MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[randomradio]

MMRCA 1 was in final stages in 2014,yet failed to launch. Hope we will finalise the processes & sign the deal asap. Most likely Rafale will come as L1 & Raga & Congress will not choose rafale for sure if we didn't sign the deal befor 2024.

MMRCA 1.0 failed because HAL was useless. If you recall, Apache and Chinook went through without much of a hitch, minus some money problems.

Raga will sign the deal. He will use it for his own political purposes, saying how he bought Rafale with full production rights, unlike Modi did in 2016, blah, blah blah.

 

[Hydra]

MMRCA 1.0 failed because HAL was useless. If you recall, Apache and Chinook went through without much of a hitch, minus some money problems.

Raga will sign the deal. He will use it for his own political purposes, saying how he bought Rafale with full production rights, unlike Modi did in 2016, blah, blah blah.

There are multiple factors for mmrca1 failure, government change & HAL issues have role on it, i believe.
And dont expect any -ve or +ve action from Raga until he did something. I do believe that he will most likely cancell mmrca2 if Rafale become L1 bidder, the reason is 1) the drama he played during 2019 election 2) his submissive nature towards chines ( i dont buy the arguments like he is a Chinese agent, he is a genuine politician). Congress will try to buy peace with our enemy at the sake of military modernisation.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The biggest reason was financial.

We need reorganization and removal of all kinds of duplication within the tri services to ensure the viable use of a large defence budget.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Actually Boeing offered the SH. Only after that France offered the Rafale. If you recall, the French wanted the IAF to buy the M2000, instead of Rafale, which is why they offered the full production rights of the M2000 in exchange for the cancellation of MMRCA.

Theneed to buy additional M2K was felt just after Kargil and in 2001 the proposal was moved. But it could not be processed for many reasons and DA shut down the assemblyline in 2005. So in 2006 it became MMRCA and Rafale was offered.

 

[randomradio]

Theneed to buy additional M2K was felt just after Kargil and in 2001 the proposal was moved. But it could not be processed for many reasons and DA shut down the assemblyline in 2005. So in 2006 it became MMRCA and Rafale was offered.

Actually it became MMRCA in 2004, that's when the RFIs were sent out. Right after elections.

 

[Saaho]

Yes, they can keep doing it for next 20 years while flying Mig -21. It's like a homeless person collecting brochures of high end villas, while sleeping on footpath !!

A bird in hand is better than 2 in bush.... errr... pun intended?

MMRCA 1.0 failed because HAL was useless. If you recall, Apache and Chinook went through without much of a hitch, minus some money problems.

Biggest reason was our extremely convoluted procurement policies.

Anyhoo, 20 more years!

Apache

Wasn't that procured in G2G deal?

 

[randomradio]

Wasn't that procured in G2G deal?

Tender.

 

[Hydra]

Theneed to buy additional M2K was felt just after Kargil and in 2001 the proposal was moved. But it could not be processed for many reasons and DA shut down the assemblyline in 2005. So in 2006 it became MMRCA and Rafale was offered.

I think we did a good decision by not going mirage. Now we have a really potent platform.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

I think we did a good decision by not going mirage. Now we have a really potent platform.

We would have had 126 Mirage 2000 by 2018 if we would have had signed the original deal back around 2004-05 replacing all the Mig21s and 23s. That would have only meant that our force levels were better today in capacity and capabilities too.

The 36 Rafales weren't a part of MMRCA, that was an off self purchase and that could have always happened after even then too.

 

[A Person]

Then what you said is the exact opposite of what the IAF should do. A competitive tender will give them the information they need to go to the next level. In advanced air forces, the air forces have requirements and they ask the scientific community on how best to fulfill the requirements. The scientific community then tell the air forces what can be done and cannot be done. But in India, the scientific community is still too young, so the IAF has to rely on foreign scientific communities for the same. But foreign scientific communities will obviously not tell you everything on their own, they need to be coerced or provoked into telling it, hence the need to put them through a competition with a large prize. The bigger the prize, the better the technologies they bring to it.

You're getting what the sellers want to sell. If they think you're only doing those tenders for intelligence gathering, you're not going to get the things you think you can get.
And in any case, they only give you what their systems are capable of, not how they work or why they chose such or such technology instead of such or such other.

The IAF need 24 new squadrons, not merely 3 more Rafale squadrons as you have noted. And 12-15 of those need to be contracted before 2027, apart from the 6 squadrons of LCA Mk1/A.

With 18 aircraft per squadron, those 12-15 squadrons are 216 to 270 aircraft. Can India sign contracts for over 200 state-of-the-art jet fighters within the next six years? I am very skeptical about it.
First, there's a recession going on. Predictions are that it'll take at least three years for the economy to recover. So that pushes us to 2024. There'll be three years, 2024, 2025 and 2026, to sign a deal twice the size of the defunct MMRCAv1.

Best case scenario, 216 Rafales are bought in 2024. Between Dassault and DRAL, an average production rate of three aircraft per month is possible from 2027 on. Deliveries end in 2033.
Worst case scenario, the Qatari option. India waits until 2026, so to get 216 aircraft by 2033, the order has to be split between different manufacturers. Assuming all the production lines still exist, India buys 36 each of Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F-15, F/A-18, F-16 in 2026, deliveries start in 2029 with one aircraft of each type per month on average, your zoo is complete in 2033 too but what a logistical nightmare!

 

[randomradio]

You're getting what the sellers want to sell. If they think you're only doing those tenders for intelligence gathering, you're not going to get the things you think you can get.

The Indian market is way too large for most companies to sit out though.

And in any case, they only give you what their systems are capable of, not how they work or why they chose such or such technology instead of such or such other.

That's fine actually. One would expect the buyer is also capable of figuring out things after it's in service.

With 18 aircraft per squadron, those 12-15 squadrons are 216 to 270 aircraft. Can India sign contracts for over 200 state-of-the-art jet fighters within the next six years? I am very skeptical about it. First, there's a recession going on. Predictions are that it'll take at least three years for the economy to recover. So that pushes us to 2024. There'll be three years, 2024, 2025 and 2026, to sign a deal twice the size of the defunct MMRCAv1.
Best case scenario, 216 Rafales are bought in 2024. Between Dassault and DRAL, an average production rate of three aircraft per month is possible from 2027 on. Deliveries end in 2033.

It's 114 MRFA and 118 LCA Mk2. Not 200+ of one type all at once.

MRFA expects a delivery schedule of 12 aircraft every year. So it's going to take about 10 years to deliver all 114 jets. LCA Mk2 is faster at 16 per year.

If you assume the Rafales will cost $170M and the LCA Mk2 will cost $100M, the overall expenditure is a little over $3500M a year. The IAF's capital budget is currently at $6B. Even if you consider it's going to be $10B at the time, it's only 35%.

 

[Hydra]

We would have had 126 Mirage 2000 by 2018 if we would have had signed the original deal back around 2004-05 replacing all the Mig21s and 23s. That would have only meant that our force levels were better today in capacity and capabilities too.

The 36 Rafales weren't a part of MMRCA, that was an off self purchase and that could have always happened after even then too.

Beyond 2025,It will be IAF's new Jaguar type fleet . A huge fleets of brand new irrelevant aircraft.

 

[vvabhiram]

But the IAF is keen on a competition because all the contenders will then bring their best available technologies to the compeititon along with a 20-year roadmap.

I have a doubt. How this competition takes place ? Will IAF pit one jet against other in dog fighting, BVR ? like Rafale against F-18 and find out which is better or IAF pilots will fly each jet individually and just notice which is best ? Does anybody have idea of how technical evaluation happens?

 

[A Person]

What's relevant to the IAF isn't whether a Rafale can beat an F/A-18 or vice-versa, it's whether a Rafale or an F/A-18 can beat a J-20.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Beyond 2025,It will be IAF's new Jaguar type fleet . A huge fleets of brand new irrelevant aircraft.

That's the most inaccurate comment in last few pages atleast. The oldest Mirage 2000 in our fleet will outlive the newest Darin 3 airframe. The Mirage 2000 airframe is a generation ahead with still more upgrade potential. If F16s can operate beyond 2030, so can M2000.

What's relevant to the IAF isn't whether a Rafale can beat an F/A-18 or vice-versa, it's whether a Rafale or an F/A-18 can beat a J-20.

The difference will not be Rafales against J20, but upgraded Su30MKI and proper numbers of proper AWACS and Tankers.

 

[Hydra]

That's the most inaccurate comment in last few pages atleast. The oldest Mirage 2000 in our fleet will outlive the newest Darin 3 airframe. The Mirage 2000 airframe is a generation ahead with still more upgrade potential. If F16s can operate beyond 2030, so can M2000.

The difference will not be Rafales against J20, but upgraded Su30MKI and proper numbers of proper AWACS and Tankers.

You are going to deal with an adversary which armed with j20 & overwhelmingly numerical superior air force from eastern border & an airforce with possibly armed with j31 in future along with a highly capable pilots. If you are dealing with those two countries with 50 year old design, then you are doomed.
The OEM country is slowly decommissioning the mirages, and inducting mirages as our spear head in future is a suicidal act for sure. The only good thing happened to india due to our lethargic way of doing things is mirages faded away from IAF radar as future fighter.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

You are going to deal with an adversary which armed with j20 & overwhelmingly numerical superior air force from eastern border & an airforce with possibly armed with j31 in future along with a highly capable pilots. If you are dealing with those two countries with 50 year old design, then you are doomed.
The OEM country is slowly decommissioning the mirages, and inducting mirages as our spear head in future is a suicidal act for sure. The only good thing happened to india due to our lethargic way of doing things is mirages faded away from IAF radar as future fighter.

The M2000 is as good today as MK2 will get 10 years from today.

If M2000 deal was employed then, in all probability that would have become our priority project with MLU including AESA radar , newer engines etc coming up now.

All the pain of no LCAs, no MMRCA for 20 years would have been erased.

 

[Hydra]

The M2000 is as good today as MK2 will get 10 years from today.

If M2000 deal was employed then, in all probability that would have become our priority project with MLU including AESA radar , newer engines etc coming up now.

All the pain of no LCAs, no MMRCA for 20 years would have been erased.

No OEM support means no upgradation,we would have get what 2000-5 standard aircraft in huge numbers. For midlife upgradation,we would have spent billions to make it relevant for atleast 50 years( Indian time frame operating a mainstay fighter). We all know how much we have spent on upgradation of mirages recently. It damn costly.

And why IAF is ready to induct MK2 now, if my observations are correct MK2 is not meant to our spear head,its role is to complement our top tier aircraft not as a replacement. IAF would have ditch MK2 if it had mirages in huge quantities & if MK2 is only on par with mirage.

But again,asper many experts MK2 is on par with Gripen NG ,if you are telling mirage is as good as MK2 then our existing mirages too on par with Gripen NG,I don't think that Mirages comes even close to Gripen NG.

And why we didn't install AESA radar on Mirages during upgradation,and why we didn't install new engine?

 

[Ankit Kumar]

No OEM support means no upgradation,we would have get what 2000-5 standard aircraft in huge numbers. For midlife upgradation,we would have spent billions to make it relevant for atleast 50 years( Indian time frame operating a mainstay fighter). We all know how much we have spent on upgradation of mirages recently. It damn costly.

And why IAF is ready to induct MK2 now, if my observations are correct MK2 is not meant to our spear head,its role is to complement our top tier aircraft not as a replacement. IAF would have ditch MK2 if it had mirages in huge quantities & if MK2 is only on par with mirage.

But again,asper many experts MK2 is on par with Gripen NG ,if you are telling mirage is as good as MK2 then our existing mirages too on par with Gripen NG,I don't think that Mirages comes even close to Gripen NG.

And why we didn't install AESA radar on Mirages during upgradation,and why we didn't install new engine?

No OEM support? DA will continue to support the fleet as long as it hasn't exhausted the OEM flight hours. If Tomorrow we buy Qatari Mirage 2000 and do MLU for them , DA will support with the spares for next 4000 hours on each airframes, easily beyond 2035.

Second thing , you are giving irrelevant points with respect to cost on MLU of off the shelf bought products while I simply stated that your notion that M2000 wasn't bought in the 1st half of 2010s was good.

If the deal had been made then, then all the concerns including the costs would have been solved.

And existing M2000 I is better than any Gripen actually in service today. MK2 ? Well the MK1 hasn't even have a working canon as of today.

A deal for M2000 in early 2010s would have allowed us to accelerate even the LCA projects with adoption of common proven Technologies on the lines of what LM and SAAB are advocating today if their product is selected.

 

[Hydra]

No OEM support? DA will continue to support the fleet as long as it hasn't exhausted the OEM flight hours. If Tomorrow we buy Qatari Mirage 2000 and do MLU for them , DA will support with the spares for next 4000 hours on each airframes, easily beyond 2035.

Second thing , you are giving irrelevant points with respect to cost on MLU of off the shelf bought products while I simply stated that your notion that M2000 wasn't bought in the 1st half of 2010s was good.

If the deal had been made then, then all the concerns including the costs would have been solved.

And existing M2000 I is better than any Gripen actually in service today. MK2 ? Well the MK1 hasn't even have a working canon as of today.

A deal for M2000 in early 2010s would have allowed us to accelerate even the LCA projects with adoption of common proven Technologies on the lines of what LM and SAAB are advocating today if their product is selected.

OEM will support its product, but with out an active line in parent country it's way too costly for upgrade. The one of the apprehension of IAF against f16 during mmrca was parent company stop using it and we were sceptical about its futur upgrade.

How it's irrelevant,if we are purchased mirages then it must go for MLU over the course of time,just to keep up against our enemies and upgradation of mirages comes with exorbitant price tage.

It's you who brought MK2 here first and said that MK2 is equivalent to mirage.

Last pont I do agree.