vikasrehmanThey’ll replace most of the core avionics systems anyhow, including the mission computer, the radar, the stores management system, modify the cooling & ECS, new radios and datalinks, new glass cockpit with new HOTAS controls on the grips in all likelihood, and finally new munitions and wiring for the same. So source codes really dont matter. IAI has long experience in such things and so does HAL. Both have modified aircraft without OEM involvement. Eg Lancers for IAI and Jaguars/MiG-27s for HAL.
On the other hand, IAI wont touch the engine or relife the airframe. That will have to be HALs job and thats not going to be easy.
And while they may have original spares etc for a complete overhaul, to get an overall idea of the fatigue life they may have to test a Mirage to destruction to get an idea of the TTL for the airframe beyond what was initially stated. Thats a loss of an airframe more or less, which is where the OEM has the advantage since they have the design data and can often relife without having to do such comprehensive “test till fatigue crack” tests.
All this could be done if there is nothing about it in their contract, and I do not know if there is or is not. Assuming that spare parts largely come from OEM, that OEM would have to be taken on board in some form even if IAF decides to go the Israeli way.
vikasrehmanNot necessarily. Most countries are not as restrictive as the USA, which, in effect, hires out weapons rather than selling them.
What about the manufacturers? Access to source codes etc.?
vikasrehmanPlus Tejas production will ramp up from 2015 onwards, thats six years away, why should the IAF ignore its Mirage 2000’s till then. If the French upgrade offer is too expensive, theres always Israel.
Lets suppose M2K upgrade negotiations with the French are not successful. Wouldn’t IAF need OEM permission to take the Israeli route?
vikasrehmanvikasrehmanThe IAF seems to be moving away from Il-76 in its entirety. A-330 for refueling and C-17s for heavy lift.
That remains a possibility, though (even in this case) the last IL-76 (phalcons) would remain in service for decades to come yet. May be, just may be this is something guy at MoF don’t get??? Though as you mentioned it could be some different reason.
Denying new equipment based on logistics argument is fine if you have just introduced the type in service for eg: the Hawk AJT. It would simply be stupid to have another AJT just for the heck of it.
Wasn’t RFP issued recently to five or six companies for another batch of AJT?
vikasrehmanThe Indian Airforce is its own worst enemy , it could have easily opted for IL-78 and standardised on its tanker fleet.
Now they opted for the expensive A-330 knowing fully well that MOF will opt the lowest bidder and will be asking questions for new type selection and life cycle cost benefits.
The worst part is the whole program gets delayed by few years.
Im sure if IAF is at fault here. IAF must have based it selection on technical reasons, and (most likely) would have handed their report (stating all the technical reasons and benefits of A-330 vis-a-vis IL-78). I suppose Finance ministry has it own experts including military experts and not just the accountants to take a look at the whole thing including technical reports.
vikasrehmanIndian Refueler Program May Be Rebid
By vivek raghuvanshi
14 Dec 2009
NEW DELHI – India’s purchase program for six midair refuelers may be rebid after questions arose regarding bid cost and competitiveness, Indian Defence Ministry sources said.
“The procurement proposal had been progressed in accordance with the Defence Procurement Procedure-2006 and thereafter referred to the Ministry of Finance, who has expressed certain reservations relating to the competitiveness of the bids and the reasonableness of the price,” says a Dec. 14 Defence Ministry release, quoting the official reply of Defence Minister A. K. Antony to India’s Parliament.
Though the release does not specify the program is facing serious problems, Defence Ministry sources said that because of objections from the Finance Ministry, the program will be quashed and rebid next year.
Four years ago, a request for proposal was sent to U.S.-based Lockheed Martin and Boeing, EADS and Ilyushin of Tashkent.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing did not respond to the tender, leaving only Ilyushin and EADS in the fray.
Ilyushin’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:
vikasrehmanI will seriously propose to develop MCA as a UCAV with multiple co-operation agreements with Israel, Russia and France for various critical subsystems.
Seconded.
Through the MMRCA deal, buy more upgraded SU-30 MKI with PAK FA techs (for $5 billion), invest little more in LCA mk2 specially on Kaveri and EW systems (~ $1 billion) and rest of the $ 11 billion invest in MCA development.
More MKI does not make sense cosnidering it would be the hi end of the hi-lo mix. Most airforces operating around hi-lo mix usually tend to operate more lo than hi, cost being a primary concern . Its hard to compare the overall life cycle costs (including operating costs) of MKI and LCA but one can expect MKI’s costs to be considerably higher than then LCA. So what’s the solution? Reduce the number of overall squadrons?
vikasrehmanVikas, I would think that the current state of the MCA is similar to what is being done for future generation aircraft in civilian programs- for instance, Boeing has been working for years on a 737 replacement, purely product development wise to firm up a concept, decide on what technologies to incorporate, what advances are required, what materials to use, etc. its been going on for years, but there is no Full Scale engineering work going as yet, with the 747-8 and 787 eating up all engineering resources except for those in PD. Its only when they can finally arrive at a solution that addresses all the requirements from a 737 replacement (lesser drag, lower fuel burn, more green, lower noise, even more advanced materials, etc.) will they actually start Detail design. I would imagine that the MCA is in a similar phase. they first need to firm up what design to go with, what technologies to incorporate and when thats done, get work started on that in concurrence with the Detail design..and this time around, the IAF is (at least from reports) involved in discussions with ADA on what it wants and hopefully will embed program managers to give inputs at all times.
Makes sense.
vikasrehmanIt would be interesting to know which chinese military planes Ecuador and Peru have ordered. I guess we would have to wait for a while though. I don’t understand the reasons for the secrecy though, which makes me think its probably not the trainers, i.e. K-8???
Added later: Since posting this earlier I came across another article implying that Peru is in negotiation to buy tanks from China. Fighters are referred to as Super Tucans from Brazil. This is probably more accurate, as the statement by Peru’s president vis-a-vis China refers to tanks alone.
vikasrehmanTeer, I did not and do not intend to bring the LCA start date into disreputation. So taking a leaf from LCA’s book, can we agree that MCA project has not started yet and we could consider it to have started (officially) once the PD etc. has been completed?
vikasrehmanChinese arms manufacturers appear to be making a lot of inroads into south american defence markets.
First it was Venezuela with purchase of K-8. Then just a few days ago we heard that Ecuador has signed an agreement to purchase some Chinese military aircrafts (type not known although one site put the number at 4). Now its the turn of the Peruvians who appear to have signed an agreement with China to buy fighter jets and tanks (MBT-2000) on favourable credit terms.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Peru_arms_buying_shows_Chinese_inroads_999.html
Peru arms buying shows Chinese inroads
Lima (UPI) Dec 11, 2009
———What surprised analysts the most, however, was a Peruvian deal for the purchase of Chinese tanks and fighter aircraft.
——-Criticized shortly afterward for announcing his arms purchases, Peruvian President Alan Garcia defended his government’s decision, saying the new tanks and aircraft would replace obsolete equipment.
“This does not contradict our commitment to stop an arms race in the region,” Garcia said, pointing out that Peru last purchased Russian T-55 tanks in the 1960s. “They needed upgrading, and it was decided to decommission them,” he said.
He said the purchase of new Chinese tanks would compensate for the absence of the Russian tanks and act as a deterrent “because we want Peru to be defended.”
The delivery of Chinese armor to Peru will ensure a long-term collaboration between the Peruvian and Chinese military establishments, analysts said.
Five Chinese-built MBT-2000s took part in a recent military parade in Lima but neither government has revealed the final numbers bought under the deal. The MBT-2000 is a battle tank jointly developed since the late 1980s by China and Pakistan. China has sold the tank to various armed forces around the world.
Garcia said, “Buying Chinese tanks was the right decision: They have an attractive price for Peru and modern technology. Thanks to President Hu Jintao we’ve managed a significant drop not in the price but in the downpayment and installments,” he added.
vikasrehmanAccording to the Gulf News and at least one Pakistani newspaper, first of the four aerial refuellers from Ukraine would arrive in Pakistan towards the end of the present month. From another news source, the last three Erieyes are expected to arrive during 2010.
vikasrehmanIt should be clear that work has started on identifying the technologies required, the work that will go into the MCA & getting the IAF onboard with their requirements.
After this, the formal FSED proposal for the MCA will be given to the MOD with the program launched thereafter.
So can we or can’t we say that the MCA project has already started officially?
Care to explain this remark? Which retired official are you referring to, and what relevance does it have to the discussion?
The reason why I used these words or asked these questions was very simple. Over the years there has been way too much debate about the start date of LCA project. Some say it was 1983, some say no it was later because ADA was being established during first few years and some say no it was in early 1990s because of so on. Some people have often quoted a book written by a retired indian armed forces official putting the actual start date of the project around early 90s or so. The debate, however, goes on. So, I just wanted to see whether people (on this forum) could agree whether this project has officially started or not, and/or when do they think such a project starts officially.
vikasrehmanLets get some clarifications here.
Has the MCA programme officially started or not? Have ADA/HAL/DRDO et al. done any work in this regard? Has the programme received any sort of funding so far?
It was Austin’s post about MCA being mentioned in ‘Aero India 95’ that brought these questions to my mind. And we surely do no want another retired official writing another book in 2020-25 trying to explain when the ‘real’ MCA project started.
Sign In
