MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Excellent post. This is exactly what I'm trying to allude to our esteemed French members. But I don't think they're quite getting what I want to convey! Thanks for being so explicit

You don't seem to understand the situation: we're offering you sincere cooperation in all areas, and if you don't want it, we're not going to force you, because in fact we don't need you, we'll take our business elsewhere, that's all.

 

[jk007]

You don't seem to understand the situation: we're offering you sincere cooperation in all areas, and if you don't want it, we're not going to force you, because in fact we don't need you, we'll take our business elsewhere, that's all.

Question: why are French offering such cooperation? I believe expected rafale from india is also not too big (almost 200 rafales)?

Irrespective - I think only French are reliable, when compared to other European nations or USA

 

[_Anonymous_]

Excellent post. This is exactly what I'm trying to allude to our esteemed French members. But I don't think they're quite getting what I want to convey! Thanks for being so explicit

I'd still hold it's too late for all this circus we're attempting. Knowing the time consuming procedures we follow , this tender should've come out by 2018 . By now we should've signed the tender.

What's the point in attempting some great coup technologically speaking when you can develop the same in house especially given the distance you've covered. This isn't the 2000s anymore nor is it the early 2010s. Back then such moves could be appreciated. Not today.

And what about the money we've paid Dassault for the infrastructure created for 4 squadrons ? What's the point in getting another 2 squadrons of Rafales & getting 114 nos of Eurofighters that too with deliveries expected to be completed by 2040.

How's this different from the neither fish nor fowl approach we took in the 1980s with 3 squadrons each of the Mirage 2000 & the MiG - 29 ? It's an utter waste of time & resources which at this point can be better spent on developing projects in house . Eventually I think this is where we're headed with the MRFA as Plan B .

 

[randomradio]

I'm not involved in the negotiations, but I have the impression that something is stalling. From my point of view, I can see that we're making efforts on our side, and I even remember a slide on which we proposed transferring 100% of the ToT + the know-how + the knowledge of why.

When we tried to revive the Kaveri, our proposal to replace the core by taking the M88 core, which was a cheap solution, was rejected. So we proposed correcting the defects with you, but Indian rules stipulate that the foreign share cannot exceed 49%, no doubt to preserve IP rights, so we proposed a package in which DRDO had 51%, but DRDO refused because it thought it was too expensive. Now we're trying to make a new engine together (and not a derivative of the M88) but I don't know if it will work.

ADA said they don't care about Kaveri K10 for LCA Mk2, it will bring in unnecessary delays. IAF agreed with ADA. Plus we wanted all that new manufacturing tech from America, built by HAL, a very powerful lobby. All these delays were getting in the way of HAL getting the "Maharatna" status. Everything else was a waste of time. Pretty much the same reason why F404 replacement for Mk1A also died.

Ministry of Finance

pib.gov.in

Different story that SAFRAN wanted 2x the amount leftover in the offsets committment. Probably what would have brought in the main delays, considering it would require a new contract.

 

[randomradio]

AMCA's engine will consist of Indian cold parts and Western hot parts. But there are two paths, the second being the hot parts also will come with Indian tech if the first path fails, the drawback being there's greater risk involved.

There are foreign alternatives available if both MRFA and AMCA fail.

All three, the French, Brits and Americans, are being sincere in their offer. For now, both the French and Brits have offered 100% of everything, including IP, but the Americans are heistating in some area, so work is being done to soften their stance before we pick the winner.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

If I'm not mistaken some time back you wrote that SAFRAN had earlier developed a TF with a thrust nearing 110 or 120 KN & in all probability it's that TF which would be what the proposed JV will be all about . Now you say it'd be a new engine.

Maybe I said that a long time ago when this cooperation was announced and nobody knew what it entailed, because the easiest thing to do was to derive a new engine from the M88. But for over a year now I've known that this wasn't the case, and I don't think I've repeated this kind of information.

 

[Rajput Lion]

You don't seem to understand the situation: we're offering you sincere cooperation in all areas, and if you don't want it, we're not going to force you, because in fact we don't need you, we'll take our business elsewhere, that's all.

Of course we want all the exquisite French tech and cooperation. Cheers for the 'sincerity'

 

[_Anonymous_]

Maybe I said that a long time ago when this cooperation was announced and nobody knew what it entailed, because the easiest thing to do was to derive a new engine from the M88. But for over a year now I've known that this wasn't the case, and I don't think I've repeated this kind of information.

You misunderstand . I'm not accusing you of anything. I merely remarked about the TF in question & T/L based on your previous posts. The reason I asked is coz the way things are proceeding if the TF was realised in some form earlier we could've gotten it in 10 years . Now if it's going to be a completely new development from ground up the T/L go for a toss .

However what exactly are you hearing ? I'm guessing the generator which goes in to the RR TF they're developing for the Tempest program allegedly generating upto 1 MW power & similar developments would have been forecast for SAFRAN which must have made people in GTRE / DRDO sit up & take notice.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

You misunderstand . I'm not accusing you of anything. I merely remarked about the TF in question & T/L based on your previous posts. The reason I asked is coz the way things are proceeding if the TF was realised in some form earlier we could've gotten it in 10 years . Now if it's going to be a completely new development from ground up the T/L go for a toss .

However what exactly are you hearing ? I'm guessing the generator which goes in to the RR TF they're developing for the Tempest program allegedly generating upto 1 MW power & similar developments would have been forecast for SAFRAN which must have made people in GTRE / DRDO sit up & take notice.

I don't know if we want to do the same thing, but I can analyse this information a little to judge its relevance:

I'll take the example of the F-35 and its PTMS: we have a cooling capacity that is of the order of magnitude of the electrical generation possible because the equipment that is going to consume the electricity from the electrical generation is going to convert it into heat in the end or radiate it, but this is a special case that only concerns a few pieces of equipment and with a fairly low efficiency. The F-35's specifications therefore stipulate 14 Kw for electrical generation and the PTMS, but in reality it already needs 32 Kw and block 4 will require 47 Kw. For the post-Block 4 modifications, they have already found requirements for 62 Kw and are considering asking for 80 Kw to have a small margin.

Now, an M88, when pushed to 50 kN, could generate around 3.5 Mw, so if 80 Kw were deducted, thrust would be reduced by 1.14 kN, provided that the deduction system was properly designed (for the F-35, they deducted 32 Kw when the system was designed for 14, which made the engine operate outside its specifications, reducing the life of the engines and costing the US $38 billion), in which case the loss of thrust is negligible. But if we take 1 Mw out of a system that has a power of 3.5 Mw, we're going to have an impact of around 1/3, not counting the amount we'll have to take out to cool it down. So for me, it's for temporary use, like having an extremely powerful laser weapon. Under these conditions, you need to have the full specifications of the requirement to define the best solution.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I don't know if we want to do the same thing, but I can analyse this information a little to judge its relevance:

I'll take the example of the F-35 and its PTMS: we have a cooling capacity that is of the order of magnitude of the electrical generation possible because the equipment that is going to consume the electricity from the electrical generation is going to convert it into heat in the end or radiate it, but this is a special case that only concerns a few pieces of equipment and with a fairly low efficiency. The F-35's specifications therefore stipulate 14 Kw for electrical generation and the PTMS, but in reality it already needs 32 Kw and block 4 will require 47 Kw. For the post-Block 4 modifications, they have already found requirements for 62 Kw and are considering asking for 80 Kw to have a small margin.

Now, an M88, when pushed to 50 kN, could generate around 3.5 Mw, so if 80 Kw were deducted, thrust would be reduced by 1.14 kN, provided that the deduction system was properly designed (for the F-35, they deducted 32 Kw when the system was designed for 14, which made the engine operate outside its specifications, reducing the life of the engines and costing the US $38 billion), in which case the loss of thrust is negligible. But if we take 1 Mw out of a system that has a power of 3.5 Mw, we're going to have an impact of around 1/3, not counting the amount we'll have to take out to cool it down. So for me, it's for temporary use, like having an extremely powerful laser weapon. Under these conditions, you need to have the full specifications of the requirement to define the best solution.

Thanks for the information. Much appreciated.

 

[randomradio]

Question: why are French offering such cooperation? I believe expected rafale from india is also not too big (almost 200 rafales)?

Irrespective - I think only French are reliable, when compared to other European nations or USA

Of course we want all the exquisite French tech and cooperation. Cheers for the 'sincerity'

The reason is Russia. It would be a huge win for the West if India stops relying on Russia for military tech.

Indian investment into Russia is so massive, we are practically subsidising their entire defense industry. For example, India paid $1.2B for T-90 ToT, and that's enough to pay for 1000+ T-90Ms. Our $3B purchase of the AL-31FP is equivalent to 70+ Su-57s. Our $3B Akula lease can fund half their planned Yasen fleet. So imagine if we do end up signing massive deals like FGFA, MTA, submarines, artillery, IADS etc with them.

Providing India with tech that allows self-sufficiency in the short term will result in the cutting off of a massive source of funds for the Russian defense industry, while parting with technology that's a generation behind what they have, and being assured of the fact that the tech they supply will not be used against them. Plus they will use this as an excuse to sell their next gen products whenever ready.

They are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. The atmanirbhar slogan is politically loaded, and both the West and GoI are enabling it for use against Russia. It led to the postponement or cancelation of many import deals with Russia.

Similarly, France is offering 100% ToT and IPR for IMRH's engine so we can get rid of Mi-17s all the more faster. We were planning to buy 48 more Mi17s, canceled in 2022.

The next frontier is exotic tech.

 

[randomradio]

I don't know if we want to do the same thing, but I can analyse this information a little to judge its relevance:

I'll take the example of the F-35 and its PTMS: we have a cooling capacity that is of the order of magnitude of the electrical generation possible because the equipment that is going to consume the electricity from the electrical generation is going to convert it into heat in the end or radiate it, but this is a special case that only concerns a few pieces of equipment and with a fairly low efficiency. The F-35's specifications therefore stipulate 14 Kw for electrical generation and the PTMS, but in reality it already needs 32 Kw and block 4 will require 47 Kw. For the post-Block 4 modifications, they have already found requirements for 62 Kw and are considering asking for 80 Kw to have a small margin.

Now, an M88, when pushed to 50 kN, could generate around 3.5 Mw, so if 80 Kw were deducted, thrust would be reduced by 1.14 kN, provided that the deduction system was properly designed (for the F-35, they deducted 32 Kw when the system was designed for 14, which made the engine operate outside its specifications, reducing the life of the engines and costing the US $38 billion), in which case the loss of thrust is negligible. But if we take 1 Mw out of a system that has a power of 3.5 Mw, we're going to have an impact of around 1/3, not counting the amount we'll have to take out to cool it down. So for me, it's for temporary use, like having an extremely powerful laser weapon. Under these conditions, you need to have the full specifications of the requirement to define the best solution.

RR's 1 MW power boost is for long duration usage, like the sustained use of a 300 kW 360 deg radar. FGFA was expected to have 4000 TRMs for radar alone. So an aircraft a generation ahead of FGFA could have twice as many with two or three times the peak power output using GaN. Maybe a lot more once terahertz radars show up.

DEW will have to be powered by their own power banks rather than pulling power straight from the engine, so that needs to be taken into account too.

The engines we need have to cater to the 30%+ drop in thrust in the Himalayas too.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

RR's 1 MW power boost is for long duration usage, like the sustained use of a 300 kW 360 deg radar. FGFA was expected to have 4000 TRMs for radar alone. So an aircraft a generation ahead of FGFA could have twice as many with two or three times the peak power output using GaN. Maybe a lot more once terahertz radars show up.

DEW will have to be powered by their own power banks rather than pulling power straight from the engine, so that needs to be taken into account too.

The engines we need have to cater to the 30%+ drop in thrust in the Himalayas too.

The 30% reduction is calculated for an M88, for a twin-engine aircraft it would be 15% and future engines will be more powerful than the M88, so the reduction will be even smaller. That doesn't mean it's trivial to achieve when you see the setbacks the F-35 programme has had with this kind of problem, especially as I haven't mentioned cooling at all.

As for the 4000 TRM, that's what I'd calculated we could put in, given the size of the antenna on the aircraft for the SU-30 MKI upgrade. To add more, you need to add other antennas around the aircraft.

GaN reduces the power generation required, because the radiation efficiency is around 50%, compared with around 17% for GaS. So we can obtain 3 times more radiation with the same electrical input power and 5 times more radiation with the same heat extraction as with GaS, but by increasing the electrical input power slightly.

 

[Bon Plan]

Earlier, maybe yes! But now, they are doing their best to win this MRFA tender. The stakes are high, so never say never

Indeed, because without fresh orders the EF lines will soon be closed. As SH18 in a very near future.
But it remains that EF costs higher than a Rafale and is not as versatile.
I add that IAF don't want to introduce another bird in the inventory : it's already a logistical nightmare.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Indeed, because without fresh orders the EF lines will soon be closed. As SH18 in a very near future.
But it remains that EF costs higher than a Rafale and is not as versatile.
I add that IAF don't want to introduce another bird in the inventory : it's already a logistical nightmare.

No doubt. Rafale is a far more versatile jet than EF in general and also in particular for us. GOI + IAF also don't want any other bird except Rafale. But Dassault's unwillingness to have a JV with HAL or any other Indian Private company, may result in EF winning or cancellation of MRFA altogether. MRFA contract will also mean $20+ billion capital expenditure(though not in one go), which GOI may want to avoid.

We may order Rafale in batches of 36 F4.2(+36 F5 follow-up order) and call it quits. I have wanted GOI & IAF to order 36 more Rafales post Galwan, but the clash between IAF & GOI regarding MRFA has led to a stalemate thus far. Let's see what future has in store for us.

Anyways, more Rafales are always welcome, this way or that.