IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
You have any reason to believe there won't be? Despite DRDO, MOD and IAF going on record to say there will be.
Please go through the RFI.
Please read it and slowly try and remember where you all have read all this for years.. The technology.. the parameters.. mission loads, radar...what not... look for EMP hardening.. (roundabout way of secondary strategic role)
You will find all answers there.. albeit slowly you will also realise that instead of going directly to end result, we are making a mockery to waste time by holding farce contest when almost all parameters are based on the craft which IAF wants.
USA does nt have GaN radar.. Russia does not.. Gripen E GaN is not there.. onl workable stuff you will hear is from one Radar family which is preparing it for launch in 2021+ timeline for full-fledged tests and deployment ..
Add the secondary strategic role.. You will know India is not interested in the present version. The version next is all it wants ....
Please read it and slowly try and remember where you all have read all this for years.. The technology.. the parameters.. mission loads, radar...what not... look for EMP hardening.. (roundabout way of secondary strategic role)
You will find all answers there.. albeit slowly you will also realise that instead of going directly to end result, we are making a mockery to waste time by holding farce contest when almost all parameters are based on the craft which IAF wants.
USA does nt have GaN radar.. Russia does not.. Gripen E GaN is not there.. onl workable stuff you will hear is from one Radar family which is preparing it for launch in 2021+ timeline for full-fledged tests and deployment ..
Add the secondary strategic role.. You will know India is not interested in the present version. The version next is all it wants ....
X post
MMRCA II Update and discussion
Final nail in the coffin
screamed and said for very long
"Nous ne sommes pas en train de fabriquer des robots tueurs" (Florence Parly)
MMRCA II Update and discussion
Final nail in the coffin
screamed and said for very long
"Nous ne sommes pas en train de fabriquer des robots tueurs" (Florence Parly)
This RFI is for Rafale MII in DRAL. Let anyone do as much kite flying as possible. This RFI is the second part of the original MMRCA deal which got broken in two parts. The TOT not associated with GTG deal will now become a part of this RFI. If you read the RFI carefully, the Upgrade and India specific changes made to Rafale now make it a front runner for this RFI bcoz all other competitors will now have to pay a very large amount to make India specific changes and they are not going to pay for it from their own pocket. They will bill it to IAF. BUT Rafale already has it paid for by India and so they will be able to offer the aircraft at a much lower price with much higher level of TOT. DA has already found and created a vendor base in India and that will come in handy to clinch this deal.
I pity those who will make a bid for it. They have no chance whatsoever.
I pity those who will make a bid for it. They have no chance whatsoever.
The IAF has committed itself to buy 201 units of Mk2 and has since realised it cannot fill squadron strength with foreign fighters alone. It needs a simple fighter to do normal day to day missions saving money and work as an interceptor during war times.
Now the option is to go for an F414 engine with 10% in thrust(98-100Kn) engine with all design already frozen long back or to go to a new powerful engine F414-IN which GE has said it can increase the thrust upto 110 KN with increase in flight time and carrying capacity. This is where the Kaveri plans to come in. Safron believes it can deliver an modified Kaveri working upto 110 KN.
Some IAF officials want an Mk2 to also take care of futuristic demands by going to an 125KN engine. That means working on a new engine and the French may or may not collaborate with GTRE or ADA may go out with an new foreign engine altogether. The French also dont have an engine in that category. Right now ADA and IAF are sitting together framing the ASQR for an Mk2 aircraft. So a clear picture will emerge later this year or early next year.
Do you still think SE tender was real?
Of course it was real. It simply collapsed into a new Tejas Mk2 which will be redesigned to be similar to Gripen E.
The IAF originally wanted 200+ Gripen, and now the IAF canceled the tender and added 200+ Tejas to the original 123 order instead.
X post
MMRCA II Update and discussion
Final nail in the coffin
screamed and said for very long
"Nous ne sommes pas en train de fabriquer des robots tueurs" (Florence Parly)
Kaveri Mk2 in the Rafale F4 + Tejas Mk2 ?
Partly right,
As per some members the Indian Mirage 2000 C variant, C are suposed to be air superiority variant, but India had purchased these for Nuclear strike (as per many indian sources) Thus we purchased a pure fighter without strike capability to perform nuclear strike role? WOW
Secondly, the Mirage 2000 that IAF had did not have capable A2A missiles to take down PAF F-16.
Pakistan had Sidewinders and Sparrows (then) and IAF Mirages were armed with Magic 2, and Sparrows have much longer range than Magic 2.
So in an event the Indian Mirage 2000C was sent against PAF F-16 Block 52, there are very very high chances that F-16 will be victorious maybe 95/100 times.. So in an example which you might perhaps understand it was a dumper truck (Mirage 2000) that would take on APC, The only way perhaps a truck might try to win is to try to get too close to the APC So, it does mean that Indian Mirage 2000 could not take on PAF F-16 unless the indian pilot was jingoistic.
So your question if on General M2K vs F-16, surely it could have taken on with different result it time
If your question was indian Mirage 2000C vs PAF F-16 then you have the answer above...
The RFI as usual is based on IAF top officers going through couple of Brochures and coming with the RFI based on that
That would be good but that will also change various parameters like CG .. and everything has to be again changed. Also another thing is to see if can develop and attach Conformal fuel tanks without deteriorating the performance.
If you believe the test pilots of Tejas who were also ex M2K pilots have reported many times that Tejas outperforms Mirage 2000. So why are you being apologetic like congress party and saying ".. roughly on par .."
As per some members the Indian Mirage 2000 C variant, C are suposed to be air superiority variant, but India had purchased these for Nuclear strike (as per many indian sources) Thus we purchased a pure fighter without strike capability to perform nuclear strike role? WOW
Secondly, the Mirage 2000 that IAF had did not have capable A2A missiles to take down PAF F-16.
Pakistan had Sidewinders and Sparrows (then) and IAF Mirages were armed with Magic 2, and Sparrows have much longer range than Magic 2.
So in an event the Indian Mirage 2000C was sent against PAF F-16 Block 52, there are very very high chances that F-16 will be victorious maybe 95/100 times.. So in an example which you might perhaps understand it was a dumper truck (Mirage 2000) that would take on APC, The only way perhaps a truck might try to win is to try to get too close to the APC So, it does mean that Indian Mirage 2000 could not take on PAF F-16 unless the indian pilot was jingoistic.
So your question if on General M2K vs F-16, surely it could have taken on with different result it time
If your question was indian Mirage 2000C vs PAF F-16 then you have the answer above...
The RFI as usual is based on IAF top officers going through couple of Brochures and coming with the RFI based on that
That would be good but that will also change various parameters like CG .. and everything has to be again changed. Also another thing is to see if can develop and attach Conformal fuel tanks without deteriorating the performance.
If you believe the test pilots of Tejas who were also ex M2K pilots have reported many times that Tejas outperforms Mirage 2000. So why are you being apologetic like congress party and saying ".. roughly on par .."
Interesting, so this entire 18 year long drama was to induct Rafale in a 'politically-correct' manner?
Yes. But with much more on the Indian plate than what we could have got thru MMRCA deal.
I don't know if the first M2000 were selled with medium range S530F or D (I think so).
But upgraded model carry 6 MICA. enough to shoot a F16 with AMRAAM.
OK, OK.
Some months ago it was said that this model will never born.
Like the tests pilots of F35 praising the marvellous dog fight capacity of the steathy bid goose, when we know a simple F16 is better.
There is apparently a new Mk2. It will be 1m long, have extra fuel and MTOW will be 16T. So it will be in the Gripen E class.
Decoding The IAF’s Latest RFI On MRCA Requirement
RFI: The proposal is to procure approximately 110 MRCAs (about 75% single seat and rest twin-seat aircraft). The procurement should have a maximum of 15% aircraft in flyaway state and the remaining 85% aircraft will have to be made in India by a Strategic Partner/Indian Production Agency (SP/IPA). The aircraft are intended as day and night-capable, all weather MRCA which can be used for the following roles:- (a) Air Superiority (b) Air Defence (c) Air-to-Surface Operations (d) Reconnaissance (e) Maritime Strike (f) EW missions, Buddy-Buddy Refuelling etc. The selected MRCA would be required to be integrated with weapons/sensors/systems of Indian origin/any other origin, at any time of its service life. The vendor is to provide the user the capability to unilaterally upgrade/integrate such systems, weapons or sensors. The vendor would be required to integrate certain Buyer Furnished Equipment/Buyer Nominated Equipment (BFE/BNE) and it is essential that test pilots and engineers of the IAF or their assignees be involved in flight-testing of such equipment during integration and certification phases. The transferred technology should be state-of-art to ensure rapid build-up of indigenous design & development, production and maintenance capabilities for the aircraft, its sub-systems and support equipment. Transfer of Technology (ToT) should encompass transfer of know-how/know-why and should be comprehensive, covering design, manufacturing know-how and detailed technical information, which will enable the Indian Production Agency(ies) to manufacture, assemble, integrate, test, install and commission, use, repair, overhaul, support, obsolescence management, life extension and maintain the aircraft, including the capability for future integration of systems and weapons.
RFI: The transferred know-how/know-why should contain possibilities for design/development/sourcing/integration/production/maintenance (O, I & D levels)/upgrade, as applicable. Further, the transferred capabilities/technologies should be capable of being utilised/implemented across platforms, more significantly, in the ongoing and futuristic programmes. The arrangement ToT shall be such that the Indian Production Agency(ies) are able to procure components/sub-assemblies/raw material/test equipment directly from OEM’s subcontractors/vendors. Is the OEM willing to transfer design data (for stress, fatigue, performance, qualification, environmental test, life (calendar/total/overhaul), where applicable), development, manufacturing and repair expertise within India?
Analysis: No OEM will ever share the design data of its MRCA, period. The only time when the IAF had obtained such data was when India procured the Folland Gnat in the late 1950s and the UK had then agreed to transfer the Gnat’s entire design data because that aircraft was rejected for service-induction by the Royal Air Force.
RFI: It should be possible to indigenously integrate new weapons and avionics of Indian, Western and Russian origins.
Analysis: This again is another impossibility now, since in the aftermath of Russia’s April 2014 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, Western sanctions were levied against Russia and since then it has become impossible for Western aerospace OEMs to share design/engineering data with their Russian counterparts, which in turn rules out integration of Western weapons on Russia-origin platforms and integration of Russia-origin weapons on West-origin platforms.
RFI: The Government of India invites responses to this request only from Original Equipment Manufacturers/ Government-sponsored export agencies (applicable only in the case of countries where domestic laws do not permit direct export by OEMs).
Analysis: This is specifically meant for accommodating Russia’s Rosobopronexport State Corp, since Russian Aircraft Corp cannot bid independently as an OEM for any procurement contract outside Russia.
RFI: Is the aircraft and its systems tropicalised?
Analysis: Except for the MiG-35, all other prospective contenders are tropicalised.
RFI: Can the aircraft fly in excess of 10 hours with air-to-air refuelling (AAR)? How many AAR engagements would be required to accomplish this duration of flight?
Analysis: This is an absolute physiological/biological absurdity, since the aircrew of both both single-seat and tandem-seat MRCAs can at best function optimally only up to six flight-hours.
RFI: Does the engine/s have life monitoring mechanism such as Health Usage and Monitoring System (HUMS)?
Analysis: All turbofans barring the Russia-origin ones have this capability as standard fit nowadays.
RFI: Are the refuelling couplings/adapters of NATO Standard?
Analysis: This means the IAF wants the MRCA to be compatible with Cobham of UK’s Type 754 aerial refuelling pod, which is already in service with the IAF’s Su-30MKIs. What it also means is that the MiG-35 will not be compatible with this pod, thanks to the Western sanctions imposed against Russia, due to which the Russian and British OEMs will not be able to jointly undertake systems integration flight-trials.
RFI: Is the aircraft integrated with a NATO-standard buddy refuelling pod? What is the minimum refuelling rate from this pod?
Analysis: Barring the MiG-35 and members of the Su-30 family of MRCAs, all others can easily make use of the Type 754 AAR pod. What this also means is that by specifying its preference for a NATO-standard refuelling pod, the IAF is rejecting the Russian UPAAZ-1 pod, which is used by the Indian Navy’s MiG-29Ks.
RFI: Would it be possible for the production agency/user to upgrade/integrate the MFD, HUD and HMSD display symbologies without the help of OEM?
Analysis: It will be impossible since such software algorithms are proprietary and their IPRs are never shared with anyone else. And more importantly, such a capability is simply not an operational necessity.
RFI: Does the aircraft provide adequate clearance between the pilot's Helmet-Mounted Sight and Display (HMSD/Night Vision Goggle (NVG) and the canopy, during movement of pilot's head to either extreme?
Analysis: With the advent of holographic HUDs into which night vision imagery from target acquisition/designation pods can be superimposed, the usage of NVGs by MRCA aircrews has been done away with.
RFI: What is the type and capacity of integral onboard oxygen system? Does the system have Onboard Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS)?
Analysis: Barring Ruissia-origin MRCAs, all other contemporary MRCAs have OBOGS.
RFI: Is there a facility to allow the crew-members to relieve themselves and take provisions in-flight? Is there a specific stowage area for carrying provisions on-board?
Analysis: Again, a needless absurdity. While on-board provisions can be carried, where’s the need for built-in toilets?
RFI: Does it have a provision to carry a Personal Rescue Beacon (PRB)/Personal Locator Beacon (PLB)? Would it be possible for vendor to integrate PRB/PLB specified by the IAF? Does the PRB offered by vendor have search-and-rescue (SAR) and combat SAR (CSAR) mode?
Analysis: This capability is available on all Westsern MRCAs. However, the IAF’s UK-origin PRB/PLB systems can no longer be integrated with the MiG-35 or Su-35.
RFI: Does it have Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) capability? Can IAF-specified NCTR data be integrated?
Analysis: The NCTR mode is available only on those MRCAs that are in service with the NATO member-states. But if the Govt of India is unable/unwilling to sign on to the CISMOA agreement, the NCTR mode will be unavailable to the IAF.
RFI: Does the aircraft have a computer-based health monitoring and maintenance management system for comprehensive management of maintenance activities for the aircraft?
Analysis: All MRCAs have them, but the Russia-origin MRCAs have yet to demonstrate the reliability of such on-board systems.
RFI: Does the MRCA have provision to support integration of user-specified air-to-air missile?
Analysis: Only is the user-specified BVRAAM is the Astra, since both Western and Russian OEMs are now barred from seamlessly integrating their AAMs with one anothers’ MRCA platforms.
RFI: What is the flight envelope with the deployed towed decoy? Does it restrict the aircraft manoeuvrability or the operational envelope?
Analysis: Aircraft manoeuvrability will definitely be affected as dictated by the laws of physics, but not the operationbal flight envelope.
Conclusions: The insistence on licenced-manufacturing will make the entire procurement effort cost-prohibitive. The concept of Make-in-India cannot at any cost supercede budgetary realities. The IAF’s preference for NATO-standard hardware performance specifications will definitely make any Russian offer the underdog. And since it will be financially impossible to licence-build the EF-2000 and Rafale, that then leaves only the F-16 Block-70, F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet and JAS-39 Gripen NG in the fray. From these three, only the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet offers a decent buddy-buddy aerial refuelling capability. But will the US State Department allow non-US avionics and weapons to be integrated with the Advanced Super Hornet when it has never done so?
TRISHUL: Decoding The IAF’s Latest RFI On MRCA Requirement
RFI: The proposal is to procure approximately 110 MRCAs (about 75% single seat and rest twin-seat aircraft). The procurement should have a maximum of 15% aircraft in flyaway state and the remaining 85% aircraft will have to be made in India by a Strategic Partner/Indian Production Agency (SP/IPA). The aircraft are intended as day and night-capable, all weather MRCA which can be used for the following roles:- (a) Air Superiority (b) Air Defence (c) Air-to-Surface Operations (d) Reconnaissance (e) Maritime Strike (f) EW missions, Buddy-Buddy Refuelling etc. The selected MRCA would be required to be integrated with weapons/sensors/systems of Indian origin/any other origin, at any time of its service life. The vendor is to provide the user the capability to unilaterally upgrade/integrate such systems, weapons or sensors. The vendor would be required to integrate certain Buyer Furnished Equipment/Buyer Nominated Equipment (BFE/BNE) and it is essential that test pilots and engineers of the IAF or their assignees be involved in flight-testing of such equipment during integration and certification phases. The transferred technology should be state-of-art to ensure rapid build-up of indigenous design & development, production and maintenance capabilities for the aircraft, its sub-systems and support equipment. Transfer of Technology (ToT) should encompass transfer of know-how/know-why and should be comprehensive, covering design, manufacturing know-how and detailed technical information, which will enable the Indian Production Agency(ies) to manufacture, assemble, integrate, test, install and commission, use, repair, overhaul, support, obsolescence management, life extension and maintain the aircraft, including the capability for future integration of systems and weapons.
Analysis: Firstly, licence-producing MRCAs like the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block-70 or Boeing F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet or the Saab JAS-39 Gripen NG or MiG-35 right down to the component-level will hike the cost of procuring such MRCAs by 2.5 times, just as was the case with the Su-30MKI. Secondly, MRCAs like the Eurofighter EF-2000 and Rafale will be IMPOSSIBLE to licence-build in In dia simply because of the cost of setting up a local production line, which will work out to be up to 5 times more expensive than procuring such MRCAs off-the-shelf. As for buddy-buddy refuelling, only the MiG-35 and F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet are qualified for such a role.RFI: The transferred know-how/know-why should contain possibilities for design/development/sourcing/integration/production/maintenance (O, I & D levels)/upgrade, as applicable. Further, the transferred capabilities/technologies should be capable of being utilised/implemented across platforms, more significantly, in the ongoing and futuristic programmes. The arrangement ToT shall be such that the Indian Production Agency(ies) are able to procure components/sub-assemblies/raw material/test equipment directly from OEM’s subcontractors/vendors. Is the OEM willing to transfer design data (for stress, fatigue, performance, qualification, environmental test, life (calendar/total/overhaul), where applicable), development, manufacturing and repair expertise within India?
Analysis: No OEM will ever share the design data of its MRCA, period. The only time when the IAF had obtained such data was when India procured the Folland Gnat in the late 1950s and the UK had then agreed to transfer the Gnat’s entire design data because that aircraft was rejected for service-induction by the Royal Air Force.
RFI: It should be possible to indigenously integrate new weapons and avionics of Indian, Western and Russian origins.
Analysis: This again is another impossibility now, since in the aftermath of Russia’s April 2014 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, Western sanctions were levied against Russia and since then it has become impossible for Western aerospace OEMs to share design/engineering data with their Russian counterparts, which in turn rules out integration of Western weapons on Russia-origin platforms and integration of Russia-origin weapons on West-origin platforms.
RFI: The Government of India invites responses to this request only from Original Equipment Manufacturers/ Government-sponsored export agencies (applicable only in the case of countries where domestic laws do not permit direct export by OEMs).
Analysis: This is specifically meant for accommodating Russia’s Rosobopronexport State Corp, since Russian Aircraft Corp cannot bid independently as an OEM for any procurement contract outside Russia.
RFI: Is the aircraft and its systems tropicalised?
Analysis: Except for the MiG-35, all other prospective contenders are tropicalised.
RFI: Can the aircraft fly in excess of 10 hours with air-to-air refuelling (AAR)? How many AAR engagements would be required to accomplish this duration of flight?
Analysis: This is an absolute physiological/biological absurdity, since the aircrew of both both single-seat and tandem-seat MRCAs can at best function optimally only up to six flight-hours.
RFI: Does the engine/s have life monitoring mechanism such as Health Usage and Monitoring System (HUMS)?
Analysis: All turbofans barring the Russia-origin ones have this capability as standard fit nowadays.
RFI: Are the refuelling couplings/adapters of NATO Standard?
Analysis: This means the IAF wants the MRCA to be compatible with Cobham of UK’s Type 754 aerial refuelling pod, which is already in service with the IAF’s Su-30MKIs. What it also means is that the MiG-35 will not be compatible with this pod, thanks to the Western sanctions imposed against Russia, due to which the Russian and British OEMs will not be able to jointly undertake systems integration flight-trials.
RFI: Is the aircraft integrated with a NATO-standard buddy refuelling pod? What is the minimum refuelling rate from this pod?
Analysis: Barring the MiG-35 and members of the Su-30 family of MRCAs, all others can easily make use of the Type 754 AAR pod. What this also means is that by specifying its preference for a NATO-standard refuelling pod, the IAF is rejecting the Russian UPAAZ-1 pod, which is used by the Indian Navy’s MiG-29Ks.
RFI: Would it be possible for the production agency/user to upgrade/integrate the MFD, HUD and HMSD display symbologies without the help of OEM?
Analysis: It will be impossible since such software algorithms are proprietary and their IPRs are never shared with anyone else. And more importantly, such a capability is simply not an operational necessity.
RFI: Does the aircraft provide adequate clearance between the pilot's Helmet-Mounted Sight and Display (HMSD/Night Vision Goggle (NVG) and the canopy, during movement of pilot's head to either extreme?
Analysis: With the advent of holographic HUDs into which night vision imagery from target acquisition/designation pods can be superimposed, the usage of NVGs by MRCA aircrews has been done away with.
RFI: What is the type and capacity of integral onboard oxygen system? Does the system have Onboard Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS)?
Analysis: Barring Ruissia-origin MRCAs, all other contemporary MRCAs have OBOGS.
RFI: Is there a facility to allow the crew-members to relieve themselves and take provisions in-flight? Is there a specific stowage area for carrying provisions on-board?
Analysis: Again, a needless absurdity. While on-board provisions can be carried, where’s the need for built-in toilets?
RFI: Does it have a provision to carry a Personal Rescue Beacon (PRB)/Personal Locator Beacon (PLB)? Would it be possible for vendor to integrate PRB/PLB specified by the IAF? Does the PRB offered by vendor have search-and-rescue (SAR) and combat SAR (CSAR) mode?
Analysis: This capability is available on all Westsern MRCAs. However, the IAF’s UK-origin PRB/PLB systems can no longer be integrated with the MiG-35 or Su-35.
RFI: Does it have Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) capability? Can IAF-specified NCTR data be integrated?
Analysis: The NCTR mode is available only on those MRCAs that are in service with the NATO member-states. But if the Govt of India is unable/unwilling to sign on to the CISMOA agreement, the NCTR mode will be unavailable to the IAF.
RFI: Does the aircraft have a computer-based health monitoring and maintenance management system for comprehensive management of maintenance activities for the aircraft?
Analysis: All MRCAs have them, but the Russia-origin MRCAs have yet to demonstrate the reliability of such on-board systems.
RFI: Does the MRCA have provision to support integration of user-specified air-to-air missile?
Analysis: Only is the user-specified BVRAAM is the Astra, since both Western and Russian OEMs are now barred from seamlessly integrating their AAMs with one anothers’ MRCA platforms.
RFI: What is the flight envelope with the deployed towed decoy? Does it restrict the aircraft manoeuvrability or the operational envelope?
Analysis: Aircraft manoeuvrability will definitely be affected as dictated by the laws of physics, but not the operationbal flight envelope.
Conclusions: The insistence on licenced-manufacturing will make the entire procurement effort cost-prohibitive. The concept of Make-in-India cannot at any cost supercede budgetary realities. The IAF’s preference for NATO-standard hardware performance specifications will definitely make any Russian offer the underdog. And since it will be financially impossible to licence-build the EF-2000 and Rafale, that then leaves only the F-16 Block-70, F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet and JAS-39 Gripen NG in the fray. From these three, only the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet offers a decent buddy-buddy aerial refuelling capability. But will the US State Department allow non-US avionics and weapons to be integrated with the Advanced Super Hornet when it has never done so?
TRISHUL: Decoding The IAF’s Latest RFI On MRCA Requirement
can anyone give me the dimensions of this French origin Buddy AAR pod? seems this is what need for my design. I have a centerline station behind the main bay for attaching sensor pod and buddy AAR pod. But i am constrained by the length of the pod and its weight. the Cobham designs are of no use but this french pod looks just perfect. A longer pod will drastically reduce the tail clearance for my design.
Germany seeks to purchase MQ-4C Triton UAS in FMS valued at $2.5 billion
WASHINGTON. State Department officials approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Germany of MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for an estimated cost of $2.50 billion.
The prime contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corp. in Rancho Bernardo, California. They will be responsible for integration, installation and functional platform compatibility testing of the payload. Airbus Defence and Space, located in Germany, will be the prime contractor to Germany for the development and manufacturing, and will be responsible for the functional test, end-to-end test and installed performance. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
The Government of Germany has requested to buy four MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), one Mission Control Station (MCS) comprised of one Main Operating Base (MOB) (MD-3A) and one Forward Operating Base (FOB) (MD-3B), 10 Kearfott Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS), units (two per aircraft plus two spares), and 10 LN-251 INS/GPS units (two per aircraft plus two spares). This proposed MQ-4C UAS sale will be a modified version of the USN Triton configuration.
Also included is one Rolls Royce Engine (spare), communication equipment, support equipment, mission planning element to include Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) Global Positioning System (GPS) items, Communications Security (COMSEC) equipment, mapping, training, support equipment, consumables, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, flight test support, airworthiness support, personnel training and training devices, applicable software, hardware, publications and technical data, facilities and maintenance support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics supports services, and other elements of unique engineering efforts required to support the integration, installation and functional platform compatibility testing of Germany’s indigenous payload and other related elements of logistics and program support, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
Germany is one of the major political and economic powers in Europe and NATO and a key partner of the United States in ensuring global peace and stability, officials say. The proposed sale of the MQ-4C Triton will support legitimate national security requirements and significantly enhance Germany's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and the overall collective security of the European Union and NATO.
The proposed MQ-4C UAS sale will be a modified version of the United States Navy (USN) Triton configuration. Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Germany to perform contractor logistics support and to support establishment of required security infrastructure.
WASHINGTON. State Department officials approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Germany of MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for an estimated cost of $2.50 billion.
The prime contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corp. in Rancho Bernardo, California. They will be responsible for integration, installation and functional platform compatibility testing of the payload. Airbus Defence and Space, located in Germany, will be the prime contractor to Germany for the development and manufacturing, and will be responsible for the functional test, end-to-end test and installed performance. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
The Government of Germany has requested to buy four MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), one Mission Control Station (MCS) comprised of one Main Operating Base (MOB) (MD-3A) and one Forward Operating Base (FOB) (MD-3B), 10 Kearfott Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS), units (two per aircraft plus two spares), and 10 LN-251 INS/GPS units (two per aircraft plus two spares). This proposed MQ-4C UAS sale will be a modified version of the USN Triton configuration.
Also included is one Rolls Royce Engine (spare), communication equipment, support equipment, mission planning element to include Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) Global Positioning System (GPS) items, Communications Security (COMSEC) equipment, mapping, training, support equipment, consumables, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, flight test support, airworthiness support, personnel training and training devices, applicable software, hardware, publications and technical data, facilities and maintenance support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics supports services, and other elements of unique engineering efforts required to support the integration, installation and functional platform compatibility testing of Germany’s indigenous payload and other related elements of logistics and program support, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
Germany is one of the major political and economic powers in Europe and NATO and a key partner of the United States in ensuring global peace and stability, officials say. The proposed sale of the MQ-4C Triton will support legitimate national security requirements and significantly enhance Germany's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and the overall collective security of the European Union and NATO.
The proposed MQ-4C UAS sale will be a modified version of the United States Navy (USN) Triton configuration. Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of contractor representatives to Germany to perform contractor logistics support and to support establishment of required security infrastructure.
- Status