If the matter were just a formality, as you make it out to be, why did we have to choose Safran? Any other turbojet/turbofan OEM could've obliged. I think you're oversimplifying matters here.
SAFRAN was the most willing. We have a history of dealing with them.
Is it confirmed we are tying up with Safran for the further iterations. I'd like to see references. Out there on BR / Other Forum, there are strong hints that Safran is reintroducing something that the IAF declined a decade back - namely uprating the M88 (?) Core for the newer iterations of Kaveri viz K 10 & beyond. What's your view on this piece of info? Besides, isn't Safran's future involvement with GTRE contingent to further orders of Rafale?We also have a tie up with Rolls Royce. To what end, one doesn't know. From your earlier posts it was clear, that the future partner of GTRE would be the winner of the MMRCA tender. You seem to have a different view now. Where the did the figures come from?
Earlier, we had to pump in our own money. This time SAFRAN will be pumping in their own money through offsets.
I'd like references for the sum of INR 6500 cr.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...of-frances-e4-billion-india-offsets-plan.html
We haven't. What's the progress on the AURA. I'm tempted to add an L before it. When's the TD scheduled to fly? Leave aside the AMCA
The airframe and FCS will be validated this year through SWiFT TD.
I agree with your summation of what the FGFA would pan like. What's the PCA?
The American F-X program. The F-22 successor.
However in both these cases, I wasn't referring to parallel developmental programs. I was merely referring to collaboration on 5th / 6 th gen technologies given out lack of proven expertise in the area and Britain's lack of finances which in our case is the AMCA & Britain's case - Tempest. There are synergies to be explored .Besides if we are targeting the late 30's for induction of the AMCA, it'd be time for 5.5G / early 6 th G technology.
To put things in perspective, the AMCA is being designed to be a generation ahead compared to the F-35.
Besides let's face it. We face an existential threat. Britain doesn't.
That gives the British leverage over us, not the other way round. They can easily back out and we will become helpless.
True. But this hinges on whether Modi returns this May. If not, I'm afraid Rafale is history. At least for the time being and IAF's MMRCA will see further delays in the short term. What happens beyond test is anyone's guess! Regardless of what DA has planned for further upgradions of the Rafale.
Nah, Rafale is not dead. Even the 2nd tranche. Since NDA has already paid for infrastructure for 80+ jets, and customisation has already been done, any new deal for 36 more jets will be cheaper than the first deal. Which means, RaGa can sing from the rooftops that he managed to save the exchequer about $3B compared to the first deal if he signs up for the next tranche.
As for the MMRCA deal, the Rafale will win. All other jets do not even come close to the upcoming variant. In fact I doubt the other aircraft will even get shortlisted. The RFP can be drawn up in any which manner after all.
I don't want to subsidise anyone. I'm not as sanguine as you are in our R& D and manufacturing base. We've come a long way but we've a long way to go. Let's not get into a situation wherein the AMCA comes in the late 40's, early 50's where the world over they'd be introducing the first iterations of 7th Gen FA technology. We're alreasy a generation behind. Let's not widen the Gulf.
You have misunderstood the situation. We have reached a point in our R&D where we have basically caught up with the Europeans. Within the next 10 years, we will comfortably overshoot the Europeans in R&D capability in the aerospace sector because we are going to be introducing a much large number of programs compared to them. This includes 2 hypersonic aircraft, one military, one civilian, a number of UAV/UCAV programs and naturally fighter jet programs.
LCA took time, but that doesn't mean MCA and AMCA are in the same boat. The situation is completely different. While the British and French are still performing final configuration of their jets, we will already be in the flight testing phase for AMCA. We will in fact have an AMCA Mk2 competing with the Tempest and FCAS. Our main goal is to become a first mover like the US, which is not possible if we collaborate with the British and French in large scale projects.
Right now, the only plan for AMCA is to collaborate with the vendor that wins MMRCA. And this is not a particularly extensive cooperation.
Let's recognize our limitations after a through self appraisal. There's no harm nor shame nor fear in seeking JV's. Turkey is doing that, so is SK & Japan. We need to plan & play our cards intelligently.
Japan wants to go it alone. They even have their own engine program. All other small countries like Korea and Turkey cannot be compared to India's reach and extent in R&D.
I think you're being unduly alarmist / pessimistic for a change about JV's. The fact that we walked out of the FGFA deal because the Russians played hardball is there for everyone to see. Both prospective partners and the MoD / IAF would've derived the required lessons.
You misunderstand. Nobody is going to give us high end technology. When we speak of JVs, it's not what you think it is. There is no real ToT taking place, both sides are responsible for developing their own technologies and then they put it all together.
Take Brahmos for example. We were supposed to have received ToT for the ramjet engine, but the Russians have declined to deliver citing workshare reasons. All we have is ToT for the airframe from their side. Everything else like guidance and communication was developed by us. The seeker was also imported and we have now replaced it with our own. Which means, the Brahmos is thoroughly useless if we want to develop a similar missile on our own since we do not have the propulsion system or the flight controls, which wouldn't have helped us anyway.
So if you want collaboration with the UK on Tempest, it's going to be their way or the highway. They will develop the airframe, avionics, engine etc. We will just introduce our own software, networking and comm systems, like we are already doing on the MKI. We may be given IPR, but we still won't be holding the technology for it. All we will get is the right to decide who we can sell to. All it does is guarantee the British a customer they can milk for the next 30 years. The FGFA was the same.
FGFA, FCAS, Tempest, none of it actually includes actual know-how and know-why, it's just glorified license production with IPR. And this still keeps us import dependent.
The only leeway that can be allowed is engine tech. We will take years if we do it on our own, so collaboration here is very important. The deal with SAFRAN will give us working engine technology. We will get the know-how and know-why also, which will allow us to develop more modern iterations based on it. And this will happen in parallel with our own domestic programs, K9 and Ghatak.
Everything else is a dead-end. If we screw up with the AMCA, it's much easier to simply buy the Tempest or FCAS when ready.
We will be introducing 5th gen technologies with the MKI upgrade and MCA programs in just the next few years. Take the IRST for example, we are developing a dual band QWIP based IRST for the MKI and it will be fused with the radar. An equivalent European system doesn't yet exist. The Swedes will be introducing a single band IRST, and without full integration with the radar on the Gripen E. The MAWS designed for the MKI is dual band and will have 6 sensors, which will give the pilot a 360 degree view of the surroundings, similar to the F-35. DARE has developed an integrated digital EW suite for the MKI along with an integrated ECM pod based on AESA. So everything that you see in American and European aircraft today, we are introducing them on the MKI already. Hell, I won't be surprised if the IAF decides to get the Uttam radar for the Phase 1 or Phase 2 upgrades of the MKI.
We don't need no half-baked collaboration for next gen tech.
