentation including special process.
(iii) Software documentation including source code, build
environment and utilities.
(iv) Details of Special tools and Test equipments, Jigs & Fixtures.
(v) OEM’s Standard Technical Manuals.
(vi) Illustrated parts catalogue with price list.
(vii) Source identification for BOIs and subcontracted items; standard
parts consumables etc.
(viii) Mandatory spares replacement lists and price catalogue for O,I,
and D level maintenances.

check the TOT conditions

I’m fedup of this MRCA and I await the day MCA gets MODs sanction and funding.. by then kaveri should be ready as well (2010), LCA in IOC-FOC status.