MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
This question is the limit that your intelligence sets to your level of metaphysical questioning.
Funny Smez how you trust journos when they fit your opinion... There has NEVER been any clue about what you said. Today MEdiapart (again) expected to unleash a new scandal because
Apparently they do not know what are offsets. with such arguments (or the fake" incomplete") one can say anything. Do you think guys in the commission that evaluated the fianancial conditions are dumb? Anyway, supreme court got rid of it and asked for details on decision process, we'll have them soon and Ghandi will have to shut his big mouth...
Apparently they do not know what are offsets. with such arguments (or the fake" incomplete") one can say anything. Do you think guys in the commission that evaluated the fianancial conditions are dumb? Anyway, supreme court got rid of it and asked for details on decision process, we'll have them soon and Ghandi will have to shut his big mouth...
Something tells me a quid pro quo has been reached between the Trump & Modi administrations - BECA, COMCASA preceded by LEMOA & F-16 in return for waiver from CAATSA & sanctions on Iran.
Seems far fetched but that's my gut instinct.
Not exactly. Where's the Mk-1a? When will we receive the Mk-2? I'm not even referring to AMCA. In the meanwhile, future procurement of Rafale see jeopardized ( of course it's early days yet to make a pronouncement) . where are the replacements going to come from for squadrons which will be shortly retired & mothballed?
As far as sanctions on use of US equipment in the event of a war go, we'd either have to bargain hard and seek cast iron guarantees from them that we won't be sanctioned or we make provisions for spares in advance ( I'm not quite sure whether one can build such redundancies at the time of procurement meant to last a good 10 years of the lifetime of such equipment) or we brazen it out in the absence of the first two options ( last option seems daft).
No. GoI won't put critical equipment to ransom. Fighter jets are critical equipment, so requirements are paramount, not politics. It was the same drive that led to the S-400 signature.
There are plenty of other deals we can sign with America, like the Guardian and Avenger UCAVs. We are also interested in developing some helicopters with the US under the FVL program.
Under normal circumstances, I'd have agreed with you. These aren't normal circumstances especially out there in the US and somewhat true for out here too.
That & other such JV's died the day Ash Carter and to some extent MP demitted office.
LCA doesn't play a role here, because it's neither capable enough to be an operational alternative for MMRCAs, nor gives us the needed industrial improvement, that the MMRCA was always about. The Rafale deal failed to deliver that and that's why the government wasted 3 years, just to get back where they were in 2015 already.
The government is focused on changing the relations to the US and if we want more access to their advanced arms and techs, we have to give them any order in return. The question is only which order it has to be?
So you can't rule out F16 yet, especially since Tata/LM are doing a good job to create facts on the ground too.
We see the dramatic shift in IAFs replacement plans, due to cancellation of FGFA and pushing in LCA MK2 orders instead, to replace Migs, or Jags from 2025 onwards. But the MMRCA requirement remains the same, it just needs a final decision, but that's evidently not the government's strong side, with all the back and forth of the tender. Let's see what happens after the elections.
Agree with your entire post. Just one small quibble - the LCA has morphed into the MCA. Assuming we commence production by 2028, we still need to make up the numbers in that interim period. Where are the nos going to come from? Everything, including the Mk-2, FGFA, more Rafale and the Mk-1a remains in the realms of possibility. The only real answer is the timelines which is going to see substantial delays. That is the only reason why we'd be forced to make a virtue out of a neccesity w.r.t the F-16s couching this as quid pro quo to the US for its various waivers as long as Trump is in office. Heck, he's a dealmaker. So is Narendrabhai.
All hearsay. Nothing's changed procedurally. The MMRCA tender is still based on "tech specs first, price later, politics be damned" system. Menaing, politics has no part to play in the choice.
The current MMRCA tender is for twin engine jets. So the SH has a good chance because it has two engines, but it really has no chance of competing with the Rafale and Typhoon specs-wise. American jets still have to win based on merit. There's no point buying aircraft that do not fit the bill.
Many JVs are actively being discussed. These are small pathfinder JVs that will lead the way to larger programs.
AFAIK, India is actively discussing developing infantry gear for CBRN environment. There's also a project for high energy lasers and AI-based target detection systems.
LCA into MCA only means, that it got heavier and it's MTOW now might fall within the medium class. That wouldn't even be surprising, given the known changes of the MK2 so far.
But being in the same weight class doesn't necessary mean being as capable to carry similar sensors and weapons, or even having similar technology. IAF refers to it as medium tech, while MMRCA are considered as advanced techs.
Wrt replacements, yes the numbers of squads will further go down since we have no MMRCA, no FGFA production line. So all the hope is on LCA MK1A (which still is under development and RFP stage only), as well as the MK2 that is a paper plane so far (which tells a lot about AMCA). Unless we get MK1A and MK2 into production, we can't keep up numbers and without an MMRCA, there are neither numbers, nor capability added to defend the country.
Hehe, so except that you are not a mod anymore, nothing has changed, same old flawed theories.
How did you come up with that one?Hehe, so except that you are not a mod anymore, nothing has changed, same old flawed theories.
@randomradio
You used to be a super optimist not Shane Warne. Err, at least not so blatantly and brazenly.
P. S - well spotted @Sancho
Hehe, so except that you are not a mod anymore, nothing has changed, same old flawed theories.
I declined the position of mod, thank you very much. Can't deal reading with too many useless posts like this.
And no, nothing flawed about my theory. I simply know the procedure more than anybody else.
Not really, otherwise you would know, that the MMRCA 1.0 was issued under the buy and make policy, while the SE MMRCA and MMRCA 2.0 fall under the SPM policy. That changes not only the complete procedure, but also the criteas of selecting the winner, since it includes far higher focus on costs.
Add the fact, that under the former government politics was not a factor, you have one more clear difference between MMRCA 1.0 and 2.0.
Last edited:
HAL or SPM, it's nothing that affects the choice of the aircraft itself. SPM tender happens in parallel to the fighter tender. We are talking about the fighter tender.
There is ZERO focus on cost when shortlisting the aircraft. Tech specs are supreme and the only factor. Costs will come in after aircraft are shortlisted.
In fact, the govt will allow a 10% higher cost for T1 if the technology provided by the vendor is unique, even though it is more expensive than T2.
Politics doesn't come in anywhere. The tender process is entirely apolitical. The Indian govt will not interfere in the selection process for both T1 and L1.
Regardless of govt, politics is not a factor in tenders. The very fact that you do not know something as simple as that proves your lack of knowledge regarding this. Of course, you would know this if you at least bothered to read through the DPP released for Capital Acquisitions. It's because the tendering process is completely apolitical is the reason why govts choose this process as the first option.
Sorry, mate. You are as ignorant as they come.
So let's look at the price aspect. The Indians newspaper announce that the contract will be worth more than $20 billion with a price of planes around $100 million and additional purchases around $100 million as well. It is a rough estimate that sets the orders of magnitude, but we know how to estimate better.
If we refer to the 36 Rafale sales contract, we know that a Rafale C was sold for € 91.7 million and a Rafale B for € 94 million, which makes an average of 92 million to simplify.
Has India paid more for the Rafales?
And Parikrama tells us that if a Rafale is worth 100 A F-16/Gripen is worth 80 without the necessary customizations and 85-90 with these customizations. That puts us at € 80.5 million for the typical single engine.
Now we can make the price for 114 planes
Rafale
- Aircraft prices 114*92 = 10488
- Price of two Bases: 1800
- Price of changes specific to India on aircraft: 0 because already paid by the 36 Rafale contract.
- Price of weapons: 2000
- Performance price Based logistic : 1115
- Total: €15403 Million
- Aircraft prices 114*80.5 = 9177
- Price of three bases: 2700 (Unlike the Rafale, there are not two bases already equipped for only 36 Aircraft)
- Price of the changes specific to India on aircraft: 1700 (it is the development of these specific solutions the recurring cost has been integrated into the price of the aircraft)
- Price of weapons: 2000
- Performance price Based logistic : 1115
- Total: € 16692 Million
For the SU-35s it is the cost per flight hour that limits its chances. For the SU-30 family in India, we would have a cost per flight hour of around $12,000 while the Rafale would be in the same conditions around $4125
It's very bad because it's a snapshot of an Indian show called Aero India. But we can still read
- SU 30 MKI: 12000 USD
- and Mirage 2000: 3000 USD.
But 11000 and 8000 are linked to the same conditions so if the CPFH of the Mirage 2000 is $3000 in India, we can expect that the CPFH of the Rafale in India is 3000*11000/8000= $ 4125.
The difference with CPFH in France is mainly due to the difference in labour costs.
So we would have:
Mirage 2000: $3000
Rafale: $4125
SU 30 MKI: $12,000
If the operational life of the aircraft is 7500 hours, this makes $31 million for the Rafale and $90 million for the SU-35, i.e. 59 million difference per aircraft or 6726 million for 114 aircraft, which seems irremediable.